91Èȱ¬

Regrets. He had very few. So few that, for the first time in many hours of evidence, the public attending erupted.

"Come on: a regret, man!" shouted James Shadri, who has been living in Syria for the last two years and working with Iraqi refugees.

Sir John Chilcott gave Tony Blair another chance to express his regrets. He declined it.

Leaving his seat minutes later, he was greeted by boos and a shout of "You are a liar." And another shout: "...and a murderer." As I left the room, one woman was in tears.

Not content with answering questions today, Tony Blair decided to ask them, in particular what he called "the 2010 question".

What would have happened, he asked, if Britain and America had lost their nerve and Saddam had survived with the know-how and intent to build weapons of mass destruction?

Not content with defending one war, the former prime minister went on to hint that another might be necessary. I take a tough, hard line with Iran, he said.

Those hoping that today's proceedings would heal divisions or would ensure that Tony Blair was brought to account will not just be disappointed; they will, I suspect, be furious.

Far from apologising, Mr Blair is telling the country that he was right, that he is still right and that they cannot ignore his warnings about dangerous regimes which wish to arm themselves with WMDs.

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

His face was stretched taut with nerves. His top lip appeared to be locked solid. As 's chairman, Sir John Chilcot, told the world that this was not a trial, the witness's hands opened a bottle of water, his hands visibly shaking.

Tony Blair clasped both hands together in front of him to steady himself as Sir John expressed the hope that the inquiry could go about its business in an orderly way without disruption. A burly security guard sat in the room just in case. The former prime minister stared straight ahead, barely blinking. I have not seen him so frightened since the evening I welcomed him backstage to take part in a live televised debate between the contenders for the Labour leadership 16 years ago.

As on that night, though, the nerves didn't last long.

The man who for so long relied on his capacity to charm and to persuade had, it seemed, decided that he must not be seen to do that. Thus, there was no opening statement or preamble of remorse for those who died in Iraq; nor were there thanks for the opportunity to give evidence.

Instead, he and Sir Roderick Lyne, the best inquisitor on the team, sized each other up. Blair repeatedly put on then took off his glasses as he reached out for the speeches stored in front of him in a lever-arch file, unsure whether to read them out. "We'll come to that," said Sir Roderick, to demonstrate who was in charge.

Soon, though, the witness was at ease, his face relaxed, his eyes more lively. As he warmed to his own tune, his hands began to move expansively - as though he were a conductor who had at last found the beat and was beginning to enjoy it.

Before Mr Blair had entered, the audience - in part invited relatives of soldiers who had died; in part members of the public who won their places in a ballot - had sat in quiet contemplation. Many had arms folded, looking as tense as the man about to appear before them. Only once did those of us in the room hear a reaction not audible to those watching on TV.

It came when Mr Blair was asked about , in which he appeared to say that if he had known before the war that Saddam had not possessed weapons of mass destruction, different arguments would have had to have been used to justify removing him. The Blair of old grinned, and then joked that, even with all his experience of doing interviews, he still had things to learn.

There were sharp intakes of breath, there were audible tut-tuts and there was shaking of heads - a low-key but collective expression of resistance by an audience who appeared to say: "don't think you can get away with that one."

It was on that issue - regime change - that we learned the most this morning.

Up until today, witnesses from Tony Blair's government have insisted that the Americans' stated objective of regime change was illegitimate and illegal. The British government's policy of disarmament was distinct, they insisted. However, Tony Blair said this morning that there was no "binary" choice between them and that they were, indeed, different ways of expressing the same proposition.

One particular phrase sticks in my mind. Even before the attacks on New York, he told the inquiry, "force was always an option... if necessary, we were going to remove him."

Remove him. Regime change. It had always been in his mind. Long before that meeting at George Bush's Crawford ranch where some allege he made a promise "signed in blood" to go to war.

PS: I will be back inside the inquiry room for the last session of evidence this afternoon. My colleague Laura Kuenssberg is micro-blogging; you can find her at , and you can get all the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage .

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

We are not judges. It is not a trial.

