Is the FT's Jim Pickard a Hero?

Just read a post on the FT's Westminster blog written by Jim Pickard.

There was also a small photo of Jim alongside his name and i thought... "I've seen him before."

Yes readers, i think Jim has an alter ego - Adam Monroe - from the TV series Heroes.

Judge for yourself... (Jim's on the left for those who don't know)

P.S. I hope Jim is doing better than his other self. Last we saw Adam, Arthur Petrelli stole his powers and he aged rapidly and withered to dust!

PMQs - Cameron nails Brown on 'boom and bust'

PMQs is definitely becoming a bit samey of late.

Cameron accuses the Prime Minister of hubris, shows up Brown's character flaw of being unable to give straightforward, honest answers, says the PM is the "achieve nothing" Prime Minister, and blames him for taking the British economy down the toilet and thus has a great deal of responsibility for the recession.

Brown, on the other hand, tries his best not to answer questions, tries to answer questions with a question, says the recession is absolutely nothing to do with him, it is a global recession that comes from America, says he is taking action which is being globally co-ordinated in contrast to Cameron who is the "do nothing" leader of the opposition who is isolated in his approach to the economy.

Today, the two leaders' exchanges at PMQs followed a similar format. The economy is undoubtedly the most important story but the exchanges are really starting to come across as "we've heard it all before."

Cameron and Brown exchanged blows about the newly released 'Green Budget from the respected fiscal think tank, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS). Cameron highlighted the part from the report about there being a £20bn hole in the government's finances given its widely optimistic growth forecasts which have failed to materialise. Brown replied with his bit of the report which seemed to back up his argument that without a fiscal stimulus the recession would be longer and deeper. A score draw on that one.

But Cameron definitely scored a goal against Brown when he mocked the Prime Minister for saying what we are now experiencing was the "birth pangs of a new global order." Cameron attacked his comments as "crass and insensitive" for those losing their jobs and said that it showed "he cares more about grandstanding than people losing their jobs." Cameron also claimed that far from "the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order" it was the PM who was in the "death throes of a failed premiership."

It was truly amazing when Brown made those comments the other day though we know why: the Left mistakenly thinks that this recession will herald in a new golden age for them, undermining the primacy of the free market. I would argue that Brown had that in mind when he used the phrase and as usual, Mr Non-Empathy didn't realise how insensitive his comments were. It is also ridiculous as Brown and New Labour have cosied up to the City and the financial industry more than most - eager for the tax revenue on profits to pay for their bloated state sector and social engineering programmes. By the way, say hi to your old mate Fred Goodwin (RBS) for me, will you Gordon?

But the most effective part of Cameron's exchanges with Brown i thought were on the issue of 'boom and bust'. Now it must be said that Cameron has gone on this many times before trying to get the PM to admit we are in a bust and that it was enormous hubris on Brown's part to say he had abolished it, and he has not been succesful in getting an admission from Brown who simply ignores the question.

Today was no different in the respect that Brown still refused to admit the obvious. But Cameron was the most successful he has been at this as this time he made a concerted effort and i would contend successfully nailed the PM on the issue by using Brown's own words against himself. It was pretty effective.

Cameron began by asking the PM were we in an economic bust? Now we are in a recession, one might have thought Brown would have answered yes but he refused to answer.

Cameron then said Brown seemed to be ignoring the fact there's a recession and attacked him for being "extraordinarily complacent." Cameron then produced a definition of a bust which Brown himself had given to the Treasury Select Committee not so long ago. Brown had agreed with the Committee that a bust could be defined as a "1.5% slump" in the economy. Cameron again gave Brown the opportunity to admit that he didn't abolish boom and bust but again the Prime Minister ignored the question.

A forensic Cameron then moved on to what counted as a 'boom and bust'. Thankfully, the very helpful Prime Minister had also unknowingly provided Cameron with another definition at the same Treasury Select Committee. Brown had defined 'boom and bust' as: "running a policy where you allow the economy to grow too fast and then it sinks far farther than it has in other countries, even when there is a world downturn." A killer quote and one that Brown had no response to so instead gave his standard global recession answer.

A bust is a shrinkage of the economy by 1.5 percent. Check - we've had one of those when the ONS released the economic figures last Friday, so we must be in a bust.

And a 'boom and bust' is when the economy grows too fast and then it sinks far farther than it has in other countries, even when there is a world downturn. Check - The European Commission and IMF have both said the economy will be longer and deeper in the UK than in other developed world economies.

Game, set and match to Cameron. He had nailed Brown with his own words.

The fact that Brown refuses to admit what is so obvious to us all, even if his own definitions are used, makes him look out of touch, unwilling to give it straight and be honest with people.

Some might be bored and wish that Cameron goes on other matters but when he is faced with a Prime Minister who simply refuses to answer the questions put to him, the second best option is to undermine Brown's credibility and make him look the fool he is.

Cameron even told Brown during the exchange that he was damaging himself - to no avail - and quoted an anonymous Labour adviser who said the other day that it was not in Brown’s character to “do a mea culpa” but that he would have to find a way to accept some responsibility. Cameron said: "Why doesn't he find the words now?" (He got in a bit of trouble with the Speaker afterwards as he said "You didn't abolish boom and bust did you?" The Speaker reprimanded the Leader of the Opposition for referring to the PM as 'you' which is against the rules).

The only other thing to note about PMQs was Nick Clegg's bizarre question. Clegg asked whether it was right that some members of the Upper House can use their position as non doms to avoid paying taxes? The PM just stood up and said "Of course it's not right." It was a strange question because the question seemed targetted more against the Tories than Labour. Clegg has been really underperforming recently. The party is becoming more and more anonymous and he needs to up his game.

Will Labour leadership speculation start again?

Gordon Brown's second bounce - his perverse economic bounce - has come to crashing, thudding halt. This will be his last bounce.

As one can see from the figures below, taken from the excellent UK Polling Report website run by Anthony Wells, the Tories have regained double digit leads in surveys by all of the pollsters and are also above the psychologically important 40 percent mark.

It is not quite as bad for Brown and Labour as it was last summer but it is still pretty awful pointing to an outright Conservative victory at the next general election. What is more, it is likely the polls will continue to get worse for Brown.

More...

It is clear that nothing our hyperactive Prime Minister does is having the desired effect of making the recession shorter and shallower. Voters who seemingly started to give Brown the benefit of doubt before Christmas have since concluded that far from "saving the world," he hasn't even saved Britain. Brown is the "achieve nothing" Prime Minister.

