91Èȱ¬

New York: We're heading home from the Big Apple after a fascinating two days in America. Today at the United Nations, Gordon Brown looked passionate where yesterday at Camp David he looked ill at ease.

He goes home confident that both days were a success. George Bush declared that America's most important bilateral relationship was with Britain, even a Britain not led by Tony Blair. He showed himself willing to re-make that relationship by, in the words of one Brown aide, donning a tie.

Today at the UN, he signalled that he believed foreign policy is about much much more than how well you get on with the US president.

He has, Team Brown believes, established himself on the world stage.

I leave here though wrestling with many contradictions. The man who's shunned the phrase "the war on terror" has now accepted that there it is a battle and can be called a war. The man who signalled that British troops are on their way out of Iraq insists that British policy has not changed. The man who didn't utter a word in praise for George Bush nevertheless spent many many hours alone with him in what both sides say were productive meetings.

Quite a lot of what we've seen here is about positioning - both at home and abroad. The test in foreign affairs more than anything else is how you respond to events.

PS. Click here to watch my interview with Gordon Brown.

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

Camp David: What's changed?

That is the question that both the president and the PM knew would hang over this summit. George Bush answered it in a way that was designed to flatter his visitor (watch the news conference here), calling Gordon Brown a principled problem solver who understands the threat of terrorism, and describing him as a humorous Scotsman - not the awkward dour one that he'd been told about.

What was striking was that Mr Brown, while talking warmly about the shared history and shared values of the two countries, did nothing to return those personal compliments. He even referred to their meetings as full and frank - which is normal diplomatic code for an argument.

The signs though are that that difference in language reflects simply differing political calculations by both men. Gordon Brown wants to show his distance from George Bush, whereas the president wants to prove that the alliance with Britain remains strong, even after Tony Blair's departure.

On the substance, both men declared that they were at one on the battle against terror. Gordon Brown signalled that he'd make no announcement on the pullback of UK troops from Basra until after the publication in September of a report on the impact of America's troop surge.

For now, then, Britain and America's policies on Iraq are in step. After the autumn though, Gordon Brown has left his host, and voters at home, still guessing.

UPDATE 09:00 PM: If you watched the news conference, you may have noticed Mr Bush's warm greeting to me... He said to me, clearly remembering our last encounter, "you still hanging around?".

At a news conference in Washington last year, the day after the Iraq study group report was published, I suggested that his response would lead some to believe that he was in 'denial' about Iraq.

At the end of today's briefing, the president looked at me, sweating in the swampy conditions, and said, "next time you should cover your bald head". I made the fatal error of answering a quip with a quip: "I didn't know you cared". To which the president said, quick as a flash, "I don't". No Christmas card for me from Washington, then.

PS: You might be interested in article about that previous incident.

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

Camp David: The hacks here are divided about whether to call this the 'roast beef summit' (after the food served to the president and prime minister) or the 'golf buggy' summit (after the vehicle Mr Bush took Mr Brown out for a spin in, producing a look on the PM's face that said 'this wasn't in the script'!).

The two men met alone first for dinner last night, then again for breakfast this morning. Next they move on to talks with fellow ministers and officials, followed by a wind-up lunch of what are being described as the best cheeseburgers in America.

Beyond all the eating, and the schmoosing, there is real business being done. (registration required) has caught many eyes. In it he acknowledges, "the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership" in the struggle against terrorism. He goes on to declare that these are, "shared tasks to expose terrorism for what it is - not a cause but a crime - a crime against humanity".

Mr Brown, it seems to me, is trying to recast the whole war on terror. I understand that he is preparing a speech on the "cold-war-style battle of ideas" which he believes is now necessary. He has carefully studied a book about the CIA's role in fighting the "cultural cold war" entitled "".

I believe - and we will soon find out at their joint news conference - that Mr Brown will have given Mr Bush the assurances he wants about the UK's role in Iraq but he will have urged the president to fight a much wider campaign against terrorism - in part by showing that Britain and America can end wars and combat poverty in the third world.

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

There'll be no Colgate moment, no movie with the wives, no chinos that are - in the words of the British Ambassador at the time - "ball crushingly tight". This first Camp David summit between Prime Minister and President will not, must not, be the same as the last first summit.

Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking - or, even of hoping - that there will be a chill in the Maryland air simply because George's close friend Tony has gone and Gordon has arrived in his place.

Some predicted just that after Bill Clinton - a more natural political ally for Tony Blair - left the political stage and George Bush stepped on to it. People have been predicting as much again and again over the decades. Again and again, though, the occupants of Downing Street have followed the same approach to the President - whoever the holder of that office is. They "hug them close". Why? Not just because of the shared history and the values which Gordon Brown waxed lyrical about on his way here but also because Prime Ministers need Presidents to get done the things they want to get done and Presidents have, over the years, found British Prime Ministers can be pretty useful too.

