91Èȱ¬

I've been moonlighting a bit from Newsnight over the past few days to make a radio programme about the Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone.

It's the 200th anniversary of his birth on 29 December and I'm presenting a half-hour about him at 11am on Boxing Day on Radio 4.

I've been up in north Wales to visit the Gladstone family home, Hawarden Castle, near Chester, which is still inhabited by his descendants - two of his great-grandsons, Francis Gladstone, and Sir William Gladstone, who is 84 and looks just like the Grand Old Man (as Gladstone was called).

I also dropped in on the Gladstone Residential Library half a mile away, which contains his collection of more than 30,000 books, 22,000 of which Gladstone had read himself - an astonishing feat.

It means he must have read four or five books a week.

I've long been fascinated by Gladstone, and my political ceramics collection contains several Gladstone items, including five or six of the Gladstone plates which used to adorn the homes of thousands of his working class supporters in the late 19th Century.

Many historians would argue it's a tussle between Gladstone and Winston Churchill as to who was our greatest prime minister.

Like Churchill, Gladstone demonstrated extraordinary political resilience and longevity, and little loyalty to his party (or parties).

He was an MP for 62 years, starting as a Tory who was highly sceptical about Parliamentary reform, but unusually for a politician, he grew more radical with age.

He ended his life as the champion of home rule for Ireland, and also wanted votes for women and state pensions.

And 100 years later Gladstone would also be a great hero to the Thatcherites, as an advocate of free trade, a politician who constantly wanted to limit the role of the state and public spending, and who tried (without success) to abolish income tax.

Gladstone enjoyed four separate terms as prime minister, and also spent 13 years as chancellor of the exchequer (sometimes holding both posts at once).

He was responsible for numerous reforms and innovations - the modern budget; Treasury oversight of government finance; legislation regulating Victorian railways; extension of the franchise and the secret ballot; and professionalisation of the civil service and the armed forces.

He also invented the post-card, and library shelves on runners!

And yet Gladstone was a bit of an odd-ball, an obsessive and eccentric who probably wouldn't survive in modern politics.

He famously walked the streets of London late at night helping prostitutes. He kept fit by felling trees with an axe, or by taking extremely long walks - 33 miles in one day, for instance, whilst in his 60s.

He spent hours reading theological texts and tracts, and Latin and Greek in the original. And he was driven to account in his diaries for every hour that God had given him.
My programme ends with a three-way discussion involving (Lord) David Steel, who led the Liberal Party 100 years after Gladstone; the Conservative Shadow Cabinet member David Willetts, who regards himself as more of a Disraeli fan than a Gladstonian; and the Transport Secretary, (Lord) Andrew Adonis, who is a bit of an obsessive himself.

Adonis not only seems to know every fact there is to know about Gladstone, he even boasts a portrait of the former Liberal PM in his ministerial office - in preference to any of this country's six Labour prime ministers!

David Cameron's need to sort out the Lord Ashcroft problem is even more urgent than I suggested last week.

Labour taunted the Conservatives with the issue once again at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, and it threatens to dog the Conservatives through an election campaign.

The Tories' proposed new law, disqualifying from the Commons or Lords people who are non-domiciled for tax purposes, will not tackle the issue.

And it is not just a question of Lord Ashcroft's tax status making the Conservatives look like the party of the rich and privileged, or of toffs (though Lord Ashcroft isn't really a toff in the traditional sense anyway).

Or that it undermines George Osborne's statement that "we're all in this together".

It's more a question of leadership and strength.

By constantly dodging questions as to whether Lord Ashcroft pays UK income tax, Mr Cameron and his colleagues are in danger of looking weak and scared of Lord Ashcroft.

By saying it's a "private matter" they look like they don't know, and people start to think they daren't ask him the obvious question.

What I can't really understand is why Mr Cameron won't act. And several Tory front-benchers are just as baffled as me.

The Conservatives no longer depend on Lord Ashcroft financially.

Under William Hague it was Lord Ashcroft's money - donations and loans - which kept the party from bankruptcy. But that's no longer the case.

Nowadays Lord Ashcroft gives and lends the party a lot less cash, and the Conservatives are flush with funds from other sources.

Lord Ashcroft's other big contribution has been as a party strategist. His work in indentifying target seats, and pumping the party's cash into seats where it's likely to produce results, is hugely important.

But he's now taught the party how to run his strategy, and anyway, on a day-to-day basis it's organised by full-time officials such as Stephen Gilbert.

The party's got to the stage where they can do it without him.

So if I were Mr Cameron I'd invite Lord Ashcroft for a talk, thank him generously for all his help, but then insist that he issue an immediate statement setting out in full his tax position year-by-year since he got his peerage in 2000 (though that need not include specific sums).

