91热爆

Poverty of aspiration. That, Gordon Brown will argue today, lies at the heart of the failure of the British education system to be world beating. The prime minister has, once again, put on his thinking hat for what promises to be another densely argued speech. He believes that the educational debate in this country since the war has been damaged by an obsession either with state-only solutions or market-only solutions. In fact, he will argue neither can provide the complete answer when the real problem lies with the culture of education in this country.

Poverty of aspiration has been driven, he argues, by an elitist equation that more education must equal less quality and that there is limited room at the top. This pessimistic view is, in any event, outdated, he will argue, by globalisation. The competition is, in other words, no longer to be in the elite with A grades or places at Oxbridge but for a place in highly skilled, highly paid workforce of the global economy.

What does this mean in practice? There he is somewhat more vague.

He's setting a new target to eliminate within the next five years what are now dubbed failing schools. All schools, he'll say, should meet the target of getting at least 30% of their pupils achieving 5 A*-C grades at GCSE including English and Maths. To achieve this he'll urge councils to use both market and state solutions - turning failing schools into academies or bringing in private sector support or simply closing them down.

He will pledge to do more to recruit the brightest and the best to be teachers and to increase the level of parental engagement and interest in a child鈥檚 learning.

Whilst pledging to raise the aspiration of the school system Mr Brown will argue that every child should aspire to an apprenticeship if not to higher education. There will, he will promise, be up to 拢15,000 to compensate employers for the costs of that training.

Like his last week this is a scene setter for next week's which will include a bill to extend the effective school leaving age to 18.

UPDATE, 01:00PM: Some are concerned about my reference to the "British education system". Britain, of course, has three education systems and the UK has four. Whilst the specific policy of closing failing schools or turning them into city academies does not apply outside England, the Brown critique about "poverty of aspiration" clearly does apply to all.

Brown's speech (which you can ) makes an interesting contrast to Michael Gove - the Tory education spokesman's in today's Telegraph. The Tories are manning the barricades in defence of the A-level "gold standard" as once they did over the dilution of excellence in our universities. Labour is claiming that this is an old fashioned and elitist defence of educational privilege for a few.

Read the rest of this entry

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

After many answers from bloggers, here are Sir Malcolm Rifkind's answers (or at least my paraphrase of his views) to the questions I posed yesterday about his plan to stop Scots MPs voting on purely English matters.

NR's Q: Wouldn't this proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour's key priorities "schoolsnhospitals"?

MR's A: Potentially yes although, as many have pointed out, Labour does currently have a majority of seats in England even though it got fewer votes in England at the last election than the Tories.

A UK government without a workable English majority would, Sir Malcolm argues, have to seek compromises and make deals just as governments faced by hung parliaments have had to do or, indeed, as parties have had to in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

NR's Q: If I am right, would the new English 鈥済rand committee鈥� with its Tory majority be able to impose Tory measures on Labour ministers?

MR's A: No because the government and not the new English grand committee would still retain control of the parliamentary timetable; the right to initiate legislation and sole access to the civil service.

NR's Q: If so, wouldn't Labour ministers refuse to implement what was passed or, in practice, seek to bypass MPs and make more and more changes by administrative fiat (more possible than you might think)?

MR's A: Ministers, as now, could simply withdraw amended bills they didn't wish to implement or, of course, seek a compromise amendment.

As well as the danger I pointed to, Sir Malcolm pointed to another - that ministers wrap up English legislation into all British measures to avoid separate votes in the Commons. His proposed solution to this is that the Speaker or an independent committee would determine what should and what should not be considered separate English legislation and, if necessary, order it to be unbundled. He points out that as a Scottish Office minister he was in charge of separate "Right to Buy" legislation for Scotland.

NR's Q: Is Sir Malcolm foreseeing a culture change in British politics whereby a Labour government could only pass those measures for which they could get Tory consent or build a coalition a little as Alex Salmond now has to do at Holyrood?

MR's A: Yes although this is not new since Jim Callaghan had to do this when his majority was not enough to govern alone.