For their own different reasons Brown and Bush have a shared interest in making this summit a success. Gordon Brown - who has spoken endlessly of change since coming to office - knows that Iraq is one area where change cannot be delivered quickly. He did not enter Number 10 carrying a secret plan marked "withdrawal". He's aware that simply changing the mood music will not satisfy those who demand more change than simply donning suits and ties. He wants, above all, to change the trans-Atlantic agenda - to move beyond Iraq. George Bush - under enormous political pressure at home - needs to ensure that his voters cannot say that now even the Brits are deserting him. He will know what it is that his visitor needs to go home happy and he will want to deliver it.

Key to that is a war - not the one which Britain and America started but one which they hope to help stop - the war in Darfur. Both men are backing a UN resolution this week which will not merely establish a 19,000 strong peacekeeping force in Darfur and will not only back a peace process between the warring factions but will also offer Sudan a package of long term economic support if it agrees to co-operate - a carrot to accompany the sanctions stick.

For Gordon Brown this would prove that something can be done to tackle what he calls the greatest humanitarian crisis the world faces. For George Bush it would prove that America is willing to act on the world stage to build and not just to destroy.

Behind the scenes, of course, the two men will talk of THAT other war - the one which Gordon Brown failed to mention in the lengthy statement issued as he travelled to America. They will talk about the problems of remaining and, perhaps the even greater problems, of withdrawing. What they agree - or even disagree - about is unlikely to emerge for some time to come.

This summit, you see, has to be a success. Not the backslapping, gag cracking, occasionally wince-inducing kind of summit success we've grown used to. This - as Downing Street has made clear - is NOT that kind of summit. But it will be a success nonethless since George and Gordon wouldn't have it any other way.

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

Gordon Brown is walking a tightrope in advance of his first summit with President Bush. He's doing all he can to signal to people at home that the Brown/Bush relationship will be very different to the Blair/Bush partnership, whilst striving to reassure the Americans that nothing fundamental has changed.

So, in a lengthy statement released in advance Mr Brown does not mention the word Iraq once but he does praise America's stand against international terrorism.

He does declare that he is an Atlanticist and an admirer of the American spirit before going on to talk of our two countries shared history, values and challenges for the future without spelling out how they stand together now.

Aware that, for political reasons, he must never be seen to be as close to George Bush as Tony Blair, we are told that the the Prime Minister will wear a suit - not chinos as his predecessor did - and will not be accompanied by his wife because, we are told, it is not "that kind of meeting". The meeting Downing Street says it wants will focus on the need to revive world trade talks this summer and to ensure that an international peace keeping force is soon deployed in Darfur.

The Americans are likely to seek reassurances about Gordon Brown's plans for the country that dare not be mentioned. It has emerged that the prime minister's foreign affairs adviser recently asked American academics what the impact would be of a British withdrawal from Iraq. Downing Street insists that there are no plans for that nor has British policy changed. At dinner tonight when they are alone, the President may need more reassurance than that simple denial.

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

The Blair Bush meeting at Camp David sticks in the memory for the jeans that were a little too tight, the smile betraying first summit nerves, the President's bizarre declaration that he and the Prime Minister used the same toothpaste. Gordon Brown knows that that closeness cost Tony Blair dear. The Prime Minister travels to the United States today having already taken the trouble to visit France and Germany first. He goes not just to meet the President but to deliver a speech at the United Nations as well. And his trip follows the prediction by one of his foreign ministers - Lord Malloch Brown - that the leaders of Britain and America will no longer be "joined at the hip". So far so different but the issues remain the same as they did. As, indeed, do both countries essential positions on them (though that Gordon Brown's foreign policy adviser, Simon MacDonald, asked American experts what the impact would be of a British withdrawal is intriguing)

The test of this and future Brown Bush summits will come not in the mood music - though that's sure to be minutely studied. It will come instead in what the two men agree on Iran, Afghanistan, Darfur, climate change and, of course, Iraq.

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

Yesterday's SUN had which revealed that :

"WORKAHOLIC Gordon Brown has rejected Tony Blair's office in No 10 - and plumped for Maggie's old den instead. The PM has moved his desk into the first-floor office used by Mrs Thatcher during her 11-year Premiership".

This left me a little confused. That very day I had also done an interview with the prime minister. I'd met him in his office - the one where I had in the past met not Margaret Thatcher but, er, Tony Blair. We even chatted about how he'd moved the furniture about.

When I asked a Downing Street aide to clear up this confusion he replied "Ah, the prime minister has many offices" with a knowing look.

Having broadcast that story on the Today programme this morning as an example of Team Brown telling the papers what they wanted to hear I had a call to "clarify" matters. Here goes...