If he won't do that, then Mr Cameron should sack Lord Ashcroft as deputy chairman.

I can't be sure, of course, but I reckon that Lord Ashcroft probably does pay UK tax on all, or most, of his worldwide earnings these days, but that the real problem may arise from earlier.

Having promised back in 2000 to pay UK tax in order to get his peerage, was there a delay of some years before Lord Ashcroft started doing so?

That of course would be very embarrassing to Mr Hague, the leader to whom Lord Ashcroft made his pledge.

But not half as embarrassing as the issue will continue to be if the issue is not clarified before the election really gets under way.

And one can easily see now how the line of questioning will go when Mr Cameron does his many one-on-one in-depth interviews during the campaign.

This summer John Bercow made history by becoming the first Speaker of the House of Common to be elected by secret ballot.

Many Conservative MPs were extremely unhappy with his election. They regard him as a Labour stooge, and are privately threatening to depose him should David Cameron secure a majority in the next election.

And if Mr Bercow was elected by secret ballot, then surely he should only be unseated by secret ballot too?

Er No. At least not as things stand right now.

The rules are as follows - when the new Parliament reassembles, assuming Mr Bercow is re-elected an MP (overcoming Nigel Farage's attempts on behalf of UKIP to defeat him in Buckingham), and assuming he wishes to remain as Speaker, then traditionally a motion is put to the House to re-elect him, and decided by acclamation.

And if there are a significant number of No voices, then it goes to a traditional vote, through the lobbies, where each MP's vote will be publicly recorded.

In such circumstances it's hard to see a majority of MPs - even if the House has a Tory majority - voting publicly against Mr Bercow. And, as we saw last spring, it takes a lot of courage to come out publicly against such a powerful figure as the Speaker of the Commons.

But if the vote went to a secret ballot instead then the outcome might be very different indeed.

The ball now seems to be in the hands of the Commons Procedure Committee, who are currently conducting an inquiry into last summer's Speaker election, and may make recommendations to introduce a secret ballot to re-elect the Speaker.

And certainly if the rules are to be changed then that has to be done in this Parliament, before the general election. It would be too late afterwards.

As a self-professed reformer more secrecy is surely is what Mr Bercow himself would argue for, especially since he himself was the product of a secret ballot. But he won't really get a say in the matter.

The Procedure Committee is chaired by Greg Knight, a former Conservative deputy chief whip under John Major.

No doubt he'd like to bring in a secret ballot to re-elect a Speaker.

But Mr Knight will have to tread carefully to get his way. His committee has only four Conservatives, compared with seven Labour members and two Lib Dems.

It all boils down to this delicious irony. With a traditional public vote Mr Bercow would probably survive; with a secret ballot he could well be sacked.

I went the grand offices of the Institute of Government, a new independent think tank, on Thursday evening for a fascinating seminar to launch a report entitled .

It's a hot political topic at the moment, with the very real prospect that no single party will get a majority of seats in the forthcoming general election.

We haven't had much minority government since World War II - just a few years in the mid-70s and at the very end of the Major government.

But I predict that over the next 50 years it could become more common than majority government - partly because of the growth of support for minor parties, but also because of the likely move to a more proportional election system.

The report's editor Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit at UCL hopes the media will stop depicting minority government as inevitably "nasty, disputatious and short".

It's not just the media which assumes that however, but perhaps more important, the City of London, where the markets are already very anxious at the thought that no party might win outright in May.

But the report draws on experience from New Zealand, Canada, and Scotland to show that minority (or coalition) government can work effectively, and that the sky doesn't always fall in.
.

To the Irish Embassy for their annual Christmas bash. Over the excellent canapes and fine stout (as an old-fashioned 91Èȱ¬ man I can't name the brand) I had a good chat with Ken Livingstone.

I had heard a year ago that Mr Livingstone was telling friends that he would definitely oppose Boris Johnson for London mayor in 2012, and that if Labour wouldn't have him as their candidate, then he would seek nomination from the Greens.

A semi re-run of 2000 perhaps when Frank Dobson beat Mr Livingstone for the Labour nomination (or rather there was a stitch-up) and so Mr Livingstone ran as an independent instead, and won of course (before returning to Labour in 2004).

And Mr Livingstone and the Greens would probably be pretty comfortable with each other.

So I put the rumour to Mr Livingstone last night. If he couldn't get the Labour nomination in 2012 would he try and become the Green candidate instead?

No attempt at a denial. He just smiled.

I put the question to him again a few minutes later. And he smiled again.

Wednesday's news from the Conservative MP Robert Key that he is standing down at the next election brings the number of retirements announced so far to 120 according to the 91Èȱ¬ tally, though Julie Kirkbride (Conservative) and Andrew Pelling (Independent) may change their minds and stand again after all.