This leads me to ask two more questions, the answers to which will determine your attitude to Sir Malcolm's ideas:

Q: Will English voters be satisfied by the fact that their MPs can block or amend the proposals of a UK government which does not have an English majority or will they, having been given that, go on to demand their own parliament and their own government?

Q: Will Scottish voters feel that this proposal makes it highly unlikely that an MP for a Scottish constituency will ever again become prime minister - since they would never have been able to vote on some of the issues which are dearest to voters鈥� hearts - and, therefore, increase the appetite for Scottish independence?

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

How would it work? That is the question I have yet to see asked or answered by the Tory Scot who represents an English seat who's arguing that Scottish MPs (and remember he means MPs for Scottish constituencies, not Scots) should be barred from voting on purely English matters.

Now I don't doubt that Sir Malcolm Rifkind has answers but, since I have yet to be able to ask him for them, here for starters are my questions:

鈥� Wouldn't this proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour's key priorities "schoolsnhospitals"?

鈥� If I am right, would the new English 鈥済rand committee鈥� with its Tory majority be able to impose Tory measures on Labour ministers?

鈥� If so, wouldn't Labour ministers refuse to implement what was passed or, in practice, seek to bypass MPs and make more and more changes by administrative fiat (more possible than you might think)?

鈥� Is Sir Malcolm foreseeing a culture change in British politics whereby a Labour government could only pass those measures for which they could get Tory consent or build a coalition a little as Alex Salmond now has to do at Holyrood?

Your answers - and his, of course - gratefully received.

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

Was it a guddle* or a fix? That's the question at the heart of about the report into the Scottish elections fiasco.

(pdf file) appears clear: it says, "what is characteristic of 2007 was a notable level of party self-interest evident in Ministerial decision-making". It does not, however, name names, since it goes on to say, "we have had no intention of - and, in fact, have scrupulously sought to avoid - assigning blame to individuals and institutions".

Its author, however, used interviews and a news conference yesterday to spread the blame beyond Scottish ministers and, in particular, Douglas Alexander saying, in effect, that politicians of all stripes played too big a role in the election process. In other words, Alexander presided over a mess or a guddle and not a fix. That's why the former Scottish secretary today apologised, in effect, for presiding over a cock-up (albeit one that he claims all parties were consulted on and agreed with) but has fiercely rejected the implication that he somehow rigged the polls.

This is a debate which has been had endlessly in Scotland ever since May 1st but has only just exploded onto the UK political stage. One reason for that is that Douglas Alexander is not just a cabinet minister, he is a friend and adviser to Gordon Brown. The opposition are targeting him to hurt Brown. Before he reached Number Ten many predicted that Ed Balls would play the role of Gordon Brown's Mandelson figure - the man the opposition attack to weaken the leader. Douglas Alexander has, unhappily for him, discovered that that prediction was wrong.

* Guddle = a state of untidiness or confusion, or an untidy place (informal) . (back to the top!)

PS: My colleague Brian Taylor, 91热爆 Scotland's political editor, has also written on this subject on his blog.

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

What do we want? Power to the people. When do we want it? Now but, er, not necessarily in the future... because that's a hypothetical question.

That, in summary, was David Cameron's answer to repeated questioning at his news conference this morning.

Eurosceptic Tories want him to promise that whenever he comes to office, and whether or not the Treaty has been agreed by Parliament or, indeed, all other EU countries, he will give the people their say. This would amount to a commitment to re-negotiate Britain's whole relationship with the EU which is precisely why the Tory leader wants to avoid it. On the other hand he does not want to say no and thus antagonise the sceptics and possibly trigger a battle about the next Tory manifesto.

So, he said that it was a hypothetical question based on the assumption that Gordon Brown cannot be persauded by Parliament or the people to change his mind.

He did, however, misspeak (I assume) in a way which may be seized on by the sceptics. He promised to have a referendum after the next election "if we can". I suspect he meant if the treaty has not become law but that is not what he actually said and sceptics will surely point out that Britain can give the people their say whenever she likes.

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

This will be a bloody and a bitter battle. So I have been told again and again by leading Lib Dems looking forward - if that's the right phrase - to the battle ahead.