"Gordon's office" - the room in which he meet officials, sign papers and the like - is, indeed, Margaret Thatcher's old
study on the first floor.

"Gordon's room" - where he writes speeches with his aides, stores the usual Brown clutter and hangs out - is, indeed, Blair's old den.

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

A blog or two ago I mocked the spinning of comments made at the political Cabinet about the Tory leader lurching to the right. This morning it finally dawned on me that it is Brown not Cameron who has - to use a phrase bequeathed to British politics by Alastair Campbell - "lurched to the right". In terms of political strategy it's brilliant and accounts for many of the Tories problems.

First, Brown lurched to the right by posing in front of a Union Jack and a slogan "Brown for Britain".

Then he did so by hiring the former head of the CBI and a former head of the Navy for his "government of all the talents".

Next he did so on gambling, followed by cannabis. All, as I have written before, calculated to provoke purrs of approval from the Daily Mail.

Today about deporting foreign prisoners (a reheat, I'm told, of an announcement made by officials some weeks before he became PM) and terror laws. What's more, there's an intriguing hint in The Sun about him announcing a border police force today. If true, that would presumably be the one proposed by Michael Howard and, er, David Cameron.

Brown has moved to occupy ground left free by Cameron's efforts to prove that the Tories have changed. He's done it in a way that maximises destabilising pressure from Tory MPs and what we used to call the Tory press to, you've guessed it, "lurch to the right". And he's made each of his announcements on the one day of the week when the Tory leader used to be able to count on setting the agenda - PMQs day.

The left meanwhile have been given very little to celebrate save for a man they trust replacing a man they'd come to loathe.

Clever isn't it?

Update 12:28 PM: Well well. David Cameron had a choice at PMQs - to defy his critics or to woo them. He chose the latter by "banging on about" (his phrase not mine) Europe and thus allowing Labour to say that he's, you've guessed it, "lurching to the right". He must be very worried.

Update 12:39 PM: So there you have it. Gordon Brown has just announced not a National Border Police Force (the Tories' idea). Deary me, no. He has instead announced his backing for something he's calling a Unified Border Force who will wear uniforms. Imitation is the......

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

Methodist Central Hall: I am attending a book launch with a difference. Different because the author just happens to be the prime minister. Gordon Brown has written "Everyday Heroes" to tell the stories of ordinary people who have inspired him. It follows the book he recently published on the historical figures whose courage he most admires.

"Everyday Heroes" celebrates people such as Erinma Bell who after witnessing a shooting set up a community group to reclaim the streets of Moss Side in Manchester.

Today, though, is about much more than a book. It is about politics. Days after the closing of the cash-for-honours investigation Brown is announcing his intention to "reform the honours system" to reward community heroes so that a "significant majority" of honours go to people like those celebrated in his book (you may recall John Major promising much the same)

In addition. Brown has pledged more money to support community groups, to back the creation over time of a national youth voulnteering programme and the creation of a Council on Social Action.

Much of this could have been said by David Cameron whose biggest idea to date has been "". That is the untold story of the Brown weeks in office. Much of his success has come from occupying the ground that the Tory leader hoped to make his own. Whether today or with his announcements on , and Brown is heading off the Tories before they can re-connect with those who believe that Labour have created a "".

The political battlegorund in the future will not be about who talks of the value of individual and community action but who can deliver it. The Tories will claim that Brown's belief in the state will crowd out, regulate or nationalise community initiatives. He will reply that the Tories are merely putting a new gloss on laissez faire.

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

Quite a number of those who've responded to on the cash for honours saga have questioned or criticised the media's role in it. Now, the wife of one of those caught up in the police investigation has gone further.

Sarah Helm - who's married to Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff - . She recalls one of her two young daughters asking "is Daddy going to prison?" before bursting into tears.

Helm - a journalist herself - goes on to attack the reporting of this investigation in general...

"The reporting of Mr Yates's investigation itself was some of the most unprofessional journalism I have ever seen. At best we saw just sloppy, bad reporting and, at worst, cheap sensation and vindictive lies."

...and my reporting in particular.

"I had interrogated Jonathan myself at great length several times. I had asked about all those stories about 'Ks' and the 'Ps' and I had asked about the 'dodgy emails' and the so-called 'cover-up' until I knew each player in that tedious drama far better than the 91Èȱ¬'s Nick Robinson and, unlike him, I knew each move they had made by heart. As a journalist, I too had wanted to understand the story and wanted to be quite sure that there wasn't a smoking gun in there somewhere. And there wasn't. Not even a dodgy email - whatever contortions Robinson went through to say there was."

I'm well aware that the cash for honours investigation must have been incredibly stressful for those who came under suspicion. Having spoken over the past year to Lord Levy, Ruth Turner and Sir Christopher Evans I had some sense of the pressure they'd been under. Levy sometimes despaired about the impact on his wife and family. Turner was denied a US visa which prevented her from visiting her own parents who now live in the States. This was made all the harder by the fact that they felt unable to respond to allegations which were made against them.