Either way - 118 or 120 - this is a new post-war record.

It exceeds the 116 MPs who stepped down in 1997, and within the next few weeks the total this time is likely to beat the 128 retirements in 1945.

That was at the end of a Parliament which had lasted 10 years, so was bound to be pretty high.

Many MPs do not announce their retirements until the last moment, so on current trends the number stepping down in 2010 could end up well above 150, around a quarter of the House of Commons.

Following on from my comments on Gordon Brown at PMQs.

The key word is "relaxed". Once one joke works well, a speaker relaxes and he establishes a relationship with his audience.

Then his other material is likely to work successfully, and he gets more quick-witted on his feet.

Mr Brown's problem for most of his premiership is that he's been far from relaxed, and nearly always looks wooden, slow and clunky.

One of my Downing Street sources tells me that Mr Brown's new confidence, which we've increasingly seen in the Commons over the past two-three weeks, stems from a feeling that he's finally overcoming the three big crises that have dominated his years at Number 10 - the economic crisis, the political crisis, and now, with Barack Obama's speech and announcement last night, the Afghanistan crisis.

It was also clear again from Mr Brown's reference to Eton that Labour plans to make a lot more mileage over the coming months from the privileged background of Mr Cameron, Mr Osborne and their close colleagues.

After the Crewe by-election in 2008 the conventional wisdom in politics was that attacking Tory toffs would never work for Labour.

I was never persuaded of that - I just felt it was not best to experiment with such attacks in the traditional home of Rolls Royce, or against the Conservative candidate there, Edward Simpson, who wasn't a very convincing example of a toff.

Mr Cameron will now be under big pressure to do three things to answer the "privileged" and "wealthy" jibes from Labour:

- drop his policy on Inheritance Tax for estates of less than £1 million

- show that Lord Ashcroft has been paying British income tax on his worldwide earning since he became a peer eight or nine years ago

- and insist that Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate in Richmond, who has said today that he no longer holds non-domicile status, pays British income tax on every penny he has earned for the last year or two.

Further to my blog on the proposed AV referendum, I'm now told it is definitely happening, but it will require a formal announcement from Harriet Harman to go public on it. And Ms Harman is away at the moment.

This follows months of debate within government. A strong delegation of ministers were lobbying Prime Minister Gordon Brown over the summer to go even further, and hold the AV referendum this autumn, so that AV could actually be introduced in time for the next election.

Technically replacing a simple X on the ballot paper with 1,2,3 etc. does not require much of a change. There are no new boundaries and ballot papers would look much the same.

But then people in government looked at how Labour might fare under AV, and the figures weren't too helpful. In particular, I'm told that the chief whip examined what might happen in his own seat - Newcastle East - under AV, and didn't like what he saw.

As for what's being proposed now - legislation before the election to hold a referendum after the election - there are still several serious obstacles.

First the measure, which will be an amendment to the Constitutional Renewal Bill, will have to go through all its stages in both houses before next March.

Liberal Democrats tell me they would find it hard to oppose, even though AV is far from their cherished STV system of voting (which is genuinely more proportional).

But the legislative process has to be managed so that the bill doesn't get kyboshed when Mr Brown calls the election and lots of bills inevitably fall by the wayside. Not an easy process to manage.

And who will play a leading role in managing all that? The chief whip Nick Brown.

The notional figures for Mr Brown's seat is Newcastle Upon Tyne East, based on the result at the last election in 2005, but the new boundaries for the next election, are as follows:

Labour 17,588 (52.79%)
Liberal Democrat 10,601 (31.82%)
Conservative 4,344 (13.04%)
Other 787 (2.36%)
Maj. 6,987 (20.97%)

On those figures, one can see how Mr Brown might personally be very worried about AV.

One can assume, surely, that the vast majority of the second preferences of Conservative voters would switch to the Lib Dems.

So if one also allows for a substantial swing away from Labour since 2005, the Chief Whip's seat is a good example of a constituency Labour would retain under First Past the Post even in a really bad year, but which they might easily lose to the Lib Dems under the Alternative Vote.

Today's performance by Gordon Brown at Prime Minister's Questions was the best I think I've seen him do in two-and-a-half years as PM.

Thanks perhaps to Alastair Campbell's new regular advice, he came with a string of well ready made put downs of David Cameron.

On the economy he said of Mr Cameron: "His voice is that of the modern PR man; his mindset that of the 1930s!"

And, after a long question from the Tory leader, Mr Brown shot back: "The more he talks, the less he says."

Later: "His Inheritance Tax policy was dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton."