Chris Huhne's low key did not live up to this billing. He quietly and earnestly spelt out his vision before summing it up in nine words - a "fairer and greener society where people are in charge".

But then when asked about Sir Ming's downfall he added five more words which may just signal the wounds which may lie ahead. Ming, he said, had fallen "victim of a Camelot obsession". Think carefully about that phrase. He did not say that the ex-leader had fallen a victim of ageism. Instead, child of the 60s as he is, he referred to Camelot. That, of course, was the name given to the court of JFK whose presidency was identified with youth, good looks and glamour.

You don't think it's just possible that he might have been making a point about the future and not just the past, do you? Could he have been issuing a warning to his party to ignore all those glowing media write-ups for the candidate who is young, good looking and telegenic? I must ask Nick Clegg what he thinks.

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

Vince Cable - acting leader of the Lib Dems following Sir Menzies' resignation - has told me this morning that he will NOT be a candidate for the leadership of the party.

He said that given, "the current irrational prejudice about age" he had concluded that, "an older candidate is not electable". Mr Cable is 64 - two years younger than Sir Menzies. He added that he will not support any other candidate, as he believes it is his duty to focus on being the acting leader for the next eight weeks - beginning at today's Prime Minister's Questions.

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

"Irritated and frustrated." That is how Sir Menzies Campbell describes himself on the day after the shock resignation before.

In an interview I have just completed with the former Lib Dem leader at his Edinburgh home (which you can watch here), he told me that after seven days of headlines about leadership doubts, he had concluded that it would be, "very hard to get out from under" the questions about his age and his leadership.

Although he sticks to the party line that it was his decision - and his alone - to go, his face (and occasionally, verbal hints) tell a different story. One or two colleagues, he told me, could have, "said different things in public". Like Vince Cable, or Simon Hughes, I suggest. He refuses to answer, but his face gives its own reply.

Cheekily, I suggest to him that his outspoken wife Elspeth might go further. "That's why," he said with a grin, "I am giving the interview, and she isn't!"

He declared himself angry with what he called the media obsession with his age. But this is just a taster of what we will now learn about in an autobiography he is promising to complete. He will, he told me, have quite a few stories to tell - and yes, they will include the story of his downfall, and that of Charles Kennedy's.

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

So, we didn't have to wait long to solve the mystery, to find the answer to the question, "did he jump or was he pushed?"

Paddy Ashdown answered it, unwittingly I suspect, in an interview this morning (listen here). As a friend and admirer of the former Lib Dem leader, he said he'd planned to see Ming this morning to tell him, "when you go, go on your own terms". Not a shove in the back then but certainly no offer to fight in the ditches to see off the plotters and the naysayers. It was, instead, more a message of sympathy and support for a man about to take a step over the political precipice.

If this was Ming's friends speaking in public you can only imagine what some of his enemies may have said or, just as importantly, not said, in private. Unlike the defenestration of Charles Kennedy there were no 'round robin' letters demanding the leader go, no delegations of men in grey sandals, no face-to-face confrontations. The knowledge that they could - and even would - follow was ever present. This time the Lib Dem leader was slain by the silence of colleagues who did not come to his aid when people said he was too old, too poor at presentation, and doing too badly in the polls to go on.

Ming Campbell's friends say it was an honourable decision made by an honourable man. Yesterday he consulted just a handful of his closest confidants asking them a simple question - could they see a way he could escape the persistent doubts about his leadership? He had, he told them, had a good conference, he'd given a good speech, the party's ratings had briefly risen to 20%, he'd been well received at party events even once that figure tumbled and yet, every time he tried to focus on policy - the prospect of council tax rises at the weekend - the only story in town was about his failing leadership. Those who spoke to him tell me that he fell back on his lawyer's training, weighed the evidence presented to him by a small number of trusted witnesses and then reached his verdict. It was over.