Here, though, is my answer to the criticism of my reporting:

1: The 91Èȱ¬ was right to report extensively on an unprecedented police investigation into a serving prime minister and his closest aides.

2: The judge who granted an injunction against the 91Èȱ¬ declared that, "it is not in dispute that this [91Èȱ¬] investigation is of the highest public interest." Mr Justice Wilkie said in court that, "the ability of journalists to report developments in the case is of the highest importance".

3. The two key pieces of evidence we revealed were significant and have never been disputed. According to a High Court judge, the "key document" (admittedly not an email as we first reported) written by Ruth Turner contained an allegation that Lord Levy asked Turner to lie for him. That, of course, does not mean that he did in fact do so and, as we have always reported, Lord Levy has denied any wrongdoing. The document was intended for Jonathan Powell, although, as we reported, it is not clear whether he ever saw it or was even aware of it.

We also revealed the existence of a note written by a Labour donor, Sir Christopher Evans, in which he says that he and Lord Levy spoke about whether he might be awarded "a K or a Big P" - a reference to a knighthood or a peerage.

4. At all times we reported prominently denials of wrongdoing from those involved and stressed that no charges may ever result - e.g. My report about the Turner document on 6th March 2007 stated:

"Tonight we don't claim, we never intended to claim, that one document could prove anything. We carry on saying of course, that no-one may ever be charged. But what this one document did show is why the police investigation is being extended again and again, is going on almost a year now, and why it continues to cause such political agony for the prime minister, and all those close to him."

And also for example, my report on 15th December '06 on the "K and Big P" note stated:

"We have got to emphasise there are no charges in the cash for honours investigation. There may never be charges. If there are to be, the police will have to find evidence and prove that in court of a link between cash offered or given and honours received or offered. What we have produced tonight does not give that proof at all. It purports to be a record of the conversation between Labour's chief fundraiser and a Labour donor, talking about a K or a Big P. In other words, about honours. Both men and their friends tell me this is the world that they occupy. That they live in a world where people talk all the time about honours in part, because they make substantial donations to political parties but to charities too. It is up to the police to workout if it is more than that, or whether it is just an intriguing and extraordinary insight into an extraordinary world."

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

Lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service met yesterday to finally conclude how this 16 month investigation into allegations of 'cash for honours' - that went to the very heart of Downing St - would end.

Their conclusion?

That there was simply not enough evidence to bring charges, in particular against the three individuals who came under arrest - Lord Levy (Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, his Middle East envoy, tennis partner and friend), Ruth Turner (the director of government relations when Mr Blair was in Downing St), and businessman Sir Christopher Evans (one of those who'd lent so much money to the Labour party - those secret loans that first produced this extraordinarily damaging investigation).

It's a reprieve* for Tony Blair, but of course, that won't reduce the anger of some of his supporters. I spoke to one of those close to the former PM in the last few hours, who said people cannot overstate just how much damage this did to Mr Blair in his final months in office - he was wounded at a time when he was already under attack, it led to an early exit from Downing Street, and all the while, Mr Blair felt quite unable to defend himself.

There is anger too, of course, from those who came under inquiry. But there is also anger from those who brought the original allegations. Angus MacNeil, the Scottish nationalist MP, has expressed his disbelief, and demanded to know exactly what the police recommendation was to the CPS.

All in all, this is sure to produce a monumental row. Assistant Commissioner John Yates of Scotland Yard will come to the defence of his officers tomorrow, after the announcement is made, insisting as he's always done, that they were simply doing their job - looking into the evidence, and taking so long only because some of that evidence had been concealed.

And let's be honest, there will criticism too of the media, for staging what some close to Tony Blair describe as a witchhunt. At the end of it all, I suspect, rather like at the end of the Hutton Inquiry, there will be no agreement as to whether justice has been done, or whether we are seeing a whitewash - or even, if this matter is truly at an end.

The only agreement that there might be is this - perhaps there needs to be a better way of investigating these sorts of serious allegations.

*Update, 6 December 2007: A reader has challenged the use of the word "reprieve" to describe the decision of the CPS not to bring charges on the grounds that it might have implied guilt. Given that Mr Blair was never questioned as a suspect there was no question of him being charged or, indeed, reprieved in the legal sense. My point was that it was a political reprieve that none of his staff were charged. This judgement from the 91Èȱ¬'s Editorial Complaints Unit explores this in more detail.

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

Newsrooms across London are filled with the sound of a lively debate about how much the home secretary's "" to using cannabis matters. Some argue that no one cares anymore. Others that many beyond the liberal metropolitan set do care passionately. Some that it shows she's in touch. Others that she's a hypocrite.

