Nick returns next week, and I'm grabbing a few days off before the political year starts again in earnest. So it's the end of my role as caretaker of the blog.
Thanks for the vigorous discussions - I have enjoyed taking part! And from the middle of September, look out for 91Èȱ¬LauraK on Twitter if you are so inclined.
I'll be trying to make 140 characters count from the start of the conference season - events kick off with the TUC in Liverpool.
So who are ?
Figures out today from the have been seized on by the Conservatives.
The shadow work and pensions secretary, Theresa May says they are "scandalous".
They show that the number of people of working age who live in homes where no one has a job has gone up by half a million in the past year. That sounds like a sharp rise and takes the total to 4.8 million.
And for all the people who have lost their jobs, leaving their household without income from work, the effects can of course be devastating.
The figures also show a rise in the number of children living in households where there is no earner - up 170,000 to 1.9 million - an increase which puts the government's target of cutting child poverty further out of reach.
For any government, a rise in the number of people not earning, not contributing tax to the Treasury's coffers, and perhaps requiring financial support from the state is a concern - especially at a time when the screw on public spending is tightening.
But what might surprise you is that while unemployment has been growing fast, the figures show that the increase in the rate of workless households (the proportion of homes in which no adults work) is not in fact so rapid - it's increased by only 1.1 percentage points in the last twelve months to 3.3 million.
That may be the highest year on year increase since 1997, but 1.1% doesn't sound like a lot.
So what does that really tell us? Is this a rise due to recession or a more long term problem?
Well, one social policy expert suggested to me is that what is striking about the figures is how high they were before the recession really began to bite - even this time last year, in roughly one in six homes no one had a job.
So given that, it's hard for the government to blame the number of homes where no one has a job simply on the results of the recession.
But what is a realistic level to expect? It may help to take a closer look at which households are counted in the "workless" totals?
For instance, they don't include households where the occupants are only pensioners. Nor do they include homes where people don't work but live with someone that does, for example a mother or father who stays at home and cares for children while their partner goes out to work.
But the figures do include people who care for a relative at home full time in a household with no other earner, and single parents who don't work (although there's been an increase of more than 10% in the rate of single parents going out to work since 1997).
They also include people who can't work because of disability, people who are recuperating after illness and those who have been lucky enough to be able to choose to retire early.
So, taking that into account, it is clear that there are always going to be households that qualify as workless. But experts suggest that if everyone who could work was working the remaining households might only represent about one in 10, significantly fewer than the current level even before the recession.
Out of the three million or so people claiming out of work benefits on the grounds of disability, research has suggested that at least third of them could do some form of work, and want to.
The employment minister Jim Knight says the government has made real progress in tackling worklessness and points out that there are 2.5 million more people in work than in 1997.
Yet today's figures show that major obstacles clearly still exist for any future government to tackle, if and when the current downturn ends.
PS Theresa May will be attacking the government on its welfare record in a speech tomorrow. But a word of caution - the research the Conservatives are circulating ahead of the speech uses figures from the 2001 census.
Of course she may well still make a compelling argument, but the figures she's using are eight years old. No political party though can quibble with today's stats from the ONS.
Even during the height of the expenses scandal the amount of money being given to political parties went up.
In fact, the figures just published by the Electoral Commission show that donations given between April and June this year were the fourth highest ever in any quarter.
The most generous donor was David Rowland, a financier, who gave more than a million pounds to the Conservatives.
The next five donors in order of largesse were all unions, giving money to the Labour party. . We'll be looking out for any interesting names - more later.
Update, 13:16: The money men...(and woman).
For all the political grumbling about "unacceptable" levels of bonuses in the City and tough words for irresponsible City practices, the list of the top donors to the political parties is still populated by plenty of people who earned their money in the City.
The top donor is David Rowland who gave more than a million pounds to the Conservative party.
He has told the 91Èȱ¬ that he's planning to channel plenty more cash to the Tories in the next two years because he has a "passionate concern for liberty and the economic future of Britain".
He says Cameron's Conservatives will "set the people free" and has given them a cheque for a million pounds to make their mission that bit easier.
He says he is now living in London so that he can support the party rather than Guernsey where he had been based.
Others giving large amounts of money to the Conservatives - Michael Hintze and Michael Farmer for instance - have both made money from hedge funds.
There's also more than £300,000 from IPGL, a financial services business chaired by Michael Spencer, the treasurer of the Conservative party.
There's also a large donation from Susan Anstey, otherwise known as Lady Ashcroft, the wife of Michael Ashcroft, who is funding the Conservatives' work in marginal constituencies and has a desk in Tory HQ.
Labour is also receiving money from financiers - Sir Ronald Cohen, close to Gordon Brown, has given another quarter of a million pounds, along with Nigel Doughty a private equity man.
Labour has also been given cash by Hillside New Media, Ltd - the company behind the online gambling site Bet 365.
Labour might not be that impressed to know that the site is currently offering odds of 1/2 that the Conservatives will win the next election - Alan Johnson is the 1/1 favourite to be the next leader of the Labour party.
But their donations from the private sector are dwarfed by contributions from their union supporters - their top five donors were all unions, giving nearly £3m between them.