His most senior colleagues had not the faintest clue what was going on. When Vince Cable appeared on The World at One yesterday to confirm unhelpfully that the party was discussing Ming's leadership, he knew nothing. When Simon Hughes had called on him to raise his game, he too had known nothing. When Ming's favoured successor, Nick Clegg, came to the cameras at teatime yesterday to urge Ming to stay he too knew nothing. When they did find out it was not from their leader. He was, by then, well on his way home to Edinburgh determined to get through his front door before the cameras could be sent to capture the defeated leader's face.

In truth there are two men responsible for the loss of two Lib Dems leaders in two years - neither of them are party members. It has been David Cameron who has successfully driven down the third party's ratings. And it was Gordon Brown's decision not to call an early election which signalled to restless party members that there was, after all, time to search for another leader to head off the Tory/Labour squeeze.

The Liberal Democrats dumped a popular leader for one who was widely respected in Westminster. Now that he has gone their hopes rest with men who are little known in the country and relatively inexperienced at Westminster. The party must hope this morning that it's third time lucky.

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

that no-one expected but which many Lib Dems privately said they wanted to hear - an opportunity to select a new leader without having to spill the current leader's blood.

This afternoon Menzies Campbell told shocked staff at his party HQ that he did not believe he could turn his or his party's ratings around.

It was always assumed that this fiercely proud and competitive man would never surrender the top job. It now appears clear that that pride did not allow him to continue as the media hounded him and as few in his party would come to his defence.

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

What on earth did he mean ?

Lib Dem deputy leader Vince Cable has an unnerving habit of answering a straight question with a straight answer. Asked about Sir Ming Campbell's leadership, he replied, "it's certainly under discussion" before adding, "I don't think it's under threat". He went on to predict that it was "very likely" Sir Menzies would want to stay. Not exactly a "stop the speculation and rally round the leader" message then.

Cable is acknowledging in public what much of his party are talking about in private. The 'election that never was' decision has forced the Lib Dems to face up to the fact that polling day may not be merely 20 months away - in May 2009. It could be 32 months away - in May 2010 - if an economic downturn forces Brown to go long. By then, Campbell would be about to turn 69.

The question Cable is implicitly asking is - is our leader really up for that long and that bruising a fight?

The question many others in the party are asking is - even if he is, can we afford to let him carry on?

If the answer to the first question is "yes" and the second is "no", the Lib Dems have a real problem.

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

Blair - the backseat driver. That was the prospect raised by the headlines in some of the Sundays (, and ). It is wrong, as the former prime minister's office were swift to point out, but that should not comfort Team Brown too much. The Blairites are not plotting at this, the first hint of trouble for Gordon but they are shaking their heads, muttering "I told you so" and musing about how they can shape "the vision thing" which all now agree Labour needs to find.

"Get behind Gordon" was, I'm told, the sentiment of the former dear leader鈥檚 texts to his closest allies (having just got a mobile phone he's sending them thick and fast). Tony, one source said, needs this project to work.

That has not, of course, stopped some of his cheerleaders pointing out that it was who saw the inheritance tax problem coming, wrote a pamphlet warning of the threat it posed to Labour and was then roundly condemned by a certain Alistair Darling for doing so. Byers will, I predict, have more ideas to contribute soon.

It's also been noted that a self-inflicted wound rooted in mis-reading the polls and the media followed the first occasion in years when Alastair Campbell and Philip Gould were not involved.

So, there is no Blairite revolt but there is a feeling around that Gordon Brown needs to be persuaded to listen to voices way beyond his own intimate circle.

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

Character assassination. That, in two words, was David Cameron's approach to Gordon Brown at Prime Minister's Questions.

So far, at least, opinion polling suggests quite a gulf between public perceptions of the last week and those in the political village where there is still open-mouthed disbelief at the prime minister's self-inflicted wounds. The Tories want to close that gap - to convince voters, in Cameron's words that "never have the British people been treated with such contempt鈥� that he has lost political authority and moral authority".

If the Conservatives succeed, then what?

Gordon Brown is going to have to find a way to flesh out that "vision" he has spoken of so often. If I were in Downing Street I would be very worried that this is now a common theme of respected and sympathetic commentators from the FT's to the Guardian's and The Times's .