The polls taken after the repeated speculation about David Cameron's drug use tells us the answer.

found that 81% thought that drug use at school or university by politicians did not matter.

A higher proportion - 85% - agreed that MPs should not have to answer questions about such activity because politicians were entitled to "have made mistakes when they were growing up".

The polls are less clear about harder drug use. Populus found that almost two thirds (64%) said it would matter if "more serious" drugs were involved and 71% would be concerned if any drug use had carried on into working life. However, suggested it would make no difference to two thirds of voters (66%) if the leader of the Conservatives had used cocaine at some point in the past. 28% of the sample said they'd be less likely to vote Conservative if they knew the party leader had used the drug.

Younger voters and men were more tolerant of past drug taking by politicians.

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

Funny place Westminster. The man who became prime minister rejecting the need for a general election to confirm him in office is, we are endlessly told, secretly considering holding - you guessed it - a general election. The signs are, it's said, all there.

This week we were informed in hushed tones of what was said at Cabinet. Normally the confidentiality of these discussions is fiercely protected. Not so this week. We were invited to report that Labour's general election co-ordinator had told his ministerial colleagues that - wait for it - the polls were looking good for the party and that - it gets better - I quote "because of the weakness of his position David Cameron has been forced to revert to right wing issues". Had those words been issued as a party press release most self respecting journalists would have put them in the file marked "propaganda" - known in my office as the bin.

Ah but, I hear you say, didn't I hear recently that Mr Miliband - that is the less famous of the two brothers - had begun drafting the next Labour manifesto? You did hear that but did you pause to consider what the words "begun drafting" might actually mean? Would typing the word "manifesto" at the top of a page qualify? There is, though, one word to describe the talk of a snap election - it's tosh.

Gordon Brown HAS laid plans for this autumn and those plans don't include an election. Key amongst them is October's comprehensive spending review which is meant not just to set the budget for every Whitehall department but to spell out the political dividing lines between Labour and the Tories. Mr Brown may have changed jobs recently but he's not changed his view of elections. The next - he believes - will be won as the last three have been - by posing a choice to the electorate between investment and cuts.

When Team Brown came to office, their planning assumption was for an election in spring 2009. The Brown bounce in the polls has put a spring into their step. It's allowed them to begin to dare to dream of what they might do if - and it's some if - that poll lead survives. They will, as all governing parties always do, then make sure they're ready for a vote whenever their leader thinks they can win one. Many Tories but very few Labour politicians I meet see that coming before next spring at the very earliest.

What then has all the fuss been about? In the main it's been a deliberate policy to unnerve the Tories - an attempt to confuse them about when to release their policies and when to spend their money too. There is, though, one respect in which election fever at Westminster is genuine.

Today sees the first electoral test since Gordon Brown became prime minister with in Ealing and in Sedgefield - two traditionally safe Labour seats. All the parties know that the results will be relentlessly examined for signs as to whether the Brown bandwagon is steamrolling on or beginning to stall; for whether David Cameron is faltering or recovering and for signs of life or perhaps terminal decay in Ming Campbell's leadership. That will keep politicians - and yes, we in the commentariat - guessing, calculating, plotting possible election dates. The rest of you can relax. You won't be asked to vote for some time yet.

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

In politics, you should always ask yourself why people are saying the things that they're saying.

At the moment, both Gordon Brown and David Cameron are competing for the ear of a single man - Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail. It's the paper which both men believe has a direct line to the voters of Middle England and which, although it's traditionally Tory backing, is willing to heap praise or pour ordure on to the heads of leaders of either party.

Dacre has long been close to Brown. So much so that he attended the funeral for the Brown's first child, Jennifer. The two men may disagree about much - not least Europe and the need to cut taxes - but they also recognise that they are kindred spirits in other ways - not least their aversion to what they would regard as the spin and lack of substance of Messrs Blair and Cameron.

Yet it was Mr Cameron who won the first round of the "Battle for Dacre's ear" with his promise of a tax cut to back marriage. The very next day (a coincidence?) Gordon Brown went onto the radio to remind people that he was a son of a Church of Scotland minister before going on to announce a U turn on Super Casinos. You've guessed it, he was rewarded with a glowing editorial in the Mail.

Today at PMQs I suspect both men were trying to drop a word in the ear of Dacre and, whilst they were at it, Middle England too. David Cameron asked about the crimes committed by those released early from prison. Meantime, Gordon Brown announced a review of whether cannabis should be upgraded to Class B from Class C. Just the sort of thing Mr Dacre might like.

Both men may be disappointed today as I suspect the Mail may focus on their enemy of choice - that's right, the 91Èȱ¬.

