91Èȱ¬

The problem with political ideas is that once you unleash them you cannot control them.

The Tories' Great Grammar School Row was started by a thoughtful speech by the party's education spokesman David Willetts in which he dared to challenge the success of grammar schools in transforming the life chances of poor bright kids. Up until then, David Cameron had always made an essentially political argument. First, he told his party to focus on the education of the many and not the few. Then he pointed out, as he did again , that "Conservative governments in the past - and Conservative councils in the present - have both failed to carry out [the policy of opening new grammar schools] because, ultimately, it is not what parents want."

It is Willetts' idea and not Cameron's politics which backers of grammar schools regard as so dangerous. They fear that the Tories have given anti-grammar school campaigners a new script and may give the Labour Party new courage to campaign against them.

Thus the Tory MP Graham Brady - releasing data which, he claimed, prove that grammars improve the life chances even of those who don't go to them. Brady is the MP for the town in which he went to school. He has long been seen as the MP for Altrincham Grammar.

Now the Tory leadership is threatening to discipline him and even drop him from the front bench. His crime was to re-open a debate which the Tory leader has declared to be over. You can't, though, discipline an idea.

The problem with David Willetts' speech was not the policy it spelt out. Most Tories had grudgingly accepted that. It was the idea contained within it which begged a question which won't go away - if grammar schools are failing, why should Tories oppose their closure and if they're not failing, why not allow more of them to be built? A debate which will go on.

Incidentally, David Cameron's article suggests that someone close to him has been reading the exchanges on this blog about the role class plays in the Tories Great Grammar School Row. He declares in it that "I may be a white, forty-something old Etonian, but that doesn't constrain what I do."

PS. This may be the last blog for a day or two. Not content with the bank holiday washout I am taking a few days to wallow in the rain whilst my colleague John Pienaar follows the PM to Africa. Poor judgement, you might think.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Have I got a nervous few hours to go? The hours before a recording of Have I Got News For You are stressful enough. If, that is, you can call mugging up on , and stressful.

The hours after recording and pre-transmission are, if anything, more so. Last night we recorded an hour and a half of television - which is at the lower end of the scale - but only half an hour will make it onto the air (a bit more on the extended Saturday night show and the vodcast). So, which bits will stay and which go?

On a previous appearance on HIGNFY I thought I'd been reasonable quick-witted, though never hilarious, throughout the recording. On air, I was merely humiliated for my bad rendition of "I'm just a poor boy... " on Children in Need, made one mediocre gag and then appeared to be mute for the rest of the time.

The programme makers are, of course, interested in what makes their audience giggle and not giving their guests their fair share of airtime. This gives someone in my position something of a dilemma. Can you be funny without crossing the line of what a 91Èȱ¬ man should and shouldn't say?

My guess is that you'll hear me being indiscreetly rude about 91Èȱ¬ Improvement Packs and about a recent 91Èȱ¬ News graphic (I've already apologised to my bosses). I may also be seen to reveal more than you might have wished to know about Mick Jagger. I do hope they don't use the bit when I .... Perhaps it's best, on second thoughts, if that stays on the cutting room floor.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Bloggers Luke Holland, Ian Titherington and Geraint chastised me for ignoring another "moment of history" in British politics - the Nats coming to power not just in Edinburgh but Cardiff too. Not so fast. Just as a "rainbow coalition" led by Plaid Cymru and including the Tories and the Lib Dems looked on the cards, word emerged that the latter had shied away at the final hurdle. I trust you'll keep me up to date if anything changes.

I can't get on a train to Cardiff tonight in any event as I'm due for my annual humiliation on Have I Got News For You. All topical gags gratefully received. No cash prizes I'm afraid. I can only promise the satisfaction of seeing your material used on air.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

All leaders need luck and our future leader's just got lucky.

The long wait for him to move next door in Downing Street is protecting him and the government from the worst consequences of an extraordinary series of ministerial cock-ups. Since everyone knows a change is coming the impact of them - both individually and as a whole - has been diminished.