The Liberal Democrats biggest donors are Lord Alliance, the textiles millionaire, and the Joseph Rowntree Trust. Between them they gave nearly half a million pounds.
In front of the cameras in the grandeur of the pillar room in No 10, .
In an answer that appeared to have been carefully planned as you would expect, Mr Brown said that his first thoughts were always with the families of those who lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing.
And on the reception that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi received in Libya, the PM said he had been "angry and repulsed".
But on the inevitable question over what he thought of the decision to release of Megrahi well we are not any clearer.
Mr Brown said he had told Colonel Gaddafi that the Westminster government had no role in the decision over Megrahi.
And that as it was a matter for the devolved parliament, and a quasi judicial one at that (not something that Downing Street has chosen to highlight in recent days) the UK government "had no control and could not interfere".
The PM denied that UK relations with other nations had been undermined by Kenny MacAskill's decision.
So will it stop the opposition parties asking what the PM thinks of the decision?
Probably not, but by taking questions on the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber, Mr Brown can no longer be accused of being the invisible man.
PS Due to a mistyping, an earlier version of this post read "Lebanon" where it should obviously have read "Libya". Apologies.
But not on Lockerbie. The PM has just published his letter to the England cricket team, congratulating them on their success in the Ashes. (You can read it below.) For those of you who were eager to hear Mr Brown's view on the decision to release al-Megrahi, you will have to keep waiting.
While the Conservatives and the Lib Dems clamour for him to speak, he seems more focused on the obvious risks to him of making a statement. If he was perceived to support the decision, he would incur American wrath, but the opposite could infuriate the Libyans. Not an easy position to be in.
Incidentally, the explanation given by Downing Street for the lack of comment on the decision has consistently been that it is a devolved matter. But what happens when Mr Brown is next in Scotland and wants to take on the SNP? What happens during the next election campaign for the Scottish Parliament? Will he and other Labour figures refuse to comment on SNP decisions on issues that are devolved? That's hardly likely, but is the logical conclusion of this stance.
Dear Andrew
Ìý
I wanted to write to congratulate you and the entire England squad on regaining the Ashes. The series has been yet another wonderful showcase for cricket and for all that is great about sport. It has provided high sporting drama throughout the summer that has yet again gripped the entire nation, and to win the Ashes with your magnificent display at the Oval - and coming back from the defeat at Headingley in the Fourth Test - shows great determination and commitment.
Ìý
There have been many outstanding performances this summer on both sides, but throughout the series you have led England from the front, with patience, resolution and courage. The country is extremely proud of what you have achieved this summer.
Ìý
I would like to invite the England squad in to Downing Street for a reception to celebrate your victory. We will be in touch to arrange this very shortly.
As , there is mounting pressure on the prime minister to break his silence. The decision over Lockerbie is proving to be the most controversial political event of the summer, yet Downing Street sources have made it clear to me that the PM has no intention of revealing his views on the matter.
That's despite repeated calls from the Conservatives, and , demanding that he speak out.
No 10's insistence that it would be improper for Mr Brown to speak on Lockerbie is given some support by , who says the PM is right to keep quiet, given the constitutional responsibility for the decision lies with Holyrood.
But as former Labour minister and Scottish MP Tom Harris told me last night on Radio 4's Westminster Hour, there is no fixed principle that dictates that UK ministers keep quiet on devolved issues. He said that during his time as a minister he was in frequent contact with his counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't quite chime with ministers' repeated assertions that they had no involvement whatsoever in this decision. And given its magnitude, and obvious wider consequences for UK-wide policy, if they weren't involved, shouldn't they have been?
Gordon Brown will make a fleeting appearance in London this week - will he insist on holding his tongue? Or will this be another episode where days of prime ministerial silence ends in an answer having to be dragged out of Mr Brown to try to close down a row?
In characteristically unapologetic terms, the Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe not only pitches herself as a potential candidate for Strictly Come Dancing in an interview in but she also takes aim at the party's way of choosing its prospective MPs.
She says Mr Cameron's efforts to get more women into parliament threaten to fill the House of Commons with "second class citizens". After gaffes last week by Alan Duncan and Daniel Hannan that threatened to ruin the end of the party leader's holiday, it's not exactly helpful to the Conservative high command. But the Tories aren't alone in having to deal with internal struggles over positive discrimination.
Labour's had its own disputes too, with ructions in some constituencies over the creation of all women shortlists - with some complaints that Harriet Harman is doggedly trying to enforce her preferred policy that women should be fielded in half of all winnable seats in any area.
And rest assured, as we get nearer and nearer the general election, gripes about how prospective MPs will be chosen for seats will get louder. With more MPs expected to announce they are standing down next year, this is a battle that will be fought time and time again.
There have been extraordinary images of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi boarding the plane at Glasgow airport this afternoon.
And the decision by the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release him has provoked a very strong response from David Cameron. He said:
"I think this is wrong and it's the product of some completely nonsensical thinking in my view. If there's a view that the conviction is in some way unsafe, then the proper process is an appeal and the presentation of new evidence. But if this is about genuine release on compassionate grounds I think it is wrong. This man was convicted of murdering 270 people. He showed no compassion to them. They weren't allowed to go home and die with their relatives in their own bed and I think this is a very bad decision."