Consequently, some are speculating that given Labour's dire polling and the worsening economic situation, the fun and games of last summer with all the leadership speculation will return with a vengeance.

I don't think this will happen.

Just as Brown had his chance to win an election back in Autumn 2007, the Parliamentary Labour Party had their chance to oust Brown last summer. As usual, the party bottled it and failed to knife a leader who will lead them to a heavy electoral defeat in 2010.

The Labour Party has made their bed and will have to lie in it. There is not time to change leader and in any case the public would punish them for naval gazing if they engaged in an act of regicide at a time of recession which is likely to prove the worst since the Second World War. Brown is therefore safe.

It would seem that Bottler Brown and the Bottler Labour Party deserve one another... and their electoral fate!

Denied! Clarke vs. Mandelson

The Business Secretary is due to give a statement in Parliament at 3.05pm today on the car industry.

Pretty important one might think.

Unfortunately, we are denied the prospect of the shadow Business Secretary holding the Business Secretary properly to account.

This is because Gordon Brown has deemed fit to appoint a peer - Lord Mandelson - to the important position, especially in a recession, of Business Secretary.

We should be able to tune in to see Ken Clarke going head to head with Peter Mandelson but that is not to be.

More...

This is part of a wider problem. The Business Select Committee has recently voiced concern that the government has more Business ministers in the Lords than in the Commons.

LORDS

• Rt. Hon. Lord Mandelson - Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
• Shriti Vadera - Minister for Economic Competitiveness and Small Business (jointly with Cabinet Office)
• Stephen Carter CBE - Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (jointly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
• Mervyn Davies CBE - Minister for Trade and Investment (jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

COMMONS

• Pat McFadden MP - Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs
• Gareth Thomas MP - Minister for Trade, Development and Consumer Affairs (jointly with the Department for International Development)
• Ian Pearson MP - Economic and Business Minister (jointly with HM Treasury)

It speaks volumes about how Brown perceives the ministerial qualities and business experience of his MPs that he has had to rely on the Lords to fill most of his business ministerial positions.

And as Peter Oborne has pointed out, not a single member of the Cabinet has ever occupied a wealth-creating job.

The Commons is the primary and democratically elected chamber and Gordon Brown would do well to remember this when appointing his ministers.

Government far too optimistic about economy

The government has been guilty of being far too optimistic about the economy.

The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, predicted at the end of November last year in the Pre-Budget report that the economy would start to grow again in the third quarter of this year.

We've had Business Minister Baroness Vadera, the former economic adviser and close ally of Brown, claiming in a Lamont-esque way that she has seen the "green shoots" of recovery.

We've had Margaret Beckett, the Housing Minister, say that she has seen an "upturn" in the housing market.

And we have seen Tony McNulty, the Employment minister claiming "there's light at the end of the tunnel."

Labour condemns anyone who claims that British economy is going from bad to worse as "talking down the economy."

But critics of the government are NOT talking down the economy - they are pointing out the bleeding obvious.

More...

Today we have been told that we are officially in recession. The economy contracted by 1.5 percent. Add that to the previous quarter's economic contraction of 0.6 percent and in just two quarters the British economy has shrunk by a huge 2.1 percent.

Unsurprisingly, both Darling and Gordon Brown are now shying away from repeating their ridiculous and hubristic growth forecasts of the PBR. Only the government thought the British economy would bounce bank so quickly. And remember the reason for their optimism - yes, the waste of money temporary VAT cut, their much trumpeted fiscal stimulus which is achieving sweet FA other than adding unnecessarily to our national debt.

Who now believes the economy will start growing again in the second half of this year?

Baroness Vadera sees "green shoots" of recovery on the day that 7,200 jobs were lost.

Beckett talks of an "upturn" in the housing market when the respected Ernst & Young Item Club warns that 2009 will see the biggest peacetime downturn in the economy since 1931, predicting a 16 percent fall in house prices this year and a further 6 percent drop in 2010.

And McNulty is the only person in the country outside of the Labour Party who can see "light at the end of the tunnel" after unemployment soars to close to 2 million, the national debt rises to the highest level for three decades and mortgage lending falls to its lowest monthly figure since April 2001.

Why is the government being so optimistic? Three reasons: 1) Confidence - it probably feels that if it talks up the economy then it could help improve economic confidence, and with it, recovery; 2) Electoral chances - Brown thought that if he could show the people that he was decisive and a man with a plan then they would back him, which they started to do for a couple of months but have since desserted ; and 3) Denial - a seeming unwillingless to accept economic reality and tell it how it is.

But this tragically comic. When all the evidence points to the economy getting worse and the recession getting deeper and longer, the government looks ridiculous by being so optimistic. This is not helping with confidence! The government is undermining what little economic credibility it has left and leaves them looking increasingly out of touch.

Brown, Darling and the rest of the Labour government are in denial. They seem so worried about what being honest will do to their electoral chances that they are ludicrously claiming to see "green shoots," "upturns," and "lights at the end of the tunnel" despite a barrage of worsening economic news.

If they cannot admit the true extent of our economic problems, how do they expect us to trust them that they have the answers to get us out of this recession?

Hain not as "cleared" as he thought

Last month, Peter Hain, the former Work and Pensions Secretary who resigned from the Cabinet over his failure to declare over £100,000 in donations (hardly pocket change) to his Labour Deputy Leadership campaign, came out fighting saying that he was pleased that after "ten months in limbo" he has been "cleared" of late declarations to the Electoral Commission. He made it abundently clear that he felt vindicated and that he had been cleared in full and his reputation should be restored.

I wrote at the time of his so-called clearance that: "It's a farce because the CPS is essentially saying that as it cannot determine who handled the donations - whether Peter Hain or anybody else - nobody is to be charged. He may be 'cleared' in the sense that he won't be charged, but this is hardly a fulsome, wholesale clearance of Peter Hain and restoration of his reputation as Hain seems to be implying. It just means he has managed to exploit a loophole in the law whereby if you can keep prosecutors in the dark about who handles late donations who have nothing to worry about as they won't charge anybody!"

But now Hain has been served a bitter blow after the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee has just revealed it has found him guilty of a "serious and substantial" failure in not registering donations. Hain will now be forced to apologise to the House.

So much for being cleared, hey Hain? I think it is safe to say that his reputation will not be restored like he had hoped.