Imagine just for a moment if today's no confidence motion in the Health Secretary had come at any other time. The question would have been asked insistently - can Patricia Hewitt survive? I can find no-one who believes she'll still be in charge of the NHS in a few weeks time so today's debate takes on a certain ritualistic quality.

Or think about how yesterday's U-turn on 91Èȱ¬ Improvement Packs might have played?

And what about the revelation that the new secretary of state for justice only learnt about the creation of his new department from a newspaper report and was still in dispute with the most senior judges in the land?

The much talked of "stable and orderly transition" has sucked all the tension out of the air in the Westminster village.

Could that be why ministers are getting as many awkward announcements out of the way as possible before the great transition. Witness this week's politically tricky announcements on nuclear power, planning and road pricing.

This is not so much burying bad news as getting all of it out of the way whilst no-one much cares. Has Gordon Brown been lucky or is he proving the truth of that old cliche that you make your own luck?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

At last, we get to the nub of the matter. You may be forgiven for thinking that the Great Grammar School Row is about Tory education policy or how best to help disadvantaged children or, even, how David Cameron runs the Tory party. Not a bit of it. At its heart is the oldest British obsession of them all. No, not the weather. Class. Once again it was John Humphrys (Cardiff High School) who took up the cudgel on this morning's Today programme (listen here). He challenged David Cameron (Eton) on the number of public school boys there were in his shadow cabinet. What, you might ask, has that got to do with anything. The answer is everything.

Many of David Cameron's fiercest critics are those who believe that the job of the Tory party is to fight for what Margaret Thatcher called "our people" - by which they mean the aspirational classes. They believe that in the years BT (Before Thatcher) there existed a cross party consensus which punished "our people". The consensus, they believed, was sustained by the political classes who were largely public school boys. In the years AD (After David) they fear a new consensus is emerging which is politically correct, green, liberal and sneers at those who work hard to get their kids the advantages they didn't have. The pre-Thatcher consensus was called But-skellism (after the Tory Rab Butler and Labour's Hugh Gaitskell). We might call the new one Bla-meronism.

Do not be surprised that it is inside the Tory Party that this class war is raging. It's been going on for years. Margaret Thatcher was attacked by the toffs for leading a party of "estate agents and second hand car dealers". Michael Heseltine was once described as "a man who has to buy his own furniture". Douglas Hurd was so nervous of his Etonian past that he ran for his party's leadership describing himself as the son of a farm worker which somewhat understated his father's background.

Yesterday, I asked the Tory leader at his news conference how he would answer those who said his policy was fine for a "posh, rich kid" like himself but wondered how it would help someone like Michael Howard, his predecessor, the son of poor immigrants, who believes that a grammar school education was the key to escape from poverty. The Tory leader retorted that focussing on his background was old fashioned and irrelevant.

Many will agree.

However, the key to success as a leader is persuading people that even if you're not one of them you understand how they feel. The Tories who feel wounded by the Great Grammar School Row fear that he hasn't a clue how they feel and never will.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Gordon Brown and David Cameron are moving to counter suggestions that they allowed or even encouraged MPs to exempt themselves from Freedom of Information legislation. Neither of them voted on Friday.

This morning David Cameron used his news conference to say that he was not in favour of the move and had only not voted against it since he had a prior commitment in his constituency. It is far from clear, however, that he tried to stop his colleagues.

Meantime Gordon Brown's close ally Ed Balls who voted for the exemption has put up some intriguing comments on his website. "This Bill gives my constituents greater protection and privacy by guaranteeing that the work I do on their behalf remains confidential....As for the proper public scrutiny of MP's expenses and allowances, I am absolutely clear that these should continue to be published as now. The Speaker has said they will continue to be published, that's the right thing to do and, frankly, I would like to see an amendment to that effect included in the Bill to put that beyond doubt"

I hear that work is going on to draft and win support for precisely such an amendement. Watch this space

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The king is not quite dead. Long live the man who's soon to be king. It may not slip off the tongue but that is a summary of the curious and unprecedented constitutional position we're in for the next 39 days. It would not, of course, be considered so odd in many other countries.