The Tories now need to work out what to do for an encore. Labour will portray their commitments to spend a billion on lifting inheritance tax from some of the richest in the land and to force benefit claimants back to work as "lurches to the right". The Tory press will say that success came when their demands for "red meat" were listened to. This is, curiously, a moment of maximum danger for Tory modernisers.

And the Lib Dems must work out what to do about Ming. They had good reason to believe that the exposure of an election campaign would remind people of their leader's virtues. Without it, what will they do?

The election that never was is now at an end. It's time for all to think again - hard.

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

Imitation - they say - is the sincerest form of flattery. If so, the Conservatives should be feeling very very flattered.

Today the list of measures announced by the chancellor sounded like a watered down summary of the proposals unveiled at the Tory Conference. This will spawn endless headlines about foxes being shot or political clothes being swapped. It will allow the Tories to claim that they're making the political weather and winning the battle of ideas.

And yet, the Prime Minister is unlikely to care about such things. He smiled broadly as each measure was announced by his ally Alastair Darling. He will hope that he has dealt with the grievances of those who fear they'll be taxed too much if they or their parents die as well as the anger that the non-domiciled rich are taxed too little.

He will also now claim that David Cameron is committed to spending two billion pounds of public money on unnecessary tax cuts which will benefit the richest most - money, which, he will insist, will have, in the end to be paid for by cuts in public spending on health and education.

Thus far, thus clear if voters were to be able to choose in a few weeks time but, of course, they won't. With an election not likely now before 2009 these arguments about how to spend relatively small sums of public may barely be remembered by the time we all do get to vote.

What will be in people's minds is how well the British economy, voters and our public services have weathered a period of lower growth, higher borrowing and lower public spending increases.

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

A visibly nervy Alastair Darling is reading a script written by Gordon Brown's Treasury. He has just announced the key facts - that his growth forecast is down and borrowing forecast is up.

The politics is still to come but I confidently predict that he will announce a significant reform of inheritance tax and extra spending for health and education. Calculators out at the end to be sure what it really means.

UPDATE AT 03:55PM: Now the politics begins...

Imitation is, they say, the sincerest form of flattery.

He has just lifted the proposal of the Tories and the Lib Dems to reform air passenger duty so it is a per plane rather than a per passenger tax.

And - having - rubbished Tory proposals to raise 拢3.5 billion from "non domicile" taxpayers - he signalled that he would look at the very same issue. It's worth noting that the Treasury review of this began in 2003.

UPDATE 04:12PM: There we go. He has, in fact, in effect doubled the inheritance tax threshold for widows and widowers and backdated it too. This is winning the jeers of the Tories for stealing their ideas but the chancellor will comfort himself that this will re-assure precisely that group of voters in marginal seats who were wooed by the Tories and will be welcomed by the Daily Mail, amongst others, as a boost for marriage.

George Osborne's most powerful line of attack is that Gordon Brown has talked about having a vision but had to wait for the Tories to tell him what it is.

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

Just when you thought you'd never hear the words "cash for honours" again, out pops a mysterious press notice from the Crown Prosecution Service stating that they've just advised the Met that "there is insufficient evidence to charge any individuals after an investigation into allegations under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 in relation to the Conservative Party." That's right, the Tories.

The CPS says that the file of evidence centred on two separate matters - the nomination of a donor as a working peer and an approach made to the Conservative Party by a party donor. Who are these people? I don't yet know but I'm keen to find out!

As the champagne flowed at the recent Tory treasurers鈥� reception at the Conservative Party conference, one Tory moneybags confessed his relief that "cash for honours" had not tainted them. Clearly, it got closer than any of us realised.

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

Pity poor Alistair Darling. Not only is he the poor soul who has to follow a decade of the 鈥渕ost successful chancellor in living memory". Not only does he have to do that with the Iron Chancellor as his boss. He is also the man sitting in the Treasury as the economic music stops or, to be more precise, slows.

The Big Picture of today's and Comprehensive Spending Review is slower economic growth and slower spending rises - slower, that is, than at any time since Labour came to power and barely faster in many areas than during Tory years.