So say the members of the Iraq Inquiry.

, who was smuggled into the QEII Conference Centre by the Metropolitan Police early this morning.

The inquiry to date has heard from his former officials and ministerial colleagues who have painted a picture that this was his war and his alone. He will want to remind people that the government, the opposition and, yes, public opinion backed him.

He will acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned, but defend the judgement he took and stands by still - that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world who had to be disarmed, if necessary by force.

On regime change, he is likely to argue that there was a moral case to remove Saddam, but that his government's policy was disarmament.

On those missing weapons of mass destruction, he may point to the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, which said that Saddam had the capacity and the intent to build WMD if not the weapons themselves.

On the terrible loss of life, his friends point out that there are those who are alive now thanks to the war - because, they claim, infant mortality rates have improved since Saddam was toppled.

None of this will convince opponents of the war. It is unlikely to sway those who once backed it and now regret it.

Tony Blair's aim is likely to be rather different. He will want people to disbelieve the conspiracy theories about secret promises to George Bush "signed in blood", and the claims that he lied about intelligence. He wants the British public to accept that he took a political judgement which they might disagree with but which was just that: a judgement he discussed and debated openly, based on what he knew and feared at the time. Even that will be a mightily difficult task.

Update 0927: Tony Blar will not be making an opening statement to the inquiry this morning.

I will not be blogging live during his evidence, since I have the privilege of being in the Inquiry Room, where no electronic equipment is permitted. There is a different quality about sharing a room with the witness and the inquisitors which I do not wish to miss. As I've mentioned before, my colleague Laura Kuenssberg is micro-blogging; you can find her at , and you can get all the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage .

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

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

It's decision time on Britain's booze culture. Alcohol abuse is costing the country billions of pounds and robbing young people of their lives and their futures.

The reason, say campaigners, is that it's so cheap. You can buy two litres of cider, equivalent to a bottle of wine, for little more than a pound.

The answer, they say, is to force shops to charge a minimum price for alcohol. The Scottish government has tried and, so far, failed to promote the idea. Labour are examining it. The Tories have argued for minimum pricing for a limited range of super strength drinks.

The problem with the idea, some argue, is that it would punish the moderate majority for the sins of the few and, worse, might not really deal with the problem.

Tonight on Radio 4's Decision Time you can hear something rather extraordinary - Frank Dobson and John Redwood talking as if they were members of the same government about how this idea might or might not make its way through the corridors of power in Whitehall and Westminster

The former health secretary and the former head of the No 10 policy unit discuss, with the businessman who until last year was the head of the government's Better Regulation Executive, the potential obstacles and how to overcome them.

Along with a lobbyist and a fellow political hack we examine the lessons of Holyrood's failure to legislate for minimum pricing.

Decision Time is on Radio 4 at 2000 GMT tonight - 27 January 2010.

PS You will also hear Frank Dobson recall the memorable moment when Tony Blair's chief of staff rang to tell him that Bernie Ecclestone had given Labour £1m at the very time Formula One was to be exempted from the government's ban on tobacco sponsorship.

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

Does the fact that the British economy is limping forward rather than bouncing back undermine the argument for cutting spending now?

Too right it does say Labour insisting that it would "pull the rug" from the economy and remove vital support from families and businesses.

Absolutely not reply the Tories. It is vital to restore confidence in the British economy which, in turn, will keep interest rates lower for longer whereas "doing nothing" about the deficit will force them up.

Yesterday I suggested that the Tories were softening their rhetoric on the deficit by talking of "making a start" to reducing it.

Team Osborne reject this insisting that they've always said that they would cut back spending this year whilst acknowledging that there are real practical limits to what can be cut quickly.

My sense was though, and still is, that they are nervous of Labour's repeated claims that they would cut "deeper and faster" - words that the Tories have not, as far as I can discover, used themselves.

Hold on, you may say, didn't David Cameron say as much to Andy Marr in his New Year's interview? This is what he actually said:

Andrew Marr: What I'm not clear about is whether you want to go further; whether you want the actual amount of money taken out of government budgets to be more than the 57/58 billion pounds the government are talking about, or whether you simply want to start the process earlier?