PMQs - Brown is a broken record

As to be expected, especially on the day that it was announced that Britain had suffered job losses of 78,000 in just one month, David Cameron went on the economy.

The Tory leader effectively made three points: 1) PM's policies are not working; 2) There is a distinct lack of detail in the government's plans, especially on their second bailout; and 3) The markets and the British people have lost confidence in the government's ability to improve the economy and "without confidence we won't get a recovery."

I didn't think Cameron was on top form but he did more than enough against Brown who had an off day looking out of sorts, highly evasive, repeated himself endlessly and was reduced to resorting to cheap unrelated attacks. At one point Brown made no attempt to answer Cameron's question and instead brought up Ken Clarke's views on Europe. It made him look very desperate and completely lacking in ideas.

Of course that answer was a direct consequence of Cameron's continued policy of showing up Brown's character flaw of being unable to answer direct questions and admit the most obvious of facts. In this regard Cameron's PMQs was a success though we did not learn anything we did not know already. That said, short of holding a gun to Brown's head, there is little Cameron can do to get him to answer the questions. Like i said last week, it was a stalemate insofar as Brown and Cameron each claim they are right and the other wrong. Though this week, it was clear that Cameron got the better of the exchanges.

More...

Brown not only avoided answering questions more than usual (and you probably thought that was an impossible feat) but he also sounded like an old broken record; a man with nothing new to say. Those in any doubt that Brown wants to become President Obama's new best friend in the hope that the new President's 'stardust' rubs of on him will have been in no doubt after today's PMQs. I lost count of how many times Brown mentioned Obama's name. It will be interesting to see whether Obama becomes the friend Brown hopes he will be. With Brown's poll ratings in decline, will Obama really want to associate himself with a British PM that looks like he is heading for electoral defeat? I'm not so sure.

The other aspect to Gordon 'The Broken Record' Brown was his constant return to calling the Tories the "do nothing" party. Brown clearly believes the more he repeats it, the more voters will believe it to be true. But it is clear from opinion polls this line of attack is not working. It only appeals to core Labour voters and is gaining no traction with other voters. Even former Blair aide, Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, admits that Brown should "Stop repeating tired lines about the Conservative party being a 'do nothing' party" because "clearly they have ideas." It is becoming increasingly more difficult for Brown to credibly claim the Tories are the "do nothing" party when the government first attacks Tory policies then several months later introduces something similar (a point made by Cameron) whether it is on reducing unemployment or a national loan guarantee scheme.

There were a couple of humourous exchanges between Cameron and Brown worth mentioning. Brown referred to Ken Clarke's return to the frontbench by saying that "at least he [Cameron] now has the benefit of a new Shadow shadow Chancellor to explain the economy to him!" Brown did not come up with the joke but it worked nonetheless. Cameron hit back by saying that the "difference between this former Chancellor [Clarke] and that one [Brown] is this one [Clarke] left a golden legacy... and that one [Brown] wrecked it! This got a huge roar of approval from the Tory benches and brought an enormous smile to Clarke's face.

In another exchange, the Broken Record PM again called Cameron isolated in his approach to the economy. Cameron retorted: "He talks about being isolated... but doesn't he realise he's the only person in the country that thinks he's doing a good job." When the Labour benches went quiet, Cameron quipped: "Not exactly a roar of approval behind him!"

Brown again used his tactical ploy of asking questions about Tory policy rather than answering the questions like he is supposed to during PMQs and again Cameron hit back with his favoured reply of: "If you want to ask us a question then have an election!" With the Brown "bailout bounce" over and Tory leads of over 10 points, chances of that happening are slim. It looks increasingly likely that Brown will do a John Major and hang on until the last minute.

As for the exchange between Nick Clegg and the PM, it was a low key affair. Clegg made the point that the government's announcements had created uncertainty and confusion at a time when clarity was needed. Brown said he had done what was needed to save the banks, extend lending and help families and businesses.

Clegg then returned to his original point of a lack of clarity saying there was an ambiguity in his response. The PM said the issue was the extension of lending and agreements that have been signed by banks were, at the moment, being honoured.

I wasn't entirely sure what Clegg was getting at. He was talking about a lack of clarity and of ambiguity but this seemed to apply to his questions as much as the government.

Two further questions from MPs are worth highlighting.

The first was from the odious Bob Spink, the former Conservative MP and now UKIPs only MP following his defection/withdrawal of the whip. Everytime he speaks to at PMQs he just brown noses the PM. Anyone would think he is looking to defect a second time, this time to Labour. Not long now though until he loses his parliamentary seat...

And the second was from the Beast of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, who went on a left-wing rant asking the PM what action will be taken against bankers that run their banks into the ground which he described as "Tory fat cats." The amusing thing was that the British bank in the most mess, RBS, got into its troubles under the tenure of Sir Fred Goodwin, a Scottish banking buddy/adviser of Gordon Brown. Don't think they are friends anymore - Gordon's given poor Fred the cold shoulder. So, Dennis, i think you meant "Labour fat cats" you Socialist dinosaur! Isn't it time you retired?

Expenses - U-turn or slip

The PM has said during PMQs that his Labour MPs will now not be whipped to vote for MPs to be exempt from FOI with regard to their expenses.

U-turn or slip of the tongue?

Earlier the PM's Official Spokesman said Labour MPs would be whipped. This was then confirmed by Harriet Harman's office.

But the PM said there would be a free vote. Did he make policy up on the hoof?

Whatever, if a U-turn has been performed it is a step in the right direction though even better would be for this proposal to be withdrawn.

The PM looks to have taken this decision to salvage his reputation!

UPDATE: EXTRAORDINARY. GOVERNMENT HAS NOW WITHDRAWN THE STATORY INSTRUMENT THAT WAS DUE TO BE VOTED ON THIS THURSDAY. VICTORY!

Labour a disgrace over MP expenses

Last week it was reported that Harriet Harman had bowed to Labour backbench pressure to stop detail's of MPs' expenses claims being published, exempting them from the Freedom of Information Act. This is contrary to a High Court ruling that under the FOI Act MPs ought to publish their receipts.

Remember this is the same Labour government and party that threw out tougher rules in July last year when the vast majority of Members – 146 of the 172 – who voted to keep the allowance, described as the “John Lewis list”, were Labour, including 33 ministers.

We have now learnt today that Gordon Brown is imposing a three line whip on his Labour MPs to support the FOI exemption and with it a curtailment of transparency and accountability. Does he think this in any way helps his and his government's battered reputation?