Gordon Brown will benefit from the luxury - not granted to any of his predecessors - of weeks to think and plan whilst not having to campaign for the job. His campaign manager - Jack Straw - says it's a welcome constitutional innovation. His close ally and friend Alastair Darling suggests that he would welcome a return to PM's coming and going within a day.

This reflects his frustration that the government's been drifting pretty much ever since last September when Tony Blair publicly announced he'd be gone by the summer.

I suspect that the public will only care if there's a crisis in the next six weeks. This won't stop the Tories trying to make them care and to suggest either that there's disarray or that Gordon Brown should be blamed for any unpopular decision taken in this period. Watch for them to make a fuss about hospital closures.

At the end of "ever so 'umble" Gordon's first week he can feel satisfied that he has proved wrong those who thought he couldn't hack the top job. He's looked authoritative, comfortable and more at ease at himself than in the past.

On the other hand he's neither sparkled nor unveiled a memorable message. The question is can he and will he do it in six weeks time?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I have a real sense this morning that change is in the air. The cast list of players on the political stage has altered overnight.

It is not just that Gordon Brown has been confirmed and will soon speak as "our next prime minister" and will promise to rebuild the public's trust in government. Alex Salmond will, I believe, command headlines way beyond Holyrood as he uses his status as first minister to speak out on a wide range of issues "for the people of Scotland". Another character who will soon feature regularly on our screens is Nicolas Sarkosy - France's flamboyant and aggressive new president.

And, as if to make the point, the faces of the soon-to-be-past, Tony Blair and George W. Bush, will feature today at their last joint news conference at the White House. Power is passing from those whose views were forged in the tragedy of 9/11 to the post 9/11 generation.

PS: That is why, I suspect, the Cameroons have tried to get in on "the change" story by picking a fight over grammar schools.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's official. Gordon Brown is our next Prime Minister.

When nominations were published at 6 pm tonight he was one name short of the number needed to avoid a contest. Tonight he has that name. It is Andrew Mackinlay MP.

So much for the idea that Brown wanted a contest. He could have ensured that there was one but insisted that it "would be dishonest" to lend votes to a possible challenger. So, he has seen off putative challenges by Alan Johnson, John Reid, Charles Clarke, David Milliband, Michael Meacher and, finally, John McDonnell. The job he's longed for is his. The contest and the debate which many in the party longed for is not to be.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

After all the decades of protest, all the chilling warnings about the break up of Britain and all the sound and fury - was this it? Today Alex Salmond stormed Scotland's citadels of power and pledged to deliver "compromise and concession". It's hard to imagine that slogan written on the banners of nationalists down the ages.

Do not be fooled. This kinder, gentler, softer Salmond is not a different man from the feisty, aggressive political street fighter we've known for years. What's changed is his situation.

Salmond now has real power where for years he and his party have had none.

However, his power is constrained by the fact that the Scottish Parliament is wholly unlike its Westminster big brother where the "winner takes it all". The SNP now have the job titles, the ministerial cars and the staff but they can pass laws only with the co-operation of their political rivals.

Finally, the SNP leader knows he's come to power not thanks to the rise of nationalism but thanks to the decline of Scottish Labour.

Today was just a first step on a long journey that might transform the SNP into a party of power, may well lead to the Scottish Parliament gaining new powers and might end in Scottish independence. It might, on the other hand, all end in tears. Its sheer unpredictability is what makes it so interesting.

PS. The prize for the speech of the day goes not to Salmond but to the leader of the Scottish Tories, Annabel Goldie. In a short, witty and dignified speech she addressed Alex Salmond's wife and sister who were watching from the public gallery. This formidable Scot declared "If you're not around to keep this man in check, there's another woman who certainly will".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

HOLYROOD: I have come to witness a moment of history.

It is the moment when a party of protest becomes a party of power. The moment when a man who was once expelled by his party and later said "if nominated, I'll decline. If drafted, I'll defer. And if elected, I'll resign" takes them into office. The moment when for the first time in Britain, nationalist politicians get to govern.

It will also see the start of an experiment in what some call the "new politics" - post-PR, post-coalition, minority government where every vote rests of a political wing and a prayer.