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

Can't help noticing how the spat with Russia has triggered a Cold War nostalgia in the commentariat. On Sunday my colleague Andy Marr began to refer to the Soviet Union before hastily adding the word "former". Sky's normally flawless Adam Boulton seemed to herald a nuclear showdown before making it clear he meant a diplomatic one. Perhaps it's all thanks to the news that the has James shaken not stirred by his clash with the Ruskies.

Of course, to anyone not approaching 40 the Cold War is a phrase that's almost meaningless except as history. It is very curious discovering that the events that shaped my political consciousness are devoid of meaning to so many.

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

Well well well. . When I urged bloggers to draft Boris little did I believe that it would actually happen.

David Cameron must be wondering whether to cheer or cry. He wanted a high-profile, high-octane, fun-packed challenge to Ken but you can have too much of a good thing. If Boris is selected by his party - remember that he does have to win a primary before he becomes the Tory candidate - that high-profile, high-octane, fun-packed challenge would compete daily with anything Team Cameron puts out to promote their man.

Ever since Boris floated the idea - and it was his idea - senior Tories have mused on whether to encourage or discourage him. Will it, they pondered, assist efforts to convince voters that the Tories are a serious alternative government or reinforce Gordon Brown's campaign to convince people that they are out of touch and anything but serious? Having established an open system they could neither pick him nor stop him.

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

Belfast will witness a moment in British constitutional history today. Though the event is a this is not another development in the "peace process".

The significance of today's get together comes not from the presence of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness as first and deputy first ministers (striking though that still is). Nor does it come from the presence of Bertie Ahern, the newly re-elected Irish Taoiseach (striking though that is too).

It's the representation of the other nations of Britain which makes this a historic meeting. You see what's really striking about it is that both Scotland and Wales are being represented by nationalist politicians. The SNP's Alex Salmond is there as first minister of Scotland and joining him is Plaid Cymru's Ieuan Wyn Jones the new deputy first minister of Wales filling in for Labour's Rhodri Morgan who's unwell.

For the first time in British history Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are governed by parties which are demanding more powers for their own elected parliaments or assemblies and who will, at times, unite to oppose Whitehall's diktats.

Already politics has begun to feature arguments about why voters in this or that part of the UK get something which others are denied. Add to that the presence of Gordon Brown as the first Scot to govern the UK since devolution and it's clear that the constitutional question will be a major feature of British politics for many years to come.

PS: Lest I appear exclusivist can I point out that also attending today are Senator Frank Walker, chief minister of Jersey; Stuart Falla, deputy chief minister of Guernsey and James Anthony Brown on behalf of the Isle of Man.

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

"What's the Big Idea?" people often ask politicians. Well, today sees the launch of one very Big Idea - we can have income tax cuts if we pay more in green taxes on driving and flying.

This morning the Lib Dems published plans which they claim can take the basic rate of income tax to its lowest level since 1916. They are not alone in this thinking though. The Tories promised tax break for marriage would, they say, be paid for by higher green taxes. Oddly, you might think, Gordon Brown as chancellor allowed the amount green taxes raise to go down as a share of tax income although he did hike Air Passenger Duty recently to pay for his other plans.

In one sense there is nothing new in this. Ever since the "window tax" and, no doubt, even before then politicians have searched for "painless" ways to tax us or at least ways we won't notice or may not squeal about. Taxing the bads to pay for tax cuts on the good is a snappy slogan for the opposition parties. The test will come when people consider how much more they'll be paying to get to work and go on their hols.

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

Wow. Gordon Brown has just signalled the scrapping of plans to build super-casinos. He announced a review of other ways to regenerate towns and cities. I understand that this review will include the decision to grant the first licence to Manchester.

Expect a rave review from the Daily Mail tomorrow despite another less than sure-footed clash with David Cameron.

UPDATE 1340: A Whitehall source has confirmed my instinct on hearing Gordon Brown by telling the 91Èȱ¬ that super-casinos are "dead in the water".

The only reason that many people in the Labour Party supported the idea of super-casinos in the first place was the prospect of money and jobs to inner-city Manchester, run-down Blackpool and other parts of the country. Gordon Brown knows that - and he is signalling that he will look for other ways to do the same job. This has brought an angry reaction from those who were banking on getting a casino. Graham Stringer - Labour MP and former leader of Manchester City Council has described the decision as "weak and bad" and said it's "insulting" and "risible" to suggest that the City hasn't looked at other ways to revive the city.

This is a victory for an alliance of some on the right (the aforementioned Daily Mail), some within the Labour Party, and a coalition in the House of Lords - remember, it was , not in the Commons, where the government suffered a defeat on this issue which forced them to reconsider the plans.

The puzzle is why he's done this and overshadowed his own "Not the Queen's Speech". My guess is that having seen David Cameron gain a lot of good publicity for his musings on the issue of a "Broken Society" Team Brown thought they'd trump him with an announcement to scrap super-casinos.