Of course it's easier to speak in such terms in opposition, but it's fascinating that he's chosen to intervene in such an impassioned and public way, rather than allowing the Conservative leader in Scotland, Annabel Goldie, to lead on the issue.
On top of what is no doubt a genuine anger, it may also suit him to be seen standing alongside the United States rather than the SNP.
It's certainly a sharp contrast to Alistair Darling, who, stepping in for Gordon Brown while he continues his holiday in Scotland, pointedly resisted an invitation to comment on the merits of the decision.
He told the 91Èȱ¬:
"[Y]ou either devolve responsibility for criminal justice or you don't. And I bet you if I'd been saying to you what Kenny McAskill ought to do many people would have cried foul and said, you've devolved...why are you interfering."
But that doesn't mean there is no Labour view on the decision - quite the contrary. The Labour leader in Scotland, Iain Gray, has said that if he had been leading the Scottish administration, Megrahi would not be going back to Libya.
That chimes with the view of the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, Tavish Scott, who described the SNP verdict as "disappointing". The Lib Dem's Cowley Street operation in Westminster left it to him to give their view.
PS One or two people questioned my assertion yesterday that before devolution this decision would have been taken by the UK government because the Scottish legal system has always been separate. But my understanding is that ultimately the decision would have still fallen to a politician, which pre-devolution would have been someone who was part of the same administration as the occupant of No 10.
Understandably today's news is dominated by the Scottish justice secretary's decision on the Lockerbie bomber.
But the eagle eyed among you might have noticed the government borrowing figures published today. They were always going to be bad, but this bad?
The deficit of £8bn for July is the worst figure for that month since modern records began in 1993.
.
Why? In simple terms, tax revenues have slumped and the amount being paid out in benefits is up.
That was to be expected but the fact that the figures are so bad appears to undermine further the chancellor's predictions on how fast the economy will recover.
And it reduces still further any flexibility the winners of next year's general election will have as the strings of the public purse get tighter and tighter.
The Tories are well aware of this and accuse the government of denying there is a debt problem, calling that an "outright deception". The Lib Dems say the figures suggest we're heading for even higher levels of debt.
Despite that the chancellor told the 91Èȱ¬ this lunchtime that the figures were "still broadly in line with what we were expecting", although he hinted again at spending cuts in the medium term, saying the government will have to "live within its means".
That's one way of putting it given that borrowing is already expected to hit £175bn in this financial year.
PS From your posts last night, it's obvious that plenty of this blog's readers really object to the government's DNA database, although there are strong arguments in support of its importance as a crime fighting tool.
Well you might be interested to know that since the December 2008 court ruling that said the blanket gathering of DNA from people arrested in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was illegal, 301, 469 profiles have been added to the computer anyway.
(That figure includes those who have been arrested and never charged, as well as those who have been arrested and charged and then cleared, as well as those who are still in the legal system and of course those who have already been convicted.)
The National Policing Improvement Agency which keeps these statistics says that figure covers the period from 5 December 2008 to 8 July 2009.
So whatever the merits of holding samples from people who is not convicted, many thousands are being added to the database on a weekly basis while the 91Èȱ¬ Office considers its next move.
That's on top of the many thousands of those never convicted - the Conservatives estimate it to be about 800,000 - whose DNA is already on there.
You may remember , the shadow immigration minister, as part of an investigation into leaks from the 91Èȱ¬ Office.
Well although he was never charged with anything, like many thousands of others in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, his DNA details were kept by the police. Tonight he's told the 91Èȱ¬ that his details are to be erased, after appeals from his solicitor.
Yet for many others, never convicted of a crime, having your personal profile removed from the giant DNA database proves nearly impossible.
We've spoken to someone whose 18-month legal battle to get his name removed has so far failed, for tonight's Ten O'Clock News.
Mr Green is now calling for other records to be expunged and says, if in government, the Conservatives would follow the model of Scotland.
There, out of those arrested but not convicted, only those questioned about sexual or violent offences have their DNA stored.
The 91Èȱ¬ Office has already been told by the European Court that . That was back in December. But despite a consultation on what to do next, don't expect any changes in the guidelines soon.
A letter passed to me, written to chief constables by the Association of Chief Police Officers, says the new guidelines won't come into effect until 2010.
So in the meantime, they've been told to carry on as normal.
As the 91Èȱ¬ Office told me, clearly, DNA can be a critical tool for detectives. But after Damian Green's experience, the Conservatives aren't likely to let this drop.
During my couple of days' absence, another transatlantic political story has come to dominate proceedings.
Not the row over the representation of the NHS in the United States, but the possible release of the only person ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the UK's worst ever terrorist attack.
I won't seek here to add to discussion of the mechanics of the decision, or its likely outcome. My colleague, Brian Taylor has written comprehensively about the Scottish government's decision making process here.
Yet whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, and whether or not Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is released, it creates an interesting conundrum in the post devolution world.
The decision on whether to give him his freedom will be made finally by Kenny MacAskill, the SNP Scottish Justice Minister, and member of the Holyrood Parliament.