Darling has one great advantage over Brown though. He neither seeks nor enjoys the political limelight. He is one of those rare political creatures who enjoys power combined with obscurity. I recall asking him how I'd judge his success at a previous department. His answer - meant sincerely - was "by the speed I reduce the number of times this place makes the press".

As chancellor, total obscurity is not an option and all holders of the office produce political rabbits from hats to liven up an otherwise dreary list of statistics and reviews.

So, today there will be giveaways, new green taxes and higher taxes on "private equity fat cats" and Tory foxes hunted if not yet actually shot on the issue of inheritance tax. The real significance of today, however, will be the public acknowledgement that we - both the government and individuals - have less money than we've enjoyed for years.

PS. Last night I reviewed all the comments posted on the non-election announcement. I remain staggered at the number of people willing to blame media speculation for a story which the PM himself now openly admits was true ("I did consider it") and which he admits he could have killed ("I could have decided earlier").

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

Concede and move on. That is the advice which Gordon Brown has clearly taken to heart. So, he has just admitted it was his decision to prepare for an election and his mistake not to make up his mind to call it off earlier.

Many voters may welcome that candour and consider this story at an end. He risks, however, the charge of being a "ditherer" joining the one that he is a "bottler".

I do not believe that this is, in any sense, a mortal blow to the PM. The impact is, instead, that he has given a blood transfusion to his enemy just as he was fighting for political life.

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

Here we go again. The prime minister, we're told, "will brave the inquisition/face the music/confront the feral beast [choose cliche of choice] at the beginning of his worst week yet".

Heard it before? Of course you have, whenever Tony Blair was in the soup. Downing Street organised today's news conference to show that Gordon Brown, just like his predecessor, could withstand the slings and arrows, the name-calling and the cat calls and still emerge looking like a prime minister.

The truth is that he would far rather do this at a news conference than in the bear-pit of Parliament or a round with the media's toughest interviewers. It isn't that difficult when you get to choose the questions (allowing you to say "the lady at the back with the headscarf" if the going gets tough and you fancy a detour into the Middle East) and you disallow follow-ups and when you stand up in the state rooms of Downing Street looking prime ministerial.

Naturally, it would not be wise of me to set out what I hope to ask. As ever the Mrs Merton approach (see blogs passim) would be the most apt and fun but ultimately too facetious:

"Prime minister, what finally convinced you to call off an election which the pollsters told you you might lose?"

Your suggestions for what I should ask always gratefully received.

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

So it was "tosh". There will be no early election. Gordon Brown will claim that although he considered going to the polls he did not believe it was enough to run on 100 days' track record in the job. He would prefer to have a real mandate for change.

Others may care to note that a poll of key marginal constituencies due to appear in tomorrow's News of the World will show that he could have lost that election. Perhaps this assisted the decision-making process. Having allowed the talk of a snap poll to be ramped up by his key ministerial alliies, having put his party on standby, and having altered government business to allow an election to go ahead, this is a considerable embarrassment for Gordon Brown, and will be a huge morale boost for his opponents. On the other hand, people vote about their finances and their personal security, and not on the basis of red faces.

There is an irony in all of this. Although the Tories said bring it on, they did not want an election which they were pretty sure they would lose. Today some of them will be sitting at home wondering what if...

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

Rumour has it that the poll of marginal constituencies which has been carried out for tomorrow's News of the World by ICM shows a significant Tory lead. Surely they will have to confirm soon that there will be no snap election...

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

So why isn't the election off? Surely, you may say, with polls this tight, this volatile and with a history of overstating Labour鈥檚 ratings; surely with difficult boundary changes; and surely with there being no need to risk all now, Gordon Brown will pull back? Not yet he ain't. His aides still say that the decision has yet to be taken.