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

"I am the son of a Church of Scotland minister". With those ten words this morning Gordon Brown showed his nervousness about the . Some close to Brown think that the Tory leader's made a strategic mistake by looking retro not modern and pessimistic not optimistic about the future of society. I wonder.

Intellectually, Team Brown are certain that it is right to help children regardless of their parents' decisions and they scorn a tax break which would help just a fraction of all parents and would particularly help better off families whose wives don't work. Politically, I sense a nervousness about whether they've allowed Cameron to adopt the idealistic high moral ground. Jonathan Freedland's about the power of the emotional as against the intellectual appeal of politics is worth careful reading.

Of course the traffic is not all one way. Some Tories are nervy that Brown has and "the British way of life". Political cross-dressing is here to stay.

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

So, we're off.

Welcome to the first skirmish of the long long election campaign which began when Gordon Brown became prime minister. No, don't stop reading. This argument has the benefit of being about something that really matters. That something is the "Broken Society" - that's the new catchphrase for the proposition that having mended the British economy politicians have watched as our society has shattered.

The out today blames five evils - family breakdown, addiction (to drugs, alcohol and gambling), poor education, welfare dependency and failed education. The language is a self conscious re-working of - the founder of the welfare state. The message is that that the welfare state has all too often made things worse rather than better - whether through a benefit system that makes it too easy to stay out of work or a drugs policy that gives addicts their next fix.

Today's focus will, though, be . To reduce this to a debate about whether getting hitched is good or bad is too trite. In truth mainstream politicians do not disagree about this. Most subscribe to the view that the evidence shows that marriage is - in most cases - more stable than cohabitation and that two parents are - in most cases - better than one.

Of course, there are plenty of exceptions ranging from the good - lone parents who give their all to their kids - to the bad - abusive fathers who beat their children. However, these examples do not challenge the basic premise.

Gordon Brown has ordered ministers not to engage in an argument about whether marriage is better or worse. That's why the exceptionally bright minister Ed Miliband got into a bit of a tangle on the Today programme this morning when asked just that. The argument is really about the best priorities for spending taxpayers' money and whether governments can or even should signal the way people should lead their lives.

The Tories propose a transferable tax break for married couples as a "signal" of society's approval for marriage. Labour point out that a tax break for all married couples would either cost a lot or give couples very little. It would also only benefit those whose income is high enough to pay tax and where one parent earns very little. Better, they say, to help children regardless of what their parents do and focus help on the poorest.

The Tories will find it easier to make the case for reforming the benefit system. Labour's former welfare minister Frank Field has recently argued that it sends perverse signals about how people should lead their lives. The premiums for single parents in fact represent a "couples' penalty" by making people better off if they separate. This is a problem which John Hutton - the minister in charge until a couple of weeks ago - has himself acknowledged.

Today's report tries to avoid the trap of robbing lone parent Peter to pay for married Paul. The result though is that it comes with a bill attached of over £6 billion which it claims can be paid for by a tougher and more efficient welfare system. Sounds too good to be true. Someone somewhere will have to lose if others are to gain. These are the choices politicians - and ultimately voters - have to make and it's an illusion to think that any of them come value free.

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

I have a confession. I did not rush into work early this morning to read "". I am not now salivating in anticipation of what Alastair Campbell will reveal. I even found his sparring with John Humphrys a little less than exciting. (listen to the interview (mp3 file)).

I did though greatly enjoy Humphrys' reminder that the man who calls for higher standards in journalism once used his column to call prime minister John Major a 'shallow lying toad of a man". Quite.

UPDATE 1130: Reading back on what I wrote above, I realise there's a danger my dismissal of Campbell's diaries show that I'm in a sulk about him. Since writing the entry I discover that he makes just one reference to me and that is to call me a "jerk". Believe it or not, this is not the reason for my genuine lack of interest.

As Anthony Howard has said very eloquently these diaries are useless as memoirs because they're so filleted (listen here). The give away is in the book's title which speaks of "extracts" from Campbell's diaries. The key point is that the extracts were chosen not by a publisher or an editor but by Campbell for political reasons. They give a partial and, therefore, misleading view of recent history unlike the best diaries which show the author and those close to him warts and all.

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

Tory HQ rushed to deny my story about Boris. Soon after they rushed to un-deny it. Why? Well, see for yourself when you read Boris standing the story up. Here's his statement - I've put the key bits in bold:

"Being Mayor of London would be a fantastic job and anyone who loves London would want to consider the possibility very carefully.

"I want to stress that this idea did not come from David Cameron or from anyone in his office but I have, of course, been very struck by the number of people who have been urging me to run.

"In my case, there are huge obstacles - above all my commitment and responsibility to my constituency. It is hard to see how those difficulties could be overcome - but I am ruling nothing out."