Not Gordon Brown, not the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, not anyone at the Foreign Office, not anyone in Westminster.
We have heard considerably more from the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton on the subject than any of our Westminster politicians - .
That's because despite the massive interest, and its potential impact on foreign policy, in the end this is a legal decision, and as such under devolution it is the Scottish Parliament that has jurisdiction over the law.
Foreign policy is not devolved, and power over matters relating to the UK's relation to the world is retained by the UK government. And of course the decision over Megrahi does have consequences for the UK's relationship with Libya.
There has been a lot of speculation over what role the rapprochement between the two governments has played in all of this. (You might remember Colonel Gaddafi met Tony Blair in a Bedouin tent in 2004, signalling his move from pariah to international partner).
But no matter. This is a decision for the Scottish government in Edinburgh despite the foreign policy implications. And given the hostility between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalists, a word in the ear from London would hardly be welcome.
And just in the last hour, the International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander, has made it clear, this is not a Westminster decision.
To my mind this is a striking consequence of devolution.
It's no surprise that decisions over health, for example, can have immediate consequences for the border regions of the UK, and have led to some levels of resentment in England where some things have to be paid for that are still free in Scotland or Wales.
But this case shows starkly that Holyrood and Cardiff can still have massive influence even over areas of policy that are not technically in their gift.
When Mr MacAskill takes to the podium to pronounce his final decision, expected tomorrow, he will be all too aware of that.
As some of you have pointed out here, the political noise around has thrust the NHS into the spotlight. But rather than trying to engage in any assessment of where the health service works, and where it doesn't, it seems both of the main parties are vying to be seen as the more devoted fan of the NHS.
Labour is clearly enjoying this recently-rare chance to stick the knife into the Conservatives - they believe that the massive online defence of the NHS shows that they're on the right side. The health service is tribal for them.
And the Conservative leadership is so determined not to be seen as the enemy of the health service that some of their comments today read a bit like NHS fanmail!
One recent poll showed the Conservatives and Labour equally trusted to run the health service: David Cameron doesn't want to throw that away. But with both sides engaged in such a black-and-white argument, I wonder whether either is really achieving very much.
Update 1617: Central to this transatlantic furore is David Cameron's determination for his party to be seen as a safe pair of hands for the health service. So how has he done? And has New Labour's spendfest on the NHS paid off politically?
Here is about who voters think has the best health policies. The numbers relate to voters who name health as an important issue.
It shows a real slide in support for Labour's policies - from 62% in 1995, down to 31% in 2007 (the way the poll was done changed in 2008). That was during all the time that the NHS was seeing a massive increase in its budget.
That's mirrored by a steady rise in the belief that the Conservatives have the best recipe: from a tiny 8% in 1995 (an extraordinarily low base), to a healthier 20% in 2007.
Interestingly, that is very slightly lower than it was when Michael Howard took the party into the last general election. And although it's certainly higher than it was back in the late 1990s, it's nothing like the level of support this particular group of respondents gave Labour in the years before the 1997 landslide.
I would emphasise that this is just one set of poll results from one group of people - but nevertheless a fascinating snapshot.
I can see from your comments that the fans and foes of the NHS among you have equally vigorously-held views, and a debate about the merits of the service now seems to be in full swing.
Andrew Lansley joined his boss in this morning, defending the party's commitment to the NHS after Daniel Hannan's distinctly off-message comments.
And of course, Labour have jumped in feet first. Lord Mandelson, the "other PM" while Gordon Brown's away, . And the health secretary Andy Burnham said Mr Hannan's intervention was Mr Cameron's "worst nightmare".
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit 91Èȱ¬ÌýWebwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Now, Daniel Hannan would be regarded by the majority of Tories as on the right of the party - his views aren't typical and any attempt from Labour to portray them as such should be seen in that light. But after David Cameron's particular efforts to portray his party as sincere supporters of the NHS, the Conservatives did not want to be having this conversation now.
Pundit and punter Mike Smithson : in the quiet summer period, might it just push things a little towards Labour? We'll see.
PS: Incidentally, whatever you think of the Republican campaign criticising the NHS, it has certainly caught the imagination of thousands of Americans. Sunny at Pickled Politics has written : are there discipline lessons for British politicians?
Yesterday, . Today, we've seen a different kind of technology pushing the political agenda.
Daniel Hannan, the right-wing Conservative MEP who scored his own hit on , appeared on Fox News in the United States last Friday to talk about the NHS - you probably know that America is about President Obama's proposals to introduce an element of public provision in healthcare.
In his interview on Fox, Mr Hannan made : as well as earning him a telling-off from the Conservatives' shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley, a growing number of people have since joined lending support to the NHS.
Those posting include . "#welovethenhs" has become one of Twitter's "trending topics" - which, for those us who are not technologically savvy, means it's a subject that's gathering pace.
Rumour has it that , the author of Father Ted, started the groundswell. Whoever it was, it's another fascinating example of how quickly, and how directly technology can respond to political events, and how it can help people to take part.
No surprise that today's papers are full of stories about .