Alex Salmond's elevation to Scottish first minister is genuinely historic. His failure to gain a majority or to form a coalition means that he cannot - in the short term at least - get even close to the SNP's dream of independence. He may not even be able to implement many of his domestic policy promises. However, he will have the title, the trappings of office, the staff, the money and the platform to prove that Scotland can be run in a different way. If he succeeds Britain could be changed for good.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Yesterday we saw the master showman. Today we saw his long suffering understudy.

It's lucky that Gordon Brown had decided to highlight his lack of interest in presentation since his launch was marred by the most basic of errors - the cameras couldn't get a clear view of his face.

The contrast though was about much more than style and will matter much more if Gordon brown means what he said today. He has pledged to govern in a different way. Parliament would have more power to hold both the government and erring ministers to account. The public would be given greater say over the services they use. In the new kind of politics which Brown is promising, government would be "humble enough to know its place"

Mr Brown is trying to pull off quite a trick. He is declaring that an old familiar face can lead a completely new style of government. He is arguing not just that Labour can and should change in office but that he can and will change too.

In the days to come we will get a sense of how far that is possible

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I'm at the Imagination Gallery in London where the chancellor is launching his campaign to become PM.

Is it my imagination or has plain old Gordon Brown just metamorphosed into Brown for Britain, Prime Minister designate? The signs are all there at his campaign launch - he's wearing make up, he's surrounded by young people and applause spontaneously breaks out when he walks into a room.

He has waited not just 10 years for this moment but much much longer. What will he say?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Trimdon Labour Club: He is in the building. The star has arrived for the greatest political event since, well, the last time he waved a tearful goodbye.

Today's extraordinary jamboree is pure Blair. Given that he's already announced his departure, and the date's been obvious for weeks, he could have simply sent a letter to the chair of Labour's National Executive asking them to choose a new leader. He could have confirmed this in a short statement in Downing Street.

Not our Tone.

He flies up, to be amongst those guaranteed to cheer him loudest to deliver his own political epitaph before anyone's had time to read the pull-outs that came with their morning paper or the crafted analysis that's been on the shelf for weeks.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's been a long long goodbye. And it ain't over yet.

It is now a staggering 952 days since a weakened Tony Blair first declared that he would not seek to go "on and on and on" and promised he'd leave office before fighting a fourth election. You may, by now, be thoroughly sick of the wait.

However, I have no doubt that he'll be missed. I mean that not as praise, but simply as a prediction.

For a decade he's been more than just another politician. In an era obsessed with celebrity he's been near the top of the "A list". He has been one of the few enduring characters in our national soap opera.

When he led the tributes to Princess Diana, millions mourned with him.

When he expressed outrage on 9/11, millions felt he'd spoken not just for Britain but for the world.

When he joined Geldof to rock for Africa again, millions joined their campaign.

When on 7/7 he celebrated the Olympics coming to London and hours later stood defiant in the face of terrorism, millions were on the emotional rollercoaster with him.

Millions, of course, have also come to feel betrayed by him - whether over spin or sleaze or the Dome or, of course, Iraq. The disappointment they feel a mirror of the hope they once felt.

Love him or loathe him, we have grown used to having a leader who is always centre stage. That will change when he's gone.

Did he, though, live up to his own billing as "the changemaker"?

When it comes to politics the answer is certainly yes. First, he changed the Labour Party. Next, the Great Persuader convinced the British public that they could trust his party again. Finally, his enduring electoral success forced the Tories to embrace the consensus he had helped to forge. The prime minister takes such pride in this that one Downing Street aide says that his legacy can be summed up in two words - "David Cameron".

The verdict is more equivocal when you look at how he changed Britain.

The man who declared that his arrival in office was a "new dawn" did not end, and perhaps in the end deepened, public cynicism about politicians' honesty and motives.

What about his oft-repeated soundbite about delivering "economic efficiency together with social justice"? Britain is certainly a richer country. What's more, the government has spent billions in an effort to help the poorest. Alongside the introduction of the minimum wage came tax credits and a massive expansion in child care. Child poverty was cut but less quickly than hoped. Inequality stayed stubbornly unchanged.