David Cameron: Well it's both and one leads to the other.

The Tory argument is that by starting cutting earlier - this year not next - they would progress further and faster than Labour.

So, why do they resist the description "deeper and faster" - other than for the obvious political reason that it scares some voters rigid?

They argue that the deficit is not like a hole in the road - of fixed size. The argument, therefore, is not simply about when you start filling it or how much you fill or at what speed. It is, also, about how you stop the hole growing.

They argue that starting cutting the deficit earlier would restore confidence so the economy would grow quicker. Therefore, there would potentially be less - not more - cutting to do. Growth would do more of the job.

Labour, of course, argues that government spending promotes growth and therefore reduces the public spending cuts needed in the future.

Simple really.

(My colleague Stephanie Flanders has written more about this here.)

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

Just, barely, by the skin of its teeth,. You may have noticed though that no champagne is flowing in Westminster.

The government has chosen a grim-faced chancellor to front the news rather than a triumphant prime minster.

It's not just that growth is a meagre 0.1% and it's not just that growth could come to a halt and reverse by the time the next figures are published, inconveniently for the government on the eve of a May election. They may go backwards thanks to the effect of the rise in VAT, a snowy start to the year and post-Christmas belt-tightening.

It is also that Labour's political strategy now is to emphasise the fragility of recovery in order to warn of the dangers of cutting spending too far and too soon.

It's interesting to note therefore that the Tories are softening their rhetoric, talking of making a start to cutting this year. Perhaps they've been listening to the this weekend "it's no good trying to win brownie points by offering great cuts that are going to have calamitous consequences."

These are words that Labour is sure to be replaying again and again.

But of course the danger of emphasising the fragility of the recovery is that some voters may note that we are still not securely out of the longest and deepest recession since the war and may conclude that the current custodians of the economy can no longer be trusted to finish the job.

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

Labour sources are accusing the Tories of "at best naivety and at worst cynicism", which they claim risks putting the peace process in Northern Ireland back many years. For those who haven't been following the detail of Tory involvement in Northern Ireland, this is the story so far.

The Tories hosted a secret meeting bringing together Ulster Unionists - who are now formally in alliance with the Tories - and their bitter rivals the Democratic Unionists at an English country house.

The venue was Hatfield House, home of Lord Cranborne, the former Tory MP and peer who opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement negotiated by Margaret Thatcher and has long been regarded as a "friend of unionism".

The talks were - according to the Conservatives - to resolve differences over the issue of how to resolve the breakdown of trust at the top of the Northern Irish Executive which threatens to force new assembly elections. They came at a time when the DUP was weakened by the Mrs Robinson scandal. If new elections were held, Sinn Fein could emerge as the biggest party in Northern Ireland - which would make Martin McGuinness first minister.

Some who attended the talks insist that they also focused on the dream of "unionist unity" - co-operation or, perhaps in the long term, merger, between the UUP and DUP - which could prevent Sinn Fein's electoral triumph and, in Westminster elections, deliver a dozen unionist MPs who might be expected to support the Conservatives. Very helpful indeed if David Cameron faces a hung Parliament after the next election.

This has produced bitter condemnation from the nationalist SDLP, whose Deputy Leader Dr Alasdair McDonnell said:

"No-one is buying the Tory line that this secret, all-unionist meeting was an attempt to overcome political instabilities.
Ìý
"If this was the genuine motivation, then why haven't the Tories met with the nationalist parties which represent half of the population living here?"

It should be noted that Dr McDonnell might lose his seat if the Unionists did get their act together.

It's produced criticism from the Alliance Party who claim that it undermines David Cameron's capacity to act in future as an honest broker between parties - as Gordon Brown is now doing.

David Cameron talked of creating a new "non-sectarian" force in Northern Ireland with his alliance with the UUP. Apparently the talks at Hatfield House have already triggered resignations from two Catholics who were attracted by the idea.

All this at a time when dissident violence is growing and could increase if the political process is seen to fail.