And Paul Goodman - a colleague of Mr Duncan who will escape Westminster when he stands down at the next election - has written .
As we saw in the US last year, with more people carrying phones with cameras and with more of us reading and writing blogs and using instant communication, it is increasingly hard for politicians to have moments when they are genuinely "off-duty".
Recordings of candidates who believe they are off-duty can be very damaging: remember Obama's , made when he thought he was talking only to a private audience?
But is this development a good or a bad thing? Is Mr Goodman right when he suggests that politicians, like everyone else, need to be able to "let off steam"?
Or should levels of scrutiny be so intense that every word that comes out of their mouths is beyond reproach?
We understand that David Cameron is pretty peeved by what Mr Duncan said - but, given the shadow leader's speedy apology yesterday, will Mr Cameron go any further?
I wonder if you can really be sacked for saying aloud what many of your colleagues might think.
Oops.
A bit of a slip from Alan Duncan, Shadow Leader of the House, picked up by the Evening Standard this morning.
Secret filming done by a campaigning group shows him using strong language as he complains MPs have to "live on rations" and get treated badly - after being questioned about his expense claims.
Now he's "apologised unreservedly" for the remarks he made on the Terrace of the House of Commons, a rarefied drinks spot if ever there was one and said they were "meant in jest".
But his comments reveal an attitude that persists among some MPs. Despite public mea culpas some members do feel as if they as a group have been dragged over the coals unfairly.
I don't imagine that many readers of this blog will feel much sympathy for him, and his apology shows that. He's just told the 91Èȱ¬:
"The last thing people want to hear is an MP whingeing about his pay and conditions.
Ìý
"It is a huge honour to be an MP and my remarks, although meant in jest, were completely uncalled for. I apologise for them unreservedly."
Mr Duncan's comments, also display what is perhaps a more serious concern, that after the whole expenses saga and the vilification of MPs, potential politicians might well have been put off aiming for Westminster. I
It's embarrassing for Mr Duncan that his view has come out this way, but it is something many in Westminster worry about.
Update, 17:30: It's crystal clear from comments posted here through the day that anger over MPs' expenses is still burning brightly.
Alan Duncan, who we understand is out of the country on holiday, might have hoped that saying sorry for his comments would be enough.
But think how hard David Cameron has tried to suggest that Conservative MPs are cleaning up their act faster than any other party.
And certainly, some MPs who fell foul of the expenses row felt the wrath of the leadership (still a sore point in some parts of the party that think Mr Cameron has protected his friends whose claims were exposed, but dealt harshly with others).
Add that to the fact that Mr Duncan isn't the best loved member of the shadow cabinet, by his colleagues or grassroots activists, and I think we can expect Mr Cameron to take a pretty dim view of his frontbencher's gaffe.
This may be a story has caught light in the quiet of the summer holidays, but given the ongoing sensitivity of MPs' expenses, it might not be over yet.
Now it's personal.
In case you were in any doubt about the efforts both the main parties are making this summer to distinguish themselves from each other, the last 24 hours should leave you convinced.
George Osborne's attempt to cast his party as the "progressives" who could save the public purse billions as didn't just draw fire from Labour yesterday.
Today, Lord Mandelson, has determinedly hit back, which is scathing and rather personal.
And in the last hour the peer, deputising for the other PM, tried again and again to take the attack to the Conservatives during a that was billed as focusing on today's unemployment figures.
It may be August in Westminster, but the row between Lord Mandelson and George Osborne over who could really prevent deep cuts to the public services is revving up and now it's personal.
Of course increasing numbers of the public are now all too aware that whoever the next government is will have to cut - no sign of that stopping this argument.
And the row over spending now is now clearly shaping up as the battle lines over which the next election will be fought.
PS The unemployment figures should be published at around 09:30. More later.
We have just had it confirmed that the Conservative MP Michael Ancram is to stand down at the next election.
Plenty of speculation about spending in Westminster today. The shadow chancellor is speaking later at the trendy think tank Demos.
Also the location of the launch of James Purnell's new project - Open Left and an important organisation in the formation of New Labour policy in the late 90s.
And will essentially be attempting to throw a traditional Labour accusation of Conservative policy back in the government's face.
Mr Osborne's expected to claim that it's the Conservatives who are now the progressive party and will say that a Tory government would be able to preserve front line services even spending less tax payers' money, because they'd make them more efficient.
And it would be another Labour government that would make deep cuts. This morning he told the 91Èȱ¬:
"I think because of the debt crisis that the country faces we have a choice: we can either reform the way those services are delivered so that the money goes further and you get more for less; or you can face frontline service cuts.
Ìý
"Because Labour have no plan to reform public services, because Gordon Brown has been an obstacle to public service reform for all his political career, unfortunately if the Labour government were re-elected there would be frontline service cuts.
Ìý
"It is the Conservatives, as the progressive force in British politics now, who are thinking seriously about how you change the way you deliver public services so that they can improve the quality of service delivery even in a period of budget restraint."
We're also told to expect more details on the Conservatives plans to let more independent groups set up schools in England, although they wouldn't be allowed to make profits.