Britain's public services also benefited from huge government investment. It is visible in new buildings, more and better paid staff. However, the prime minister himself says that he was too slow to introduce reforms and anger at bureaucracy and inefficiency has lost him the support of the very staff he recruited and rewarded.

Britain has become institutionally more "liberal" with new legal rights not just for gay people. But society has become less at ease with itself as a result of mass immigration and the threat of home-grown terrorism.

It is ironic that Tony Blair has been most equivocal about the change that has, perhaps, been most dramatic - that to Britain's constitution. He's never enthused about the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly or the Mayor of London nor about the proportional voting systems which they use. He's often seemed unhappy with the consequences of the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information Act.

Prime ministers frustrated by progress at home are often inspired to pursue frenetic diplomacy. None more so than Tony Blair.

The unique personal skills he developed in wooing, cajoling and reconciling the warring parties in Northern Ireland were deployed to some effect in the cause of Africa and tackling climate change.

Yet the man who pledged to reconcile Britain to its place at the heart of Europe never dared to try convincing us to abandon the pound and to adopt the euro.

It was the use of military force which provided him with the most dramatic results. British forces helped deliver democracy in Sierra Leone and the fall of a dictator in Serbia. Tony Blair hoped and believed that the invasion of Iraq would do both those things. What's more he believed it would warn off other regimes from developing weapons of mass destruction. He was tragically wrong. His decision to side with an American president who was not just derided but hated by many voters cost Tony Blair dear. The cost to Iraq is still being counted.

Ever since trust in him and his authority have drained away. Discussion about when he would leave office has turned into a soap opera all of its own.

Throughout that time he's waited to escape the shadow of Iraq. He will know today that he hasn't escaped and may never do so. But he will also know that he's on course to leave Downing Street after a decade in office without being forced out, and with a smile on his face - a feat which no other modern prime minister has matched.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There is much to cheer the Cameroons as they wait for the battle proper to begin. One thing, though, distresses them. It is the suggestion that they don't really believe in anything and that their man is nothing more than the "heir to Blair".

Today, David Cameron's one man think tank tries to answer that charge. Oliver Letwin is delivering a lecture in which he insists that we are now in a post-Marxist, socio-centric rather econo-centric world. Forgive the jargon. People, he suggests, only take you seriously as a political philosopher if you talk in such ways. In plain English, he goes on to explain that he's simply saying that politics is no longer based on arguing about rival systems of economic management but instead about how to make lives better. Perhaps I may be permitted to translate Letwinese into a glib soundbite - "It's no longer the economy, it's well-being, stupid".

Letwin goes on to say that whereas Gordon Brown believes in a "provision theory" of government, the Tories believe in a "framework theory". Again, plain English helps here. He is arguing that Brown wants governments to provide everything whereas he and David Cameron want government merely to set the framework to allow others - whether individuals or organisations - to do what's good for society.

This is not, he insists, a mere re-writing of our old friend laissez faire since the Tories are working hard to develop government initiatives which will, for example, help to develop social enterprises to tackle poverty rather than simply ignoring its existence.

There are, I believe, two big tests of Letwin's argument. First, will Gordon Brown as prime minister really act as if government should do everything or, on coming to office, will he discover that he rather likes state schools or hospitals run by voluntary organisations or private companies? Secondly, what are the Tories' specific policies which prove that they are not simply re-heating ideas from Tony Blair's policy unit or re-packaging Thatcherism? Watch this space.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Well well. On Thursday night's election results programme John Reid refused to answer questions about whether he'd run for the Labour leadership insisting that, as he'd always said, he'd only gve the answer after Tony Blair had resigned. I, somewhat riskily, said that I'd eat my hat on camera if he ended up running. If someone had suggested he'd resign from the Cabinet I might have pledged to eat my shorts. Lucky I didn't because that's what he's just done on The Politics Show.