The Tory leader insisted that the Conservatives would fight all seats in Northern Ireland - so, by implication, not make way for the DUP. He backed his Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Patterson who, friends say, was just trying to help ensure that devolution stayed on track.

Within months, he may have responsibility for hosting all-party talks in Downing Street or in Northern Ireland. The secret talks at Hatfield House may have made that task a whole lot harder and, incidentally, made the prospect of a dozen Unionist MPs backing him much less likely.

A Conservative spokesman has said:

"The meeting was a genuine and sensible attempt to help the peace process stay on track.
Ìý
"We have consistently supported the government on Northern Ireland. Like the prime minister, we want nothing more than to see policing and justice powers devolved to Northern Ireland and the situation there stabilised."

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

What exactly happened at Hatfield House, the ancestral home of the Salisbury family, when Viscount Cranborne, a former prominent opponent of the Good Friday Agreement and a senior Tory, hosted a meeting between the Tory front bench, the Ulster Unionists and Peter Robinson's DUP?

That is a question that is causing tremors in Belfast at the moment; it also has consequences for the UK as a whole. When asked about it this morning, David Cameron did not deny that the issue of what unionists might do in a hung Parliament could have been discussed.

Instead, he said that his focus was on ensuring that devolution to Stormont continued successfully and on resolving differences between the two unionist parties.

Some have suspected that the Tories, who have gone into alliance with the Ulster Unionists for the forthcoming general election, were eyeing a deal whereby different unionist parties would stand down for each other in different Northern Irish constituencies.

The Tories deny this, insisting that if the Conservative name is used, they will fight every seat in Northern Ireland. Watch this space. This matters, even if you don't live in Northern Ireland.

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

Gordon Brown - not something which was, I suspect, in Labour's pre-election grid. It remains a mystery as to how and why this has come about.

What we know is that:

• Sir John Chilcot will confirm that he has written to the prime minister saying that the inquiry would like to interview him and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for International Development

• This letter is a response to that sent by Gordon Brown - which he revealed in the Commons on Wednesday in response to a question from the SNP's Angus Robertson

• That followed questioning a week earlier by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg at PMQs when Brown made clear that it was up to the inquiry when he was interviewed, but did not say that he hoped they would interview him pre-election

• At the outset of the inquiry, Sir John made clear that he'd only call ministers who no longer had any relevant responsibility - for example, Jack Straw - and would wait to call others until after the election

My guess is that Brown realised that today's appearance of Jack Straw at the Iraq Inquiry and next week's by Tony Blair would lead to persistent demands for him to face questioning too. He would risk looking evasive if he simply replied that it was nothing to do with him when he was interviewed and would face accusations of a behind-the-scenes stitch-up.

If I'm right, he decided that the obvious downsides of facing questioning about Iraq in the run-up to an election would be outweighed by the downsides of being seen to run scared from them.

It might also allow him to try to make a distinction between those who took the decision to invade Iraq - Blair and Straw - and those, like him, who supported them and wrote the cheques but were not involved in decisions around intelligence and diplomacy.

There was, I am told, no private understanding or arrangement between the PM and Sir John in recent days. Indeed, the inquiry team was surprised to receive Gordon Brown's letter, was puzzled by what it really meant and its members are now livid that news of their invitation to the PM to appear before the election has leaked out before they could announce it themselves.

Update 08:25, 22 January 2010: The origin of this confusion was Sir John Chilcot's statement on 17 December that the committee is "determined to remain firmly outside party politics" and that "the inquiry should not be used as a political platform for political advantage." For this reason, the committee decided to wait until after the election to hear from those ministers who are currently serving in the roles about which the committee wished to question them.

I'm now told that Gordon Brown wrote to Chilcot to make publicly very clear that politics was not the reason for the timing of his appearance - which the inquiry had scheduled for after the election. Perhaps he recalled that once before he had been accused of playing politics with the Iraq inquiry by proposing that evidence be taken in private.

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

Should you be forced to pay a flat tax to pay for TV programmes you don't watch and find offensive? Can it be justified in an era when so much can be downloaded for free?