The Conservatives often cite the system in Sweden, where "free schools" have caught on, but groups there are allowed to make money. That may not be in the Tories plan, but they clearly see a future where more groups, whether churches or charities, are in a position to provide public services.
Mr Osborne's claim to represent the "progressive force" in British politics, has just been described as "laughable" by Lord Mandelson, looking tanned after returning from his holiday. And that no voters will be "fooled".
(By the way, although he's back, after last week's confusion about who was running the show in the PM's absence, Lord Mandelson says he is not really in charge, but allowing Mr Brown to take a break!)
We may not get more black and white about how the Tories would spend or save taxpayers' cash today. But this is clearly an attempt by Mr Osborne to set out dividing lines between the two main parties - the Tories want voters to believe that they would make our money go further and preserve the services we expect from schools and hospitals. While they contend Labour can't or won't reform, so will end up having to make cuts.
The reality is that whoever forms the next government will have to deal with a massive hole in the books. Changes to how public services are run may not be enough to balance the nation's accounts on their own.
And the squeeze on spending won't just affect government cash that's distributed from Whitehall. Evidence today from the Local Government Association of job cuts councils are already having to make because their revenues are falling. The report suggests that 7,000 workers have already lost their jobs. That could be just the beginning.
suggested that more than quarter of a million jobs could go from the public sector over the next few years. Gloomy predictions in that report paint a bleak picture for some towns and cities where prosperity in the last few years has been based on growth in public sector jobs.
Fascinating stuff has just been released to , revealing the Treasury's assessments of what the war in Iraq might cost.
Documents prepared for Gordon Brown in the run-up to the 2003 Budget - and obtained by the 91Èȱ¬ through freedom of information - say that the "best estimate" of the combat cost of the war is £3.1bn.
But that same document goes on to state clearly that the total "potential military costs" might be much more, some £5bn, since "the emerging politics of post-conflict Iraq are already pointing to a much more substantial commitment both in terms of size and length of stay".
But in the Budget a month after this document was drafted, there is no mention of the larger figure. Now, you would imagine that civil servants would prepare for a range of outcomes.
But at the very least this is an intriguing glimpse of the behind-the-scenes preparations for the Iraq war.
After such interest from many of you in the Bernard Gray report on MoD spending, I can now post the slides that the 91Èȱ¬ obtained yesterday.
The government won't officially acknowledge that these are the actual interim findings.
But as I reported yesterday, sources told us that they were "probably authentic" and, crucially, the MoD has not attempted to deny that they are genuine.
My colleagues at The World at One are planning to do more on this story today.
Apologies for the quality of the reproduction.
UPDATE 2030: The MOD has just sent us this statement:
"We can confirm that these slides have not been produced by Bernard Gray or by the Ministry of Defence and that they do not offer an accurate summary of Bernard's draft report. "
The 91Èȱ¬ cannot reveal the origin of the slides, but sources have again today told us that the information they contain does indeed reflect views contained within the report.
Harriet Harman's brief spell in Downing Street, whether it delighted or upset you, is over for now.
Her office says that she's now on leave. Downing Street has just told us that . The slight problem with that, you might think, is that Lord Mandelson isn't yet actually back from his own holidays or even in the country.
But a spokesperson said: 'the prime minister is in charge if any urgent issues arise".
While the PM, as we know, is taking his short break in the UK, some MPs are off to much more exotic destinations. The top prize among has to go to Nigel Evans, Conservative MP for the Ribble Valley.
Reportedly, he hopes to watch a friend blast off into space at Cape Canaveral.
Update 1508: Now, I hope that cabinet ministers all have their mobiles and smartphones turned on. We've just had another "clarification" on who's really in charge of the government today.
Apparently, it's a job share! A No 10 spokesperson has just updated us saying that Lord Mandelson hasn't in fact taken over the day-to-day running of things yet, and it is in fact a "number of senior ministers who are all helping out".
They are all, apparently, available via mobiles and BlackBerries. So until Monday - when Lord Mandelson returns from Corfu - it seems no one person is in charge.
PS: For those who have been asking, colleagues who have more knowledge of these things tell me the image above is of on 8 August, 2007.
After all the publicity and what was generally considered to be the success of , where all of the constituency's voters were able to take part in choosing the next Conservative candidate, .
Foreign Secretary David Miliband makes the case in ; it will be published later today. Those pages are not exactly the natural home of someone who learned at Tony Blair's knee, so it's interesting that he has chosen to set out his ideas there - an appeal to the parts of the party the foreign secretary doesn't normally reach?
Here's a taste of what he has to say:
"[T]he traditional political structures of mainstream political parties are dying and our biggest concern is the gap between our membership and our potential voter base. We need to expand our reach by building social alliances and increasing opportunity for engagement and interaction with our party."
"[T]he Greek Socialist Party were the only the only European Socialist Party to fare well in the European elections. They have also gone furthest in party reform, opening up the party so that over 900 000 Greeks, out of a population of 11 million, have equal rights as members or 'friends'. The party has quotas for male and female representation, open primaries to select party candidates for local elections and has developed Every Day a Citizen, an organization dedicated to citizen engagement. Such engaging and deliberative party structures enable PASOK to tap into the energy in communities and multiply the force of a national message through local, authentic, committed advocacy, with resultant electoral success."