The post-Blair world is now shaping up. John Reid's announcement does not just confirm that Gordon Brown will not face a Blairite challenger and is certain to be our next Prime Minister. It gives Brown a much freeer hand than expected to shape his Cabinet. In particular, you should put your money on Alastair Darling as Chancellor. It was only the "too many Scots at the top" problem that produced talk about Jack Straw or Ed Balls getting the job.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I'm on my way up to Edinburgh to witness the dramatic conclusion of an election whose outcome still hangs in the balance.

Who would have guessed it? Who would have dared? A single seat in Scotland - Labour's historic heartland - the home of its next leader - could separate disappointment from disaster. Tonight Gordon Brown can only wait and watch to discover whether that result will deal him a bitter blow just weeks before he fulfils his dream of moving homes in Downing Street.

If the Nationalists do secure a historic first victory and if they can go on to form a governing coalition a Salmond-led Scotland could haunt a Brown-led Britain. A political civil war in Scotland will hardly help Mr Brown's efforts to reach out to Middle England.

If, on the other hand, Labour just holds on to power, the gasp of relief from Edinburgh will be felt hundreds of miles away in Westminster.

General elections are, of course, won and lost not North of the border but in England. Here, Labour's performance was poor - but it was marginally better than the results which preceded Tony Blair's election for a third term. The party is comforting itself that David Cameron's Tories - though clearly on a roll - are only just beginning to gain victories beyond their traditional heartlands.

And yet, they will know that winning a fourth term, led by Gordon Brown and not Tony Blair, up against David Cameron as against Michael Howard is a very very different proposition.

For the first time time in a decade the political future is unpredictable. Tonight it's game on.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I can't give a final verdict as the result in Scotland and Wales is still unclear and the local elections are only half counted.

So far, though, my view is:

• A bad night for Labour but they'll be relieved it's not been worse UNLESS they go on and lose in Scotland later.
• A good night for the Tories but they'll be disappointed they didn't do better in key northern targets such as Bury and Crewe, and didn't come second in Wales.
• A disappointing night for the Lib Dems, but some council gains in key battlegrounds will lessen their gloom.

The worst night was for democracy. Different voting systems and confusing ballot papers robbed tens of thousands of people of their chance to vote.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The 91Èȱ¬'s boffins are now predicting that the Labour Party will fall well short of the 30 seats needed for it to be able to control the Assembly on its own. Indeed, we are forecasting it will win no more than 26 seats, two less than it secured in the debacle of 1999.

Plaid Cymru are predicted to retain second place, though with 14 seats the party will still be below the 17 that it won in 1999. Nevertheless, the Tories will be disappointed at having failed to oust the nationalists from third place. At 22%, their vote is up just a couple of points on 2003.

The Lib Dems is expected to emerge with one more seat than it has at the moment and is likely to be called upon by Labour to help it form a majority coalition.

It's been a bad night for Rhodri Morgan and not the predicted vindication for his strategy of keeping "clear red water" between himself and Tony Blair.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

If you're watching the TV programme in England and saw David Dimbleby mock me for repeating what he'd just said, you might be interested to know that one of my first jobs was as the researcher who whispers facts into his earpiece. Later I was the editor of programmes he made, and he advised me to bcome a reporter.

I took his advice. Now, it's my turn to give him some!

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So Labour have now gained a seat in the Welsh assembly having lost three (one each to the Tories, Plaid and the Independents). It's still unclear whether they'll be above the 25 seat mark considered crucial for Rhodri Morgan if he wishes to stay as first minister...

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The failure to win is another poor performance by the SNP in a vital west of Scotland marginal. If the SNP fail to come first tonight it will be because they could not crack Labour's west of Scotland heartland.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So Alex's deputy is elected as well... Nicola Sturgeon was a very prominent face in the SNP's campaign - Alex Salmond didn't want to present himself alone. They appeared together at the manifesto launches, etc etc. She was a member of the Scottish Parliament before, but only via the proportional representation side of things - the list, as we call it - not directly elected.

What's helping the SNP achieve such success is the absence of the Scottish Socialists. They used to stand in both the constituency section and the list section. They took a decision to stand only on the latter this time. Many of the SSP's supporters are to the left of the Labour party, disaffected with them for one reason or another. And a very high proportion of those people are obviously giving their votes to the SNP.