Should the TV licence fee be scrapped? Twenty or so years ago Margaret Thatcher's answer was yes but she didn't get the idea through Whitehall.

Understanding why tells you a great deal about the obstacles any future prime minister who favours the idea might face.

On tonight's Decision Time on Radio 4 we examine the arguments, pinpoint the opponents and look at the hurdles on an ideas path down the corridors of Whitehall and Westminster.

In tonight's programme a former broadcasting minister - David Mellor - confesses to plotting with a former 91Èȱ¬ director general - John Birt - in a smart Westminster restaurant. He is chastised by his former Whitehall boss - ex-permanent secretary of the Culture Department, Sue Street. In the process they reveal a great deal about how policy is made in SW1.

Mellor tells the tale of how he took Birt to Green's restaurant and told him:

"[T]hey're saying you should throw away Radio 1 and Radio 2. Do not do that. The person in the Gateshead council house has got to have a reason to pay the licence fee. If it appears to be a subsidy from the Gateshead council house to the bloke in Hampstead Garden Suburb plugged into Radio 3, it isn't going to work."

Birt, who recoils at the suggestion he was "plotting" recalls:

"He gave me a very full and candid account of what was going on in government and I gave him an extremely honest and candid account of what I thought the real problems were at the 91Èȱ¬, and we had, in a sense, a negotiation, and we were able to forge a sense of common purpose."

Sue Street advised her former ministerial boss:

"[D]on't appear, either in fact or in perception, to cosy up to the 91Èȱ¬, because there are other big beasts out there - the chancellor, the Business Department, the Cabinet Office - who will see the faults in that view"

Decision Time is on 91Èȱ¬ Radio 4 at 2000 GMT tonight - 20 January 2010.

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

The admirable Lord Soley has turned the tables by interviewing me for his Lords blog.
As someone who has long argued for greater media regulation Clive Soley pushed me to answer the charges that 24-hour news is bad for politics, the public are being excluded from the political debate by the media and by too much negative news.

.

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

Gone are the top hats which Labour used to attack the "Tory toffs". Gone too the "jokes" about the playing fields of Eton. So, is that the end of the class war? Not a bit of it.ÌýÌý

- a label he once avoided at all costs - and unveiled his plans for a new class war. This is not one he will not have to deny or apologise for.

His Fabian speech this weekend set out to define the battleground for the forthcoming election as the place where we find out who best understands the needs and values of the middle classes. Or the "squeezed middle". Or those on "middle incomes". These all sound very similar, but mean different things to different people.

Today, - Alan Milburn - to promote ways to get young people from modest backgrounds into the professions. The pre-election pitch couldn't be clearer. The polling tells him that he's onto something when he effectively says: "I get what life's like for you the voters, and the (Tory toff) leader of the opposition does not."

And so the prime minister made this personal pitch:

"I was born and brought up in Britain's middle class... We never went without, but we were not so well-off that we didn't have to worry about the future. And we were never so well-off that we could do without the NHS, the local school and a host of public services."

There was no direct reference to David Cameron's background - there didn't need to be - but it seems clear who he had in mind when he said:

"[C]haracter is formed not on the mountaintops of life when things looks easy, but in the valleys when things are tough."

Mr Brown declared that the "defining mission of New Labour in the coming decade should be nothing less than to unleash a wave of social mobility not seen in this country since the immediate aftermath of the Second World War."

Against this backdrop, was it extraordinary self-confidence or naivety that convinced David Cameron that he should pledge to be ?

This morning, he sets out plans to improve the prestige and quality of teaching by refusing to pay for those with poor degrees to go into the classroom and finding new ways to encourage the very best to enter the profession.

All, no doubt, with more than a glance towards improving the education of the middle classes.

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

How do ministers get decisions they want past a prime minister who doesn't want to take them?

Easy. Set up an independent policy review without telling the boss and challenge him to back it or sack you.

That secret of the ministerial trade is revealed tonight by James Purnell, the former DWP Secretary, in the first of a new series of .