But Mr Brown's wittiest put-down, apparently spontaneous, came when Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg voiced support for US President Barack Obama's speech last night:

"President Obama will be grateful for his endorsement," said Mr Brown.

It was a new Brown, buoyed presumably that the Tory lead in the polls may be narrowing. Or rather it was a return to the nimble witty Gordon Brown of the late 80s and early 90s.

The PM couldn't hide his broad grim - he looked in command of the House, and the water in his eyes showed he was loving every moment."

And Labour MPs loved it too. But their pleasure may be short-lived.

On Wednesday morning I encountered the other side of our ludicrous Health and Safety culture - tackled in David Cameron's speech yesterday, and on Newsnight last night.

I too hate our modern safety environment, dominated by silly health and safety forms and petty bureaucratic rules, all designed, it seems, to protect people's backs rather than their genuine wellbeing.

And yet, in contrast, the public and the state are often pretty powerless to act when it comes to quite serious breaches of health and safety rules.

This morning I was walking past a building in Lavender Hill, south London - opposite the main Post Office.

Four men were dismantling scaffolding from around the building, and as I passed underneath a bucket which was dangling from a rope, and overloaded with scaffolding bolts, suddenly fell past me and hit the ground, scattering bolts over the pavement.

"That scared you, didn't it?" laughed one of the men working on the site.

It had indeed made me flinch. Had I bit a bit nearer, and the bucket a touch higher, I could have suffered serious head injuries.

But the workmen weren't worried. None were wearing safety hats, and to me, a layman, their work looked pretty slipshod.

What DID worry them however, was when I voiced a complaint, and then started taking notes, promising to refer the incident to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

"Haven't you got anything better to do?" one jeered.

I doubt if they, or their bosses, need worry that much. When I rang the HSE a nice woman took down the details, and promised she would try and contact the company responsible, but she said they wouldn't be able to visit the site to do anything about the safety breaches.

The HSE simply does not have enough inspectors for that, she admitted.

On Newsnight on Tuesday night I briefly reported how Prime Minister Gordon Brown is about to agree to stiffen Labour's pledge to a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote - or AV - voting system.

The new plan is to legislate before the election for a referendum to be held after the election, no matter what the result.

So David Cameron would be lumbered with the referendum if he wins next May, and could only stop it by passing new legislation, which might be difficult when he will not have a majority in the Lords, and maybe not the Commons either.

I am told that at Monday's Cabinet Committee where this new policy was all but agreed, Mr Brown firmly told ministers: "Now, none of you must tell the press about this."

But then they did just that. Which just shows, of course, how much authority Mr Brown has these days.

Sir Patrick Cormack today announced his retirement form Parliament, having served as an MP for almost 40 years. He will be a great loss to the Commons. He was a tremendous Parliamentarian and spent many hours sitting listening to Commons debates from his regular seat next to the gangway. I always regarded him as a wise old owl, full of sound advice, though he could be a touch pompous at times.

My first memories of Cormack were while I was a teenage schoolboy and first taking an interest in politics. He was a regular guest on TV - at times too regular - appearing as the young pro-Heath backbench Conservative. Sadly, he never held his office, largely because his views were out of step with Margaret Thatcher.

It must have been a difficult decision to give up his seat, but in recent months Cormack had become increasingly dismayed at the behaviour of many of his Commons colleagues during the expenses affair, but also dismayed at the growing restrictions placed upon MPs as a result.

It must also be a wrench because Sir Patrick was second in line to become Father of the House at the next election (its longest serving member), when the current Father, Alan Williams, is due to retire. Having failed in his attempt earlier this year to become Speaker, it is a position which Sir Patrick would have loved to hold.

The next Father is currently due to be Sir Peter Tapsell, who has served continuously since 1966 (though was also an MP from 1959 to 1964) and always sits below Cormack in the Commons.

After Tapsell, the succession goes to one of the 1970 intake who are still in the House. And Sir Patrick Cormack was first in the queue of that group, having taken the oath first on arriving at the House after his initial election. (Sir Patrick assured me a few months ago that his problem in 2005, when the general election contest in his Staffordshire seat was delayed several weeks because of the death of one of his opponents, would not have counted against his continuous service).

Should Sir Peter Tapsell also decide to retire next year, then the next in line to become Father of the House will now be Sir Gerald Kaufman, followed by Ken Clarke, Michael Meacher and Dennis Skinner, all of whom were first elected in 1970 and have been MPs continuously ever since. Two others who remain from the 1970 intake - Gavin Strang and John Prescott - have already announced their retirements. So too has Ian Paisley, though Paisley would not have been a contender for Father as he stood down briefly as an MP in 1985 when Unionists resigned their seats and fought by-elections in protest at the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
.