This is a disgrace. Even LabourHome has called it "a dreadful decision."

Thankfully, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have said that they will be whipping their MPs to oppose the exemption. Let's just hope that there are enough ballsy Labour MPs willing to defy their odious government to get this exemption thrown out. We know of four decent Labour MPs so far - Frank Field, Mark Fisher, Kate Hoey and David Winnick.

More...

It really is a scandal that the rest of us have to account for our expenses, filling out expense forms. Sure its a burden and is very tiresome but it's the law.

Ben Brogan asks a good question: "Who are the ministers who have lobbied for an exemption because they are embarrassed about what their receipts will reveal?"

Greedy Labour MPs and Ministers clearly have something to hide and are arrogant enough to think there ought to one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Hiding behind facile claims that publishing all receipts is too expensive is frankly pathetic.

Brown is increasingly looking out of touch with public opinion.

Obama's speech - "My fellow citizens..."

Isn't that supposed to be "My fellow Americans..."?

The cynic inside me says the new superstar of world politics, the 44th President of the United States, was trying to appeal to the global audience who welcome his election. Hence, "My fellow citizens..."

Will Osborne be overshadowed by Clarke?

There has to be a real risk of this.

Osborne has had his detractors of late with many stories being interpreted as a slight against him such as Cameron making Hague his deputy "in all but name."

Clarke's return is also being viewed as another slight by some - as an admission by Cameron that his economic team was not up to scratch and Osborne lacked the experience and gravitas necessary to convince the political world and electorate that he had what it takes.

It is perhaps to be expected that some will draw this type of conclusion. However, Clarke has not replaced Osborne as shadow Chancellor. Osborne is central to Cameron's mission to lead the Conservatives back to electoral success. Clearly Cameron has decided he can utilise Clarke's talents and experience BUT as a compliment to Osborne, NOT as a replacement.

More...

I do not remember Peter Mandelson's return being interpreted in any way other than as a strengthening of Brown's economic team, adding his considerable experience. I do not remember the media saying that Mandelson's return undermined Alistair Darling. But perhaps that is because it was impossible to undermine Darling any further; a man widely seen as a puppet controlled by his master, Gordon Brown.

Nevertheless, Clarke's huge profile will mean the media will increasingly go to him for economic comment. This will play to the Tories' advantage (so long as he toes the same line as Cameron and Osborne). Like a Black Hole, he will act as vacuum for media coverage sucking it his way to the detriment of political opponent's, such as the current media economic darling, Vince Cable, and redressing the current imbalance that has been in favour of Mandelson since the Prince of Darkness's return. The downside, though, is that Osborne too could be overshadowed.

What is extraordinary is that Osborne was the initial driving force behind Ken Clarke's return. If true, and there is no reason to think otherwise, Osborne has chosen to put his party above his own personal career ambitions as he must have thought that Clarke's return could undermine his position, a point made by Rachel Sylvester today in the Times,

Despite all the worries that have been voiced about the return of Clarke it has undoubtedly strengthened the Tories' economic team.

The Tory Top team of Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Clarke and May is definitely stronger than their Labour opposites of Brown, Miliband, Darling, Mandelson and Purnell.

I'd score it 4-1 victory to the Tories (Purnell being the consolation goal - still think May's appointment is a mistake).

Clarke returns in Tory reshuffle

David Cameron has reshuffled his frontbench team this morning.

Timing

It had been reported that Cameron would wait until the inquiry into Caroline Spelman had officially reported, but it looks like Cameron decided he could not wait another couple of weeks given the ongoing reshuffle speculation that was potentially damaging morale within his team as frontbenchers worried whether they would keep their jobs.

Ken Clarke

As expected, the big story of the reshuffle is the return of Ken Clarke to the frontbench for the first time in 12 years. Clarke, 67, has vast experience of government and is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who was responsible for the economic recovery following the recession of the early 1990s. He becomes the shadow Business Secretary, shadowing Lord Mandelson although the two will clearly not face each other at the despatch box as Mandelson is in the Lords while Clarke will be in the Commons. The Business Select Committee had voiced concern that the government has more Business ministers in the Lords than in the Commons. Clarke’s position in the Commons will draw attention to this to a much greater extent.

More...

There have been concerns raised about Clarke’s appointment, however. He is strongly Europhile which does not sit well with the overwhelmingly Eurosceptic Conservative Party. Indeed, this was largely the reason he failed to become Tory leader, despite three attempts. However, Clarke has said that he accepts that the Tory party now has a settled position on Europe (unlike the 1990s where the party was far more evenly split between Europhiles and Eurosceptics) and has said that he will not seek to change the party’s position on Europe. David Cameron, for his part, accepts that Clarke is not going to renounce his views so is happy for Clarke to retain his Europhile stance in private, though tow the party line in public. Clarke has said that he will adhere to the principle of collective responsibility. If Clarke can maintain the discipline, it is likely that he will just go quiet on the European issue though this will not stop his political opponents and the media trying to make disunity the story. In truth, Cameron and Clarke are very relaxed about it all. As Clarke himself has pointed out today, it is well known that Mandelson is far more pro-European than Gordon Brown, being a strong advocate of joining the Euro for example, but this is not causing the government any difficulties.

I mentioned above the issue of discipline and this has been a concern of many. Clarke can be a bit of a loose canon in terms of speaking his mind. It is what helps make him such a colourful and popular figure with the public but can cause consternation among his colleagues. There has also been criticism of Clarke by Lord Tebbit who says that despite his talent, Clarke is “lazy.”

That said, I believe that Clarke is an excellent politician, with vast experience and superior media skills. He will strengthen the Conservative economic-business team in just the way Mandelson has helped Labour’s. I’ve always taken the view that Clarke is not particularly interested with the business of opposition. The fact that he has returned to the frontbench after all these years seems to suggest he is confident, at least, that the Conservatives will return to government after the next general election.