Decision Time examine decisions that could face any government at this time whatever its political colour.

Tonight (Wednesday 13 January) we examine how - faced with the need to slash Britain's soaring deficit - ministers might seek to cut the cost of welfare and what hurdles might be thrown up in Whitehall, Parliament and the media.

I asked James Purnell how you could radical policies past a reluctant prime minister. Here's his reply:

James Purnell: The other thing that you could do is outflank and No 10, by trying to be more radical...you could just unilaterally go out and commission someone to review the system for you, and then the prime minister would be left with the choice of either firing you or pretending that they were into that idea all along.

Nick Robinson: ...are you suggesting that cabinet ministers commission reviews without the full knowledge of the prime minister in advance?

JP: Yes, they do, I did exactly that (laughter).

NR: Which one did you commission?

JP: Well the second time David Freud came back it wasn't necessarily cleared with the whole of the Whitehall machine, shall we say.

NR: It wasn't entirely clear that your views were shared in Downing Street at the time

JP: Not entirely, no

On the same programme Labour backbencher Martin Salter tells the tale of how to organise a backbench rebellion. My producer Giles Edwards has .

Decision Time is on 91Èȱ¬ Radio 4 at 20:00 GMT on 13 January 2010.

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

The real contrast is between Labour and the Tories when it comes to public spending. . Up to a point, Mr Balls. Up to a point.

Clearly, the important choice come election time will be between Labour's promise of the toughest spending cuts in twenty years - that's according to the chancellor - and cuts that are even deeper and start sooner - that's according to David Cameron. Not to mention, of course, the Lib Dems' promise to cut more, though not starting now.

However, the debates within parties matter, too.

"tough decisions on efficiencies and non-essential programmes" and not about "cuts".

There is a reason for that. He and Gordon Brown fear that it will be impossible to win an election focused on who will cut the most or the most efficiently.

They argue that the government has a tough spending objective and that there is no need to bang on about it in public.

However, the chancellor and Peter Mandelson have argued that if you are seen to avoid the language of cuts, the market and the electorate will doubt whether you really mean it - which will damage your credibility.

This divide matters hugely. So does that within the Conservative party between those pushing for a tax break for married couples and those arguing that it is unaffordable just now.

That tension explains why David Cameron .

So too matters the debate within the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg has, for all he says he is wedded to the principle, significantly downgraded the party's promise to scrap tuition fees. So too his promise of free childcare for all.

All of this stems from the same thing: politicians having to rewrite their pledges in response to the fact that there is very little money around for them to spend.

It is a process which will continue both within and between the political parties - and both sets of tensions matter.

Update 1049: Frank Field has come along to David Cameron's speech at Demos launching a "Character Inquiry". The think tank tells me that the Tories asked for Mr Field to come along - he is not on the inquiry team. Tory sources tell me that Mr Field is not defecting. So what is he here for?

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

Gordon Brown has survived three coup attempts. His party - which, from top to bottom, has people who doubt that the leader can win an election - did not remove him. Here's why.

• "Everyone" - among the plotters - agreed on the problem: Gordon Brown
• No-one agreed on the solution: who should replace him
• And in any case, few could see how to get from A to B

That, in a nutshell, was the problem with every plot to remove the PM. It is the reason I have been deeply sceptical that anything would come of them (leading me, let me confess, to mock the idea of a leadership coup just minutes before it began!)

Gordon Brown has the full-blooded and enthusiastic support of only a handful of members of his Cabinet. However, the Brown sceptics feared that he would fight all the way any attempt to remove him - even at a very high cost to his party, such as triggering an instant general election. Many were frightened of the divisions that would created if there were no clear replacement for Brown, while believing that they could not have another unelected leader

Labour's rules, , meant that a backbench challenge like the one which precipitated the fall of Margaret Thatcher required over 70 MPs to go public with their revolt - a number which proved impossible.

A group of backbench rebels, led by the likes of Charles Clarke and Barry Sheerman, tried to surmount these obstacles by seeking a proxy for a head-on leadership challenge. They considered mounting a challenge for the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Labour Party; voting against the Queen's Speech and organising letters from backbenchers - like those used to destabilise Tony Blair - demanding a change of leader.