Why not? Brown would be mad - and he isn't - to allow his fate to rest on one set of polls straight after the Tories' best week for a long time. He will care more about:

鈥� polls taken in marginals - for several days Team Brown have said that the Tories鈥� promise to cut inheritance tax is playing well here
鈥� an assessment of whether the Tories鈥� policies can be "undone" in a short campaign or will take longer to undermine. Labour believes that "the sums don't add up" attack will work eventually
鈥� polls which assess his strengths against David Cameron - he's been way ahead on measures of strength, being "in touch" and having answers to the problems Britain faces
鈥� advice about turnout in November - some ministers believe it will knock 2% off Labour's share but others say that there's no reason to believe that their voters dislike the dark and rain more than the Tories

I suspect that on all the above Brown will believe that he can win but questions will still remain:

鈥� Would a fourth consecutive election victory be such an achievement that you simply have to go for it when you can, even if you risk a smaller majority?
鈥� How weakened would he be by a lower majority in a low turnout in an unnecessary election?
鈥� Is this the Tories鈥� high-water mark - following a showcase conference displaying a rare week of unity and unveiling their best policies - or a platform for their recovery?
鈥� How black are those economic clouds on the horizon?

Gordon Brown is, as William Hague observed this week, a "calculator" rather than an instinctive politician. There will be more questions he'll ask, twice as many opinions and three times as many doubts.

So, the man who didn't run against Tony Blair in 1994, who didn't lead moves to topple him will, I believe, hesitate again. That, of course, could turn out to be "tosh"!

UPDATE 11.20: The news that the Comprehensive Spending Review is on Tuesday does not alter election calculations. It probably reflects a desire to have a proper opportunity for a statement on Iraq on Monday after all the of GB's visit.

More significant though will be the downgrading of forecasts for economic growth. UBS have just downgraded their UK growth figures to 1.9% for 2008 compared to the Treasury forecast of 2.5-3.0% which Alastair Darling has he will revise next week.

The possibility of a persistent economic slowdown is one reason some ministers believe that if an election is not held now it won't be until 2009.

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

Key to is giving patients access to services when they need them. Funnily enough I've just been putting that to the test in Blackpool, so here's my input to the Darzi review.

Finding myself without my asthma inhaler when I needed it in the middle of the night I ring for advice on how to get another. Having answered a dozen form-filling questions (none of which include the basic "what do you think you need?") I am then advised to call another number for an out-of-hours doctors service.

Not wishing to waste a doctor's time in the middle of night I decide to wait till the morning. I go to the local chemist and wave my empty inhaler and wheeze loudly. You need a prescription they say. So I go to the doctor's surgery who say they can get me a prescription if I can wait till three o'clock, or I can go the NHS walk-in centre. Off I go only to be told they don't issue prescriptions there and I need to go somewhere else. Everyone I've spoken to has been pleasant but yet ultimately not helpful.

I've given up and am wheezing my way home.

Let's be clear. I know this is just an anecdote which might have no wider relevance. I also know how important it is that the proper procedures are followed where prescription medicines are concerned. And further, I know this was my fault entirely for not carrying the appropriate drugs with me.

But on the other hand, I don't think I've turned into a misty-eyed nostalgic when I suggest that that in the past someone might have said, "we've got an inhaler you can use (or I'll pop this prescription in front of the doctor) but next time do remember to bring a spare".

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

The man they call the Health Goat in Whitehall has been dragged into the electoral bear pit today. That man is Professor Lord Darzi - a man who's already got more than his fair share of titles and jobs. He's a top surgeon and professor two days a week and the man Gordon Brown brought into the government to head up an inquiry into the NHS four days a week. That's where his latest title comes from. GOAT is the acronym for Government Of All the Talents.

A few weeks ago I observed Darzi as he performed high tech keyhole surgery to remove a gall bladder. His talents there are not in question. As he openly acknowledges what is open to doubt is whether he can transfer that talent to the world of politics.

The decision to become a minister was, he told me, the hardest of his life. It took him two meetings with Gordon Brown and two weeks of worry before he bowed to the pressure to become a minister and not merely an expert adviser.

Both the timing of his interim review - brought forward to allow an election to be called - and his view that "the days of the district general hospital are at an end" (which, he insists he meant only in relation to big cities like London) have ensured that he faces a tough first day in the political spotlight.

You can see why Brown wanted his man. The government has lost the trust of health service staff and desperately wants to regain it. Darzi has a track record of engaging with the staff in the hospitals he works in.