"We say we want to listen to our voters; why not a system of registered voters as in the US to create the basis for primaries?"
Those advocating a wider use of open primaries don't often dwell on the fact that activists wonder about the point of being in a party if you lose your influence over choosing candidates. But is getting more people involved in politics worth that sacrifice?
PS: You might remember that last year, Mr Miliband kicked up a stink by writing without mentioning Gordon Brown, prompting . This time, his boss is - interestingly - mentioned in the second sentence.
PPS: Thanks to commenter #6 - Totnes the constituency is of course a lot more than Totnes the town; apologies, and the error is fixed.
It's now been put to me that from No 10 's point of view, a set of brakes was put on the interim Gray report because they were reluctant to publish the report's findings on their own.
Downing Street came to the conclusion that they wanted to have an agreed direction of travel, for example draft proposals in the expected Green Paper, before Bernard Gray's work was made public.
Now it's not as if the government always has an immediate response to reviews they commission. Sometimes they say, "thanks very much" and they sit on the shelf for months. Sometimes, a few months later, legislation is forthcoming.
But in this case, Downing Street was seemingly not prepared to allow Mr Gray's hard-hitting verdicts on the MoD to be released in stark isolation - as we now know, they didn't get their way.
More than three hours after we put the details of the documents we received to the Ministry of Defence, we have just received this response.
"The MoD has received the draft version of this review and the issues identified are being discussed with Bernard Gray."We attach great importance to improving procurement and that is why the former Defence Secretary John Hutton commissioned the Gray Review.
"We want to ensure equipment is purchased as efficiently as possible and this review will feed into our recently announced Green Paper on Defence.
"We are constantly improving the procurement process which has seen us deliver £10bn of equipment to the frontline over the last three years."
Still no word back from No 10 - maybe after their row with the MoD, they want to keep out of this.
We've just been given a document that we're told is a set of slides on a presentation given by Bernard Gray on his report on defence procurement.
Reports last night suggested that his findings would be critical of the tangled-up system of defence procurement, suggesting that he might identify up to £2bn that was "wasted" and a system that just didn't work.
But in black and white, the notes that I now have in front of me suggest just how damning the report, now delayed, was going to be. They say Mr Gray concludes that the:
"Ministry of Defence does not really know the price of any kit, and project management does not exist in the Department."
It says the "top 40 programmes annually expect an 80% overrun on time, and 40% on cost". The Ministry of Defence is "in denial" and it says the "current programme will exceed likely MOD funding profile" - in other words, The Ministry of Defence doesn't have enough money to pay for its plans.
There's much more in the document and we don't yet have a response from government. More soon.
Update, 18:42: Still no sign of Bernard Gray himself, but we now have much more detail on what his report into defence procurement was meant to say.
The 91Èȱ¬ has been passed what we're told is a set of slides used to present his findings at two different meetings. One to the NDIC, a group where government meets with the top echelons of the defence industry at the beginning of June, and one at what's described as the "Shrivenham 4 Defence Acquisition Workshop".
While we are yet to have an official response from the Ministry of Defence, sources have just told the 91Èȱ¬ that the slides are "probably authentic".
And we have been told that there was a "major row" between the MoD which was urging Downing Street to stick to the original schedule for the report, and publish it before the summer recess, and No 10, who refused, and delayed publication until the autumn.
We understand that hard copies were already circulating around the MoD, although the ministry is now trying to get them back. But the department's nervousness about delay was that the report would leak over the summer, and potentially be a more troublesome story. Oh, the irony.
The slides add up to a damning verdict on how the MoD deals with long-term decisions about buying kit for the military. Cast your eyes over some of the findings:
• the MoD does not really know the price of any kit and project management does not exist in the department
• top 40 programmes annually expect an 80% overrun on time; 40% on cost
• MoD always late in admitting there is a problem
• time issues are worse than since 1999
• the current programme will "exceed any likely MoD funding profile"
And civil servants may be alarmed to read that Mr Gray appears to say that there are just too many people involved in procurement, and makes a recommendation to:
"Reduce people in the process and those there must be better at their jobs".
So will Downing Street's insistence that there was no row about publication really be able to hold? They're returning my call.
While having to explain the surprise decision by the Bank of England to continue pumping mind bogglingly enormous amounts of money into the economy, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, .
And Mr Timms will have even more heavy red boxes full of documents delivered to his home due to the departure of Lord Carter. Formerly of the No 10 parish, Lord Carter is the author of Digital Britain, a grand opus looking at the future of broadband, broadcasters and all things digital.
No 10 announced this afternoon that Mr Timms will take on responsibility for coming up with a government plan of action in response to Lord Carter's ideas. Given the many controversies in this area, you might well wonder how he'll find the time.
This also means that Mr Timms will have to contend with not one, not two, but three bosses - Mr Darling at the Treasury, and Ben Bradshaw at Culture and you guessed it, Lord Mandelson, the second two will overseeing the work relating to our digital future.
Mr Timms however has just told me he's "delighted" to take on the work. Yes, he said, it's a massive agenda, but he hopes his previous experience as minister for e-commerce will stand him in good stead.