If the SNP can carry on winning constituency seats, AND do well on the list, then this will get very interesting...

It's patchy though. is matched by a disappointing one in .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Earlier I pointed out the councils which the Tories failed to gain. It's only fair to point out that they've recorded a number of quite spectacular gains eg North West Leicestershire; South Ribble; Chester; and North Somerset.

If they do gain 600 new councillors, 41% of the national vote and these gains David Cameron will be able to say it was a good night, but his failure to win in Bury and Crewe will mean others will say - was it good enough?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Interesting that Alex Salmond began his victory speech (watch it by clicking here) not by talking about the SNP but by attacking the electoral arrangements. As I just said on air... if the election is close - as close as it appears to be - these will be vital. Politicians will feel that they've been robbed of getting the proper sense of whether people did want a Labour or SNP victory.

And that, really, is not good for any of us.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Wow! The Lib Dems . They have not stopped Salmond. The SNP leader has just had a stunning victory in Gordon.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Hey presto! The have toiled long and hard and come up with the numbers that tell us how the parties have done nationally.

This, you might think is absurd since people are voting on local issues at least as much as national ones. Maybe, but these figures shape the way in which these elections are interpreted by the media and the politicians themselves.

Projected national share - Great Britain (based on English locals)
% vote
Con: 41 - that's up a point on last year
Lab: 27 - also up a point on last year
LD : 26 - down a point
Other: 6

Jeremy Vine: "This would probably be met with quiet disappointment" at Tory HQ.

They've emailed to say that, actually, a massive cheer went up in the office!

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

In one Scottish seat just announced - - there were 1,736 rejected ballots - that's a massive 7.2% of those who voted. The level of spoilt votes in the first three Scottish declarations has been running at 3% to 5%, well above the norm.

The huge number of wasted votes is presumably because people simply don't know how to fill in the ballot paper. Scots voters are not just having two votes for the Scottish parliament - there's an utterly separate system for the Scottish local elections, and of course, there's a third system for the Westminster elections. A potential problem with the electoral process.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Phew. That's likely to be the sentiment in Labour supporting homes up and down the land tonight.

The result in Scotland is still too close to call but they may well hang on to power. That's vital both symbolically and actually, since an SNP victory would mean that Gordon Brown's first days as prime minister would be dominated by a clash of two Scots - the Alex and Gordon show.

General elections are won and lost in England though and Labour will be relieved by the fact that the 91Èȱ¬'s estimate that their vote share is up just a little.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"Maybe we won't be making an advance as fast as we may want". Iain Duncan Smith has just exposed the anxiety that tonight's results will provoke for the Tories even though they're sure to be the overall winners.

The north west is a key target for them. They've made progress tonight - in Chester, for example - but not as much as they would have hoped - in Bury and Crewe and Nantwich, for example.

Update - you can now watch the Iain Duncan Smith interview by clicking here.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

John Reid has just delivered a paean of praise for Gordon Brown. So I asked him to declare his support for him as prime minister and agree that he wouldn't run against him. I even offered to eat my hat on air if next week he announced his candidacy. Oddly, he didn't take up my challenge.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

First signs from Scotland in the First Minister Jack McConnell's seat. The increase in the SNP vote at eight points is a little below that anticipated by the final polls, though the six point drop in the Labour vote is a little higher than expected. Altogether, if this result is typical, we are looking at a very tight race between Labour and the SNP.

The news from Scotland may take a long time coming in though. We're hearing that he boat from Arran has broken down in the Clyde. Another boat has been sent out to collect the ballot boxes, and possibly those on board.

And a helicopter problem (as mentioned by Brian below) means that the news is that the Western Isles will not count until Friday. Western Isles is a Labour-SNP marginal and if Labour lose it a list seat may in turn be in the balance between Labour and SNP. Everything might hang on this late result.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Some early signs of how the Tories are doing in the north. The party says that they are on course to become the largest party in Bury and to make gains in Crewe and Nantwich. The official results are not yet in. Sounds good - at first.