The rebels - aided by former Blairite ministers - talked to those in the Cabinet to assess their mood. They came away with the view, rightly or wrongly, that senior figures - in particular, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and deputy party leader Harriet Harman - feared certain defeat at the polls if Gordon Brown stayed at the helm. Both though were said to be very cautious about a challenge and to believe that "overwhelming force" would be necessary to remove the prime minister.

The rebels also believed that other senior figures would be prepared to sit on their hands and not come to the PM's aid in the event of a coup attempt. The Chancellor Alastair Darling has been bruised by his dealings with his Downing Street neighbour. The Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has clashed with the PM. What's more, Peter Mandelson (First Secretary of State et cetera) had fallen out with his boss over political strategy and the allocation of top jobs in Europe.

Some argue that the rebels' intelligence was faulty and that they believed what they wanted to believe - see Michael White's account in the Guardian, . Certainly, Jack Straw, Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander - who were named as possible Cabinet supporters of a putsch - insist that whatever their doubts and misgivings, they were not ever ready to assist in this latest coup attempt.

The rebels decided that any new move to remove the prime minister needed to be fronted by new faces - hence the former ministers Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon took the lead. They wanted a mechanism that did not force Cabinet members to say instantly whether they would back or sack Gordon Brown - hence the call for a secret ballot on his leadership.

The plotters feared detection, so they dared risk neither meeting as a group nor letting one figure contact each possible Cabinet dissident. Thus, no one person was in control. The plot was dependent on a chain of Chinese whispers about who thought what and who would do what in which circumstances.

Some Cabinet ministers had been talking to each other - and, indeed, to journalists - for some time about whether and how to remove their leader. They too, though, never met as a group. Senior figures did not trust each other enough to discuss their plans candidly.

The result was that although the rebels hoped that once they triggered a crisis a group of ministers would follow their lead, they actually had no firm assurances to that effect - and no minister did, of course, resign.

There was, though, a long delay on Wednesday before senior minister publicly rejected the revolt and backed - albeit less than enthusiastically - Gordon Brown. In that time, the prime minister had a meeting with Jack Straw and Harriet Harman, who demanded a widening of his leadership circle and less reliance on the "Ed And Peter Show". He also met his Chancellor Alastair Darling, who has long been frustrated by the mixed messages sent out by his boss about the need to cut spending to cut the deficit.

As planned, this turned out to be the moment when Labour had to decide whether to back or sack Gordon Brown - and whether intentionally or not, the Cabinet has ended up backing him.

When the Cabinet met this morning, members looked at each other aware that many of them do not believe that they can win the election with Gordon Brown as their leader. Their task now is to prove themselves wrong.

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

. The reason is increasingly clear. Those involved in organising the attempt to unseat the PM believed that up to half a dozen Cabinet ministers would follow their lead.

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt insist that they had no direct contact with any member of the Cabinet but one rebel who was involved in planning their revolt told me: "We wanted to create a storm. Our purpose was to create the space for the Cabinet to act. They bottled it."

Sources named the potential Cabinet rebels as Harriet Harman, David Miliband, Bob Ainsworth, Jack Straw, Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander. There is no suggestion or evidence that any of those named was involved in planning today's coup attempt. Indeed they all issued statements criticising it. The rebels believed, however, that each of the six named ministers agreed with their view that a change of party leader was necessary and would act accordingly.

One of those named criticised the way today's plot was organised telling me: "It was amateurish. It could never have succeeded."

The minister pointed out that many in the Cabinet had waited many hours before issuing statements saying that they did not support the rebel moves and that the wording of their statements did not always give backing to Gordon Brown personally. For example, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband did not issue a statement until just before seven o'clock declaring that "I am working closely with the prime minister on foreign policy issues and support the re-election campaign for a Labour government that he is leading,"

The letter calling for a secret ballot on the Labour leadership was issued at around 1230. It was many hours later that senior Cabinet ministers issued statements or gave interviews

At 1720 the Justice Secretary Jack Straw said to the 91Èȱ¬ that he did not support the ballot:

"The polls are better now than they were immediately before Gordon Brown took over. Our fortunes are linked to the fortunes of the country and indeed the economy... I do not think there is an issue about the direction that Gordon Brown and the Cabinet and the government as a whole are trying to lead this country."