Other moves

 Mark Francois enters the Shadow Cabinet becoming Shadow Minister for Europe
 Alan Duncan, who makes way for Ken Clarke’s return becomes Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, replacing Theresa May. This is a senior role for Duncan that shows he still has the support of David Cameron. There had been speculation that Duncan faced the chop after concerns with his outside business interests etc. However, Cameron made a point of defending Duncan last week.
 Chris Grayling leaves his Work and Pensions brief and becomes Shadow Home Secretary. He is a very good media performer who excels at taking the fight to Labour. He had been linked to the position of Party Chairman but he skills will be well utilised covering the Home Affairs brief, especially given how successive Home Secretaries have struggled to master their department which John Reid described as “not fit for purpose.”
 Dominic Grieve becomes Shadow Justice Secretary which is a sideways move. He replaced David Davis as Home Secretary but is said to be happy with his move to Justice. The cerebral former barrister will be better suited at Justice rather than the Home Affairs which tends to suit hardy attack dogs.
 Nick Herbert leaves his Justice brief and becomes Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary. He replaces Peter Ainsworth who has failed to make an impression, particularly with the media, on a brief that Cameron has attached a great deal of importance to. Herbert, the former director of the Reform think tank should be an improvement.
 Theresa May moves to become Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and Shadow Minister for Women. This is the one move I’m not convinced about. Given the importance of welfare reform I feel Cameron would have done better to have given this role to a stronger politician to face the Labour rising star James Purnell. There had been speculation that Iain Duncan Smith would have been brought back to the frontbench to take on this role. However, this was either not offered or was declined.
 Eric Pickles, hugely popular with the party grassroots becomes Chairman of the Conservative Party. 57 percent of readers of ConservativeHome chose him as their preferred choice of Party Chairman. This role will increasingly important as the general election draws closer. Pickles will be helping to galvanise the grassroot activists and also take the fight to Labour in the television studios. As working glass Yorkshireman he is also a good counter to the claims that the Conservatives are just wealthy old-Etonians.
 Caroline Spelman loses her position as Party Chairman to Pickles but takes his old job as Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary. The expenses inquiry into Spelman has yet to report but Cameron is clearly confident that she will be exonerated. It was widely felt that the Tories needed a new Party Chairman but Spelman is respected and Cameron will have been keen to retain her in his Shadow Cabinet otherwise the gender imbalance of the frontbench would have been even greater.

Brown as accomplished at table tennis as he's with economy

Hilarious! Brown is absolutely hopeless!

Of the four balls hit to him, he failed with all four of his 'returns' - 1) Net 2) Missed ball 3) Missed ball 4) Hit out - missed table. Shocking!

As Iain Dale asks, which adviser thought a game of table tennis with Harry Redknapp was a good idea in front of the Sky News cameras?

Dale goes too easy on the PM excusing his poor performance due to the fact that he has sight in only one eye. That's rubbish! He struggled to hit the ball because he was just plain crap! I would have been more successful if I had both my eyes shut!

I'm amazed Brown went for it. A year ago, almost to the day, Brown bottled a game of table tennis with Chinese Premier Wen.

The Guardian reported: "Ping-pong diplomacy hit a new low today as Gordon Brown ducked out of a table tennis challenge from the Chinese prime minister. The British PM, who is blind in one eye, politely declined a quick knockabout with Wen Jiabao as the two watched exhibition matches between young British table tennis hopefuls and their Chinese counterparts. Prime minister Wen told Brown: 'Actually, I do want to play a table tennis match with you.' The two men walked over to the tables and for one brief moment it appeared the contest between them might actually happen. But instead Brown walked to a microphone to announce a new scheme of partnership between young Chinese athletes and their British colleagues, who would work and train together on a 'buddy' system."

After today's performance, now we know why he bottled it!

Labour MP & Peer awarded golden penises

Yes, readers, you read correctly.

Looks like old Charlie Falconer and John McDonnell have been awarded golden flying penises by the Erotic Awards for their support for the rights of sex workers .

The Independent's Pandora wrote: "The awards season is upon us again, and two Labour stalwarts were among the prize-winners this week. Lord Faulkner of Worcester and John McDonnell were both honoured in this year's Erotic Awards for their continued support for the rights of sex workers. Their "gongs" – gold and shaped like flying penises – will apparently be winging their way to them in the post shortly. No doubt the pair will be giving them pride of place on their mantelpieces." Indeed!!!

Some might think McDonnell has a thing for phallic shaped objects after playing around with the Commons mace yesterday!

Brown's political strategy & the general election

Brown’s strategic problem

Brown said again yesterday during PMQs that he had "no plans for an election." Of course this will not stop him calling one in 2009 if he thinks it will be in his interest to do so. Brown is careful never to rule out for definite an election this year. But if 2010 is when the next general election will be held, Brown has a strategic problem.

His current political strategy is based on contrasting his approach to the recession with that of the Conservatives - "doing something vs. doing nothing," as he likes to frame the debate. This is a battle that Brown seems to feel he is winning/can win.

The problem for Brown though is that he is running out of time as his current strategy would only work in a general election campaign if the election was held in early 2009. Only then could he put to the electorate a clear choice between the Labour and Tory approaches to the economy.

More...

2009 beneficial for his current strategy

Why? At the beginning of 2009, it is too early to categorically know which economic strategy would be best. Prime Minister Brown is still in the process of implementing his and Leader of the Opposition Cameron cannot implement his. Hence we have a stalemate as both sides claim they are right and the other wrong. Thus, in the first half of 2009, Brown would be able to have a general election campaign based on his favourite dividing line. The electorate would get to choose which economic approach to endorse to see them through the recession. Although the opinion polls still show an overall Tory lead (4-10 points), Brown leads on the issue of who is best placed to see Britain through the current economic crisis (though his lead is decreasing).

But at the moment Brown is shying away from really asking voters to choose his approach over Cameron’s as he has not yet called a general election, and keeps dismissing the prospect, obviously weary of the trouble he got himself into in the autumn of 2007.

2010 would see a shift in the current debate and electoral defeat

I said above that Brown was running out of time because if he waits until 2010, more than a year will have passed and the debate will have shifted away from his current strategy. The debate will cease to be about what to do (a choice for the electorate between two contrasting world views), and will have shifted instead to one about whether Brown’s economic policies have worked or not.

If Brown does indeed wait until 2010 to call an election, he will hope that a combination of his policies - fiscal stimulus, bank recapitalisation, business loan guarantee scheme, global co-ordinated action and very low interest rates - will have got the economy moving again, making the recession shorter and shallower. Under this scenario, Brown is the “saviour of the world,” well, at least of Britain, and he is duly rewarded by an appreciative electorate who return Labour for a fourth consecutive term.

However, that is an unlikely scenario.

By 2010 the economy will have deteriorated and will be in a much worse state than it is today with possibly as many as three million people unemployed.