In that role he made clear that in his view, the UK broadband market can't afford to lag behind other countries. Mr Timms told me he plans to put forward proposals as early as next month and he'll be helped by the junior minister, Sion Simon, a staunch Brown loyalist. We'll be watching.
PS Looking at your comments under yesterday's post, it struck me that Harriet Harman is a bit like a well-known yeasty spread: you might love her recent interventions, or you might hate them, but they almost always provoke a strong response.
The Conservatives are up in arms over about, they say, the snarled-up system of defence procurement.
It was drawn up by former defence adviser and businessman Bernard Gray and ordered by the last Defence Secretary John Hutton, who had promised to publish it by the end of July. And it was widely expected to be critical of the Ministry of Defence: the expensive problems of planning and purchasing military equipment for the long term are not much of a secret.
I'm told that a working draft of the report was finished and circulated in the MoD in June. But in one of the last sessions in the Commons this year - and crucially, after Mr Hutton's resignation - . Back then, the pause in publication didn't attract much attention.
But now it's being suggested that the Gray report has been delayed because it's too hot to handle. So what happened?
Well, the Tories are pressing the line that Downing Street quashed the report because its findings were too damning. Certainly, military equipment has since become one of the hottest political issues. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Number 10 believed that the government couldn't afford to take more political criticism of its handling of defence resources.
One former defence secretary indicated to me last night that there would indeed be dangers in this discussion. The Gray report was, he said, only ever meant to consider long-term defence spending, and there was the risk that discussing its findings in the context of troops fighting in Afghanistan would be misleading and arguably quite wrong.
Money for day-to-day operations comes from a different pot of taxpayers' cash to that for long-term projects like building aircraft carriers and big orders like tanks.
But in the current political climate, with , any evidence suggesting the MoD is not using taxpayers' money properly is bound to inflame.
And the point about two different and separate types of defence spending may seem moot to some voters. Both pots are, after all, taxpayers' money.
But ministers deny that Mr Gray's report has been quashed. Defence minister Quentin Davies told the Today programme this morning that report was still not finished, so could not be published. Was it as simple as that?
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit 91Èȱ¬ÌýWebwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Downing Street now tells the 91Èȱ¬ that the report will form part of the wider defence review. That is not expected until after the election. And the Tories are, bit between teeth, demanding immediate publication.
Bernard Gray himself is on holiday and unavailable for comment. Until we hear it from him, we may not know what really happened.
Don't worry: there's no real rift in cabinet, .
Harriet Harman, Jack Straw, and Alan Johnson haven't really fallen out over a planned government review.
Yes there have been "discussions", Westminster code for a clash, at a lower level between Vera Baird and the Police Minister David Hanson about how the review will be carried out.
And yes, we know that Harriet Harman, along with Ms Baird wanted to expand the terms of the review.
But no fight, no fall out we are assured - that's what ministers are sticking to in public at least. Phew!
But what to make of Harriet Harman's involvement?
It's been reported that she had been expected to turn up at visit to a hospital in Manchester for a government announcement. But she didn't make it.
Maybe she is just enjoying being at the desk in No 10 too much to leave the office. She is certainly making her presence felt.
Well, maybe she's following Lord Mandelson's example? Using her stint in charge while Gordon Brown enjoys his frugal UK holiday complete with community work to carve out some coverage for herself.
As Nick blogged here last week, a busy few days for the politician with the longest title in government, last week spelled out the way he wants the next few months of the government's script to be written - with Labour cast as the underdogs.
But after the last few days, it's Ms Harman who is sketching out her version, whether that is trying to beef up the planned review about the low conviction rate for rape, or trying to nail the Labour party to a future where a woman would always be in one of the party's top jobs.
And the relative vacuum of the parliamentary holiday means her remarks have been seized on.
So from her gag about "Lehman sisters" or her determination to push all female short lists for party selection, Ms Harman's recent actions don't just reveal that she has an ambition to drive her particular agenda.
At a time when former Labour ministers mutter darkly that no one in the cabinet has any drive left, she appears to have few reservations about having her say, and rather vigorously at that.
But her words also suggests that she believes that she has an audience for this, at least in parts of the Labour party. The response on some of the left wing blogs today suggests she is right. .
Others in Labour party though shake their head at any stoking of the debate on equality, believing probably correctly that it's not likely to reverse their fortunes. And Ms Harman's prominence of recent days has been .
But such talk does tickle the bellies of parts of the Labour party - of course, those who'll have votes when the party next chooses a leader, quite possibly around about this time next year.
Harriet Harman's propensity to say what she thinks and the belief of many in the party that she does, despite denials, harbour ambitions to be a post Gordon Brown Labour leader, means silence around Camp Harma is unlikely.
Jump to more content from this blog
I'm Nick Robinson. Welcome to Newslog, my blog about what's going on in and around politics.
For the latest updates across 91Èȱ¬ blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
You can stay up to date with Nick Robinson's Newslog via these feeds.
Nick Robinson's Newslog Feed(RSS)
Nick Robinson's Newslog Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
91Èȱ¬ © 2014 The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