These areas used to have Tory MPs and these are councils they really need to take control of. So, the verdict will be likely to be good, but not good enough

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Our boffins behind the scenes are analysing in detail the results in a few key wards. They tell me that the the early signs suggest this may not be as bad a night for Labour in England as had been anticipated. It may instead be the Lib Dems whose support is down on last year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A good start for the Lib Dems. They've taken Pressa's council in Hull. That'll be a huge relief for them since they need to gain councils as they are unlikely to gain many councillors nationwide.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The first editions of the papers are in and the Telegraph is predicting that Tony Bair is set to become a roving Ambassador to Africa and the Middle East after he leaves office. This - on the same day - that Downing Street tried, but didn't altogether succeed, in squashing stories that Mr Blair would leave Parliament and perhaps provoke a byelection soon after he leaves Number Ten.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The word from Scotland is that turnout is high - i.e. in the mid 50s, compared with under 50% at the last election. Labour believes that many of its traditional working class supporters have been "coming home" in the last couple of days prompted, in part, by the vigorous support of Scotland's two biggest tabloids - the Record and the Sun. However, no-one I'm speaking to - in any of the parties - dares call the outcome and all predict a long night ahead.

Many are pondering the distinct possibility that the SNP could become the biggest party but their leader may fail to get elected.

Alex Salmond launched his bid to lead Scotland in a different seat to the one he represents at Westminster and one that requires a big swing from the Lib Dems. The theory was that if he failed to win it he could still get into Holyrood under the "top up" system of proportional representation. Ironically, though, if his party does well enough to win other constituencies in that region the SNP would not get a "top up" and Salmond could be a leader unable to lead.

Intriguing. Please send me any intelligence you have about voting where you live.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Standing by to enter the 91Èȱ¬'s Studio 7 for what feels like the rest of my life. I will emerge at 6am having consumed gallons of caffeine and many bunches of bananas. I spent the day mugging up on Bolton, Blaenau, Bournemouth and the rest.

Let's hope I can remember some of it come the early hours.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For a decade the landscape of British politics has barely altered. Tony Blair has dominated from Downing Street and his party has held power comfortably not just in Westminster but in Edinburgh and Cardiff too.

This landscape is about to change. Today 39 million people will have the chance to cast a vote in the biggest electoral test since the last general election. A week from today the Prime Minister looks set to announce his resignation.

For the first time in 50 years Scotland go to the polls with Labour running second. If Alex Salmond's Nationalists win it will send shock waves through the political system and could trigger years of tension between a Salmond led Scotland and a Brown led Britain.

If Labour polls badly in Wales they might struggle to form a government even with the support of another party.

The English local elections are first and foremost about choosing who runs our town and city halls BUT they too will be studied to see how far David Cameron has climbed his electoral everest.

If Labour sees off the challenges in Scotland, Wales and the electoral battlegrounds of England they and most importantly Gordon Brown may start to contemplate the possibility of another decade in power.

The old cliche has it that a week is a long time in politics. The next week won't just be long. It will help define the new shape of politics for years to come.

PS - I'll be liveblogging here, and on this special election blog (link), throughout the evening - along the lines of what we did during last year's election. First post will be sometime after 2200.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"Please don't kick me. I'm going soon anyway. Oh, and by the way, a Scot's coming next - probably - and he'll be great."

That's a paraphrase of . It can hardly be what he dreamt of saying on this historic day - the tenth anniversary of his election as prime minister. It is, though, what his colleagues have pleaded with him to say in a last ditch effort to persuade voters - Scots in particular - to come back to Labour.

So is this the oft-talked of and much sought after "endorsement" of Gordon Brown? This may seem a bizarre question but different people close to Tony Blair answer it in different ways.

My answer is "yes, but then again no."

Yes, because Tony Blair has now predicted that Brown will follow him at Number Ten and will be "a great PM."

No because he has not gone so far as to say he'll vote for Brown - I'm told he's reserving that until "the proper time and place," after he announces his resignation next week. More importantly Tony Blair has only finally uttered this "endorsement" of sorts once it was clear that there would be no significant challenge to the chancellor - and once he was staring into the electoral abyss.

It's not just what you say that counts in politics - but how and when you say it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?