Forget the Chancellor's growth forecasts that the economy will start growing again in the third quarter of this year, with steady, modest growth of 1.5 and 2 percent in 2010. Both Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown have been backtracking from these forecasts and Brown refused to endorse them when challenged to do so by Cameron during PMQs yesterday. Brown now says that whether the growth forecasts are met will depend on international co-operation which is strange seeing as Darling said the Treasury had settled on its optimistic growth forecasts “because of decisions taken in the Pre-Budget Report” – namely, the government’s much trumpeted fiscal stimulus would be responsible for making the recession shorter and shallower.

I’m hugely sceptical whether Brown’s policies will work – as is Brown if his lack of confidence in his own growth forecasts is anything to go by. His fiscal stimulus is unlikely to work as it is very modest at only 1 percent, the VAT cut is very likely to prove a waste of money and bringing forward big-spending capital projects is no panacea as it is slow and can lead to vast waste; the bank recapitalisation may have “saved the banks” but it did not get them lending; as such, we now have a business loan guarantee scheme that looks like it has arrived several months too late and at only £20 billion, is far too timid; global co-ordinated action should help the world economy; but very low interest rates will take time to feed through to the economy and besides, the problem is not the cost of credit but its lack of availability.

Even putting to one side these criticisms, and hypothetically assuming that Brown’s massive borrowing and ever growing debt to fund his economic policies are just what this country needs, the problem for Brown is that even by 2010, it might be too early to see clear, perceptible signs that his policies have been successful.

Moreover, up until now Brown’s actions have been viewed as a strength by the electorate but this could change as the months roll on if the action Brown takes fails to noticeably improve the economy. The more frantically Brown tries to look like a man of action, the weaker he could look because voters could conclude he is ineffectual and powerless.

Consequently, a 2010 election will take place against the backdrop of a harsh recession and most likely the apparent impotency of government. The 2010 campaign will be about whether Brown’s policies have succeeded or not. The Tories will point relentlessly at the revised growth forecasts as evidence that Brown’s policies have failed. Indeed they are already doing so. The Tories will seek to make the 2010 general election campaign about a government and Prime Minister who not only were partly responsible for getting us into this mess, but failed to get us out of it, and now will tax us for the privilege as fiscal discipline finally has to be brought to bear on the parlous state of Britain’s public finances. It is not difficult to see how the British electorate could conclude that Brown’s policies had failed – whether because they were wrong-headed or just failed to be seen to have worked. (A country can have moved out of a technical recession even though it still feels like it is still in one). I would therefore expect a 2010 election to lead to a comfortable Conservative victory.

2009 has to be an option – but watch the polls

If 2010 is not a favourable climate for the Prime Minister to call a general election, early 2009 is an eminently superior date. Not only will the economy not be as bad as 2010, but 2009 will allow Brown to put his current political strategy into play in a general election campaign. Therefore, Brown must still be eyeing a 2009 election as a strong possibility. Forget his denials to the contrary. The man is always the electioneer.

Scuppered by the polls, 2010 will lead to electoral oblivion

However, if the polls continue their current trend back towards the Conservatives, the 2009 option will be scuppered. No Prime Minister is going to call a general election because he thought it would limit the damage to his party if it meant it would lead to his own personal defeat. Ego would prevent such a defeatist attitude. All Prime Ministers would continue, clinging on until the last minute in the hope that something will come up to turn round their political fortunes. In this respect, one can envisage Gordon Brown and 2010 becoming for Labour what John Major and 1997 were to the Conservatives.

Growth forecasts dependent on global co-operation

David Cameron asked Gordon Brown today whether he was willing to repeat the growth forecasts made in the Pre-Budget Report.

Brown refused to do so instead claiming that whether they are met will depend on international co-operation.

This is interesting as this is not what the Chancellor told us back in November.

Then, Alistair Darling made bold, optimistic growth forecasts saying the economy will start growing again in the third quarter of this year, with steady, modest growth of 1.5 and 2 percent in 2010.

The reason for this was, in Darling's own words, “because of decisions taken in the Pre-Budget Report.” In other words, because of the government’s much trumpeted fiscal stimulus – namely, its VAT cut.

But now both Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown have been backtracking from these forecasts in recent weeks and they have come up with this spurious argument that it is all down to "international co-operation" whether the forecasts are met, and nothing to do with its own policies.

Therefore, we now have the situation where the government is trying to claim 1) that the recession is absolutely nothing to do with them but was the result of America and 2) whether we move out of recession is again down to whether those bloody foreigners pull their finger out.

You can see it now, Brown arguing in a soft, cosy interview with Andrew Marr on a Sunday morning that he did everything possible to save the British economy. Unfortunately, other countries did not pull their weight. Not only did they drag Britain into this crisis, they failed to lend us a hand and pull us out!

But this is a specious argument, with Brown trying to have it both ways. Brown tells us at every opportunity he gets how the Conservatives are "isolated" and "outside the global consensus" about implementing a fiscal stimulus. He did so again during PMQs.

Is he really going to ask us to believe that, on the one hand, every country in the world is establishing a globally co-ordinated fiscal stimulus, but on the other hand, he is going to blame these countries for not sufficiently co-ordinating their fiscal stimuli and thus are responsible for Britain failing to hit the government's optimistic growth forecasts and hence endure a longer, deeper recession?

If he is, the man is bonkers!

Either countries are signing up to an internationally co-ordinated fiscal stimulus or they are not. They cannot be both.The reason for the new spin from Brown – growth forecasts dependent on international co-operation – is that he needs something to counter Conservative claims that his growth forecasts will not be met because his fiscal stimulus is a failure.This is a problem of the government’s own making. Choosing to announce growth forecasts that were more optimistic than independent forecasters was a mistake heading into a recession. They created a rod for their own back by then tying their forecasts to the measures they took in the Pre-Budget Report.

Unfortunately for Brown, this new spin just will not wash (no pun intended).

PMQs - "Do nothing" vs "Achieving nothing"

Today saw the first PMQs of 2009 and it came as no surprise that the economy took centre-stage.

Gordon Brown continued where he left off in 2008 branding the Conservatives the "do nothing" party. Brown likes nothing better than adhering to the age-old communications mantra of repetition, repetition, repetition to get his point across. As we all know our Dear Leader likes his dividing lines and this is his favourite at the moment. It seems obvious that this jibe has stung David Cameron hence the Tory leader's own flurry of activity of late to counter the charge. Both leaders seem desperate to be seen to be "doing something."