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

Draft Boris! Believe it or not, that's the call that's gone up in the Tory leader's office as the search for a Conservative candidate to run for London Mayor hots up. That's right, Boris Johnson is seriously being talked of as the man to put up against Ken Livingstone. Boris, word reaches me, has not dismissed the idea out of hand but cannot think how he would explain to his constituents in Henley why he was spending so long in the Capital.

Can you think of what he could say? If so, perhaps, you can help draft Boris and cheer up every political journalist in the country.

PS: You may recall that David Cameron has already tried to draft Greg Dyke along with the Lib Dems. The recent moves stem, in part, from the sad news that one of the front runners, Nicholas Boles, has had to withdraw from the race after revealing that he is fighting cancer.

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

Ever since the days of Magna Carta our leaders have usually only agreed to limit their powers when seeking to regain the trust of those they govern. So it is today. Gordon Brown's long believed that unless he can restore trust in what this Labour government says voters will simply not listen to anything ministers do say. That is why this is the first statement he's made as Prime Minister.

Without ever uttering the words he's telling the country I am not like Tony Blair. Thus Parliament's guaranteed more say over the decision to go to war and the scrutiny of intelligence...thus the Attorney General will lose any say in many prosecutions - like, we're helpfully informed, those which may follow the cash for honours investigation.

What's still far from clear is the final destination of what the new Prime Minister called a route map and not a final blueprint. It could be a long long way from where we are now - a written constitution, a Bill of Rights and electoral reform - or it could be somewhere quite close to home. One thing which suggests more rather than less change is the interest of all the major parties in constiutional change.

There is one power which Gordon Brown did not change today but is acutely aware of. It's a power that didn't exist in the days of King John. It's the ultimate power we have if we no longer trust our rulers - to kick them out.

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

Before heading off to see the Magna Carta I went to film the Bill of Rights of 1689. It's held in the - 12 floors of air conditioned and dehumidified storage for every Act ever passed.

I filmed there because I think it's likely (though we still don't know) that alongside anti-sleaze measures (a new ministerial code of conduct and watchdog) and new powers for Parliament (to vote on wars and approve public appointments) Gordon Brown may announce moves towards a new Bill of Rights. This may simply be a statement of what it means to be British - both rights and responsibilities. It may, also, be an attempt to narrow the room for judges to interpret the law - in particular the Human Rights Act - in ways which have frustrated ministers' attempts to tighten anti-terror laws.

If that sounds familiar, the Tories proposed just such an idea and have a Commission examining it.

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

"Remind me, what is the route to the Commons press gallery?" Thus joked one of my colleagues when they realised - and you may find this shocking - that they would have to go to hear the prime minister speak to the House of Commons to hear what his plans were for the constitution. What, I hear you cry, no briefing, no interviews in advance, no quiet word in the ear. The answer is no, no and no.

Now I have some thoughts about what might be in this statement but have to go and film the Magna Carta. So bear with me and I'll let you know my thoughts later.

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

David Cameron has just announced a new Shadow Cabinet "of all the talents". Actually, he didn't use that phrase but it was clearly in his mind.

He's making Pauline Neville Jones, a career diplomat and former head of the Joint Intelligence committee, a life Peer so that she can become Shadow Secretary of State for Security. Thus, were he so inclined, he could claim that he has a former chair of JIC in his Shadow Cabinet whereas Gordon Brown only has a former deputy Chair of JIC (Admiral West - made the most junior minister in the 91Èȱ¬ Office last week)

And he's relieving Sayeeda Warsi, a British Born muslim of Pakistani origin of the search for a safe seat by making her a working peer and putting her straight into the Shadow Cabinet in charge of community cohesion. She'll be the first Muslim to sit around any party's top table. Brown, you may recall, hailed his promotion of two young Muslim MPs last week - one became a junior minister, the other a whip.

Brown promoted a woman to the front line in Jacqui Smith. Cameron's now done the same by making Caroline Spelman Party Chairman. The PM promoted young rising stars - Purnell, Burnham et al. Now Cameron's promoted Messrs Gove, Herbert, Hunt and Shapps.

There is, of course, no connection between these two sets of decisions.

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

It's been a great few days for "Not Blair". After 10 years many in the media have reacted with euphoria to "Not Blair's" achievements:

• "Not Blair" was not confident, slick and charismatic when he became prime minister.

• "Not Blair" did not hold a short Cabinet meeting and made clear he was not in favour of "sofa government".

• "Not Blair" did not use a TV interview to outline measures before they were announced in Parliament.

• "Not Blair" did not announce a drive to pass new terror laws within hours of a terrorist attack.

Being not like someone who's dominated politics for a decade and with whom the media have grown bored can get you a long long way. Ask John Major.

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