When fellow surgeons at his hospital complained that the porters always brought the patients to surgery late, he decided to become a porter for a day to see how things looked from their perspective. He recalls one colleague who knew about his disguise, calling to warn him that one of the porters was operating on his patients. The serious lesson he learnt was that no-one looked him in the eye when he was a porter so it was no wonder they didn't feel part of the team.

Whilst holding up a lady鈥檚 gall bladder for me to see on his new high definition monitor Darzi told me that Eden's decision to invade Suez was probably taken because his gall bladder op went wrong. The illness that resulted impeded his judgement. When I suggest that this proves that politics and surgery don't mix he laughed. I wonder if the Health Goat would laugh today.

UPDATE: In response to comments about the exact date of the announcement. I have replied here.

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

This was no conference rabble rouser.

More a reassuring chat from that nice clean-cut young man who just popped in to explain how he could mend the country (watch it here). His message? That the other lot aren't wicked, they've tried awfully hard - but they've made a bit of a mess of things.

His aim? To demonstrate that he'd thought carefully about what had gone wrong and therefore knew how to put it right - quietly, systematically and without flashiness. Ah yes, that was the point of today. Convincing voters that though he may be slick, and able to deliver a speech of over an hour and with barely a glance at his notes, he's not flash.

The Tories spent this week spelling out and selling their policies. Today their leader tried to spell out and to sell who he is and what he would do. Forty three million voters may soon have a chance to decide if this is - as he claims - politics you can believe in.

First though, one man must decide whether to take him on. He's got just days to make up his mind.

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

David Cameron is to deliver his speech to the Tory conference without reading from a written text. He will, the Tories say, use handwritten notes to remind him of the key points but wants "to speak from the heart and to have the freedom to express what is in his head". The speech may be as long as an hour so he certainly won't have been able to memorise it all.

Brave. When you're behind you need to be.

UPDATE 01:20 PM: Now, lest you marvel at the idea of a man speaking without notes and assume that this means everything he says will come off the top of his head, let me set you straight. A speech writing team has been working on this speech for many weeks. The Tory leader will, I suspect, have memorised the key passages at the start and end of the speech which is made for TV. He will, I suspect, also have a series of bullet points and key phrases for the rest.

Mr Cameron has, of course, done this before - in the speech which secured him the leadership in this very hall two years ago - and when he won. The latter showed the problems you can get into without notes. He declared that he had six priorities and then only listed five.

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

91热爆 for Christmas. 1,000 British troops are being withdrawn from Iraq. It makes a great headline on the eve of a possible election but let's be clear this is not the story Gordon Brown wanted to tell.

In recent days, he has considered much more radical options which would have allowed him to make a decisive break with the Blairite past. All of them were based on complete withdrawal from Basra.

鈥� Option 1 was to place British troops inside American and Australian bases. Free of the need to defend their own base, significant withdrawals would have been possible.

鈥� Option 2 was to withdraw to a base in Kuwait. Again, significant withdrawals would have followed.

Both were rejected in favour of a gradual draw down of troops of just the sort Tony Blair would have pursued if he'd still been PM.

Be clear about another thing. Gordon Brown has just broken his own promise to make significant announcements in Parliament even though he is due to make a statement on Monday in the Commons. Together with the decision to bring his NHS review forward to this Thursday it is hard to escape the conclusion that everything is being done to prepare for an election announcement as early as next Tuesday.

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

Stand by for a battle of the figures.

The Tories in Blackpool are still preening themselves over what they see as their Robin Hood-esque policy coup - taxing the super rich to hand to the middle classes.

At a stroke it allows them to proclaim the death of death duties for most people whilst ensuring that Roman Abramovich plus his, and many other, foreign football players; American and Japanese and other foreign workers in the City of London pay their dues - something which many on the left (including Gordon Brown when he was shadow chancellor) have demanded for years.

But hold on. If it's that easy to raise 拢3bn why haven't the government done it? Their critics say the answer's fear. They insist it's because it simply cannot be done. Soon you will hear the sound of Alastair Darling insisting that the figures do not add up. You have been warned.

PS. Forgive my blogging silence. I've been struck low by the annual Conference cold!

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