This, of course, is more of a problem for Gordon Brown as he is the Prime Minister and thus he cannot be seen to be impotent in the face of a recession which his opponents accuse him of not preparing the economy for by being a spendthrift in the booms years.

If Brown is still contrasting his "action" with what he wants us to believe is no action from the Conservatives, Cameron has improved his retort to the PM since the new year. In an interview with the FT yesterday, Cameron accused the government of behaving like “headless chickens… confusing activity with action.” And today, at PMQs, Cameron was keen to get the point across that for all the government’s apparent activity it was "achieving nothing" other than needlessly increasing Britain's debt.

Therefore, we are left with Brown’s “do nothing” Tories and Cameron’s “achieve nothing” Labour. A stalemate at the moment.

David Cameron used today’s PMQs to again call on Brown to admit his mistakes. The Tory leader does this in the full knowledge that Brown has a character flaw which means he cannot admit to anything in case it makes him look vulnerability. What the PM fails to realise is that this undermines his credibility as a politician who can prescribe solutions to the country’s problems. Cameron asked the PM to admit he was wrong to say he had abolished “boom and bust.” Brown refused saying it was a global financial crisis. Other issues Cameron went on were the government copying Tory policies. This followed Brown’s claim that no one was copying Tory policies around the world – no one was advocating cutting public spending. To which Cameron replied Labour was copying Tory policies with its pale imitations of the Conservative proposals for jobs and loans. In a good joke, the Tory leader said the PM didn’t need a butler in Downing Street (as has recently been reported), he needed a photocopier! The PM said he wasn’t copying the Tory jobs plan and accused the Tories’ National Loan Scheme of being a “do nothing policy” because the sums didn’t add up.

Cameron also asked the PM whether he was willing to repeat the growth forecasts made in the Pre-Budget Report? Brown unsurprisingly refused to do so saying whether they were met depended on international co-operation. This was strange as I do not remember the Chancellor making this point during his PBR in November. What I do remember, as did Cameron, is that the Chancellor said that the economy would begin to grow again in the third quarter of 2009 “because of decisions taken in the pre-Budget Report.” In other words, because of the government’s much trumpeted fiscal stimulus – namely, its VAT cut.

This led Cameron to criticise the VAT cut as an expensive failure which was adding £12.5 billion to government debt. Brown retorted saying the VAT cut was supported by former Chancellors Ken Clarke and Lord Lamont (not strictly true, as Clarke has since withdrawn his support for such a cut and it was wrong to imply Lamont supported the cut). The PM said the Tories were not united on this. Brown then tried to make the Tories sound uncaring and out of touch saying they may think the VAT cut unimportant, but at end of every week an average family has £5 extra in their pocket. (Wow – let’s throw a party to celebrate! With just a fiver in our back pocket, we'd better head to Iceland!) He said it may not matter to them, implying the Conservatives are the party of the wealthy, but it was more money for everyone in the community. Brown said the Tory party was the only party wanting public spending cuts; it was out-of-touch with rest of world; and completely isolated.

Cameron hit back arguing that no other country in the world was reducing VAT by 2.5 percent and no country was planning to increase taxes on those earning £19-20k – it was the PM who was isolated. Cameron also supplied his own quote from Clarke denouncing the PBR and accused the PM of ruining the golden economic legacy he had inherited from Clarke. Cameron then quoted retailers such as Marks and Spencer who have said the VAT cut had made “no material difference to our sales” and Sainsburys who have said the VAT was a “massive annoyance.” The PM again quoted Clarke on VAT; said the VAT cut was important; and said the Tories were on the wrong side of the argument, outside of the global consensus.

In his final intervention, Cameron said it was not just him who thought the VAT cut irrelevant, it was what the retailers thought. He accused the PM of running around like a headless chicken with bogus announcements. Worst of all he was building up debts for Britain’s children to save his own skin – a nice plug for the new poster campaign the Tories have launched this week which alleges that Brown’s borrowing means every child is born owing £17,000 in debt. Brown said Labour was the only party investing in children. He repeated for what felt like the hundredth time that the Tories were the “do nothing party” which would leave people defenceless in the face of the global crisis.

Nick Clegg then entered the fray and annoyed the Prime Minister immediately by claiming the Prime Minister was playing copycat with the Conservatives over their National Loan Scheme. Clegg said taxpayers had already sunk £37.5 billion into the banks to get them lending again, and wondered why they were being asked to risk another £10 billion just to get them lending. Instead of playing copycat, the PM should be playing hardball with the banks. The PM obviously didn’t like the copycat charge because he immediately said that he had already explained the Tory plans were unfunded. Brown outlined his business guarantee scheme for small businesses and said that since November, 20,000 firms had already benefited from the government’s tax flow policies.

Clegg began his second and final intervention with “here's what he should do…” which was met by jeers from the Labour benches. The Lib Dem leader said the PM should stop telling the banks to hoard cash and lend out at same time, and use the part-nationalised banks as a state bank. Clegg said the PM didn’t listen to him when he made this point two months ago. Isn't it time he listened now? Brown said he admired Clegg’s certainty. We have asked two banks which we have shares in to lend at 2007 levels and that is what they are doing at moment. As far as further action goes, we will not hesitate to look at other measures to get economy moving.

Verdict

At the moment the two main parties are engaged in a stalemate over the “action” they are or are not taking. Both have policies and an economic outlook that is diametrically opposed to the other. As such it is difficult to say who is winning at the moment. Brown says he is right and Cameron wrong. Cameron says Brown is wrong and he is right.

The hypocrisy of the New Statesman

In the latest edition of the New Statesman, its leader is entitled: "Israel must acknowledge Hamas as the democratic choice of a majority of Palestinians."

Er... why must Israel (or the West)?

This plea surely cannot come from the same New Statesman that on 14 February 2000, in another leader article, this time entitled "When it's right to be hysterical," which argued that the EU was right to place sanctions on Austria in protest at the Austrian people giving Jorg Haider's far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) 27 percent of the vote in 1999 and a place in Austria's governing coalition?

The leader argued: "the European Union is right to register its disapproval; a party that trades at least partly on racism has entered the government of a member state. The political sanctions may be no more than gestures - the withdrawal of all but "technical" briefings from Austrian ambassadors, for example - but gestures are precisely what is needed at this stage. What needs to be brought home not just to Austrians but to people of all countries is that, whatever their frustrations with the established political system, recourse to extreme right-wing leaders, with openly racist or xenophobic agendas, is a dangerous game."

The hypocrisy from the Left is astonishing!

It is right that we all deplore the politics of the Far-Right (such as Haider's) - whether our politics is right or left. However, the Left's hatred of Israel (a democratic country) is so strong that it deludes and blinds itself of those it really ought to condemn. This delusion is such that the current leader in the New Statesman says Israel and the West will not "recognise a Palestinian Authority run by what they regard as a terrorist organisation." I'm sorry, come again? What on earth does the New Statesman and the Left regard Hamas as, if not a terrorist organisation? A Boy Scout group, perhaps? A nice group of men who help frail grannies cross the road in safety? Absolutely pathetic!

In 2000, the New Statesman argued against accepting the democratic choice of the Austrians. But by 2008, the New Statesman is asking us to accept the democratic will of Palestinians in Gaza even if they have elected a terrorist organisation. Why? Because one election was 'won' by the Far-Right while the other was won by a lovely terrorist organisation that refuses to recognise Israel and seeks its destruction and the death of all Jews. The hypocrisy!

In answer to the New Statesman's plea that "Israel must acknowledge Hamas as the democratic choice of a majority of Palestinians" I'll finish off by quoting the New Statesman back at them from their 2000 leader:

"It is all very well to insist that people should have an absolute freedom to vote for whom they like, just as we may insist that they should have an absolute freedom to say or write what they like. But racism is a special case, because it ultimately denies to a whole group even the right to keep themselves to themselves."

A terrorist organisation that wants to murder all Jews should not be recognised. The New Statesman is a bad joke of a magazine!

Cameron to cut number of MPs

The FT has reported today that David Cameron will cut the number of MPs by "at least" 10 percent - so 65 MPs face being culled - if he is elected Prime Minister.

The paper said that the Tories would commission an urgent boundary review to make the changes in time for the subsequent general election. The idea would not be to just cut the number of MPs but also to ensure that all seats had roughly the same number of voters.

The FT's source said it would be a "first time priority" for a Prime Minister Cameron.

This is an excellent idea!

• 650 Members of Parliament are far too many to represent our small island.
• As we have seen with all the expenses scandals of last year, too many MPs have their snouts in the trough. At a time of recession, Cameron is right to identify reducing the number of MPs as a legitimate cost cutting measure without compromising the effectiveness of the House of Commons.
• The electoral system is currently biased in favour of Labour and this proposal by Cameron would help remedy this fact by ensuring all seats had roughly the same number of electors.

  We know there is an electoral bias because if Labour and the Conservatives had the same vote share in the 2005 general election, Labour would still have won 111 more seats. If the Conservatives had the same lead over Labour as Labour did over the Conservatives in 2005, Labour would still have had 57 more seats. Only a Conservative lead of 6.4 percent would have resulted in equality of seats and the Conservatives would have required a lead of 11.8 percent before gaining an overall majority.

  Labour gains an advantage to begin with from its seats in the inner cities and industrial areas with declining populations and lower turnouts. Conservatives suffer from doing well in rural and suburban areas.

  Population movements between 2001-2005 meant that the electorate grew by 1000 votes in an average Conservative seat and fell by 500 in the average Labour one. Turnout was lower in Labour seats than Conservative ones (58.6 percent to 65.2 percent) equating to a difference of 6200 electors, widening to 8500 in terms of votes.

• An advantage for the Tories of eradicating the electoral bias and establishing fairness and effective representation in the electoral system will be the axing of overrepresented safe Labour seats in the inner cities and in Wales. The FT said: "Small inner city constituencies in places such as Liverpool could be scrapped to reflect the shift in population to the Tory suburbs." As for Wales, the number of seats could be "cut from 40 to nearer 30."
• It is fair that the total number of Welsh MPs are culled as they have been traditionally overrepresented and now that Wales has its own Assembly which has accrued more powers the time to do away with this anomaly is now. Scotland has had its number of MPs reduced already to 59 MPs since devolution. However, one can make the case to reduce the number of seats further in Scotland. England has on average 70,000 electors per constituency. The Welsh constituencies have on average 56000 electors per constituency so clearly are overrepresented but so is Scotland, although by a lesser extent, as they have 65,000 electors per constituency. What is more, English electors do not have representatives in an English Assembly or Parliament so their level of representation is once more comparatively worse in comparison with Welsh and Scottish electors.

All Cameron needs to do now is win the next election. By doing so, he should be able to make the election after next a little bit easier to win for the Tories.

UPDATE: Iain Dale and ConservativeHome have posted on this issue.

UPDATE 2: The new sycophantic LabourList run by NuLab insider Derek Draper calls Cameron "David Gerrymander" and describes the plan as an attempt by Cameron to "rig parliament and reduce the number of MPs from poorer areas." A predictable, though ignorant response. The plans, if enacted, will of course benefit the Tories but i struggle to see how one can credibly argue against a proposal that is based on the fairness of equal representation. Is Draper saying that so-called "poor" Labour voters deserve greater representation than other voters? All voters are created equal but some voters are more equal than others...

Impact of a Clarke return on Osborne

Another issue that needs to be considered about a Clarke return is how this will impact Osborne.

If Clarke returns it will be as Business Secretary. In this regard, Clarke is not a threat to Osborne’s position as shadow Chancellor.

However, some have argued that the return of Clarke will undermine Osborne because Cameron will have been forced to bring him back to make up for the shadow Chancellor’s deficiencies, though cannot go all the way and replace Osborne because of the political damage this would entail.

I do not buy into this very negative interpretation. I do not remember Mandelson’s return being viewed in any way as damaging for Alistair Darling and/or a consequence of his weakness. Mandelson and Darling have interrelated briefs but they compliment one another and Mandelson’s return has strengthened the government’s team by adding experience and a much higher media profile.

Accordingly, I would view Clarke’s return in just the same way. One can argue that at the moment the team of Mandelson/Darling is outperforming that of Osborne/Alan Duncan. A Tory team of Osborne/Clarke is likely to be as strong, if not stronger, than Labour’s Mandelson/Darling team.

As for whether Osborne would welcome Clarke’s return there have been mixed reports. The Daily Telegraph reported that "a friend" of George Osborne had said that the shadow Chancellor was actively pushing for his return in a reshuffle: “George has been talking to Ken about his return and Ken has been very supportive of George. The two get on very well and George would not have a problem with him coming back - in fact is pushing for it." However this has reportedly since been denied by Team Osborne.

Make of that what you will.