At 1802 Harriet Harman said:

"We are all getting on with our jobs as ministers in a government that Gordon leads. We are united in our determination to do what is best for the country and win the general election."

At 1830, Douglas Alexander, International Development Secretary said:

"Gordon Brown has shown he can deliver for the British people. As general election co-ordinator, my focus is, and will remain, on securing Labour's re-election: that is what I believe our party wants and our country needs."

At 1848 Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said:

"The PM has the support of his colleagues. My focus is, and has to be, on our Armed Forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere."

At 1853 David Miliband, Foreign Secretary issued a statement:

"I am working closely with the prime minister on foreign policy issues and support the re-election campaign for a Labour government that he is leading."

Unlike the others, the Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy responded quickly giving an interview at around 1400:

"This is a distraction from the important work of protecting jobs and working towards the economic recovery. This is particularly important in Scotland where the SNP government are just not doing enough."

Update: An earlier version of this post timed Douglas Alexander's statement at 1930 rather than 1830; apologies.

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

Extraordinary.

Weeks before the country gets to choose who should be its next prime minister Labour MPs are considering taking the decision for them. If they succeed a man or woman who has not been elected by the public would replace a man who has himself not been elected by the public.

This is without precedent - in this country at least.

Margaret Thatcher was toppled by her own MPs but that was two years before an election. Her successor John Major triggered a "back me or sack me" leadership ballot in 1995 - also two years before an election.

However, those who want to see Gordon Brown go might look to Australia where Bob Hawke was installed as leader of the Labor Party and faced an election 25 days later.

He won that election by a landslide, ending over seven years of conservative rule. Critically, however, that coup made Hawke leader of the opposition and not prime minister.

Now, of course, there may never be a secret ballot on the Labour leadership let alone a decision to remove Gordon Brown. After all, when James Purnell walked out of the cabinet calling for a change of leader his coup attempt failed within hours.

After that, backbench critics of Brown decided that they could not rely on the cabinet to act for them - either because they lacked the courage or because, for those like David Miliband and Alan Johnson, resignation would destroy their chance of leading.

The other main obstacle to a contest was the fear of many Labour MPs that the pain of public division might be worse than sticking with a leader who many are convinced is taking them to certain defeat.

This call for a secret ballot is designed to overcome those two obstacles - by giving the initiative to backbenchers not the cabinet and by bringing forward the pain of public division so that the fear of it is removed as a factor.

Don't believe Labour MPs and ministers who say they've not talked about changing leader. For months the talk's been of little else.

However, up until now it's looked like staying just that - talk. It may yet. This could all be over about as quickly as it began. Keep watching though because it could lead to a change of prime minister sooner than you think

PS Feel free to mock away at my on air dismissal of yesterday's rumours about a cabinet minister resigning to force Gordon Brown out. That'll teach me. No minister has resigned, of course - not yet anyway!

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

As I've just been explaining on the 91Èȱ¬ News channel, we understand that former ministers Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt are sending text messages to all Labour MPs calling for a secret ballot on Gordon Brown's leadership. I'll add some more here when I know more...

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

For the y would not normally be a news story.

However, for weeks Lord Mandelson has remained uncharacteristically silent in public whilst privately expressing deep frustration at Gordon Brown's approach to tackling Britain's budget deficit.

He's been concerned that the prime minister's failure to spell out the need to make public spending cuts has reduced the government's credibility.

Today though Lord Mandelson insists that the government's plans are "far more credible than they are given credit for" and stresses that spending reductions, tax increases and economic growth are all vital to reducing the deficit.

All this is designed to reassure nervy markets who can see for themselves the gulf between the words of the business secretary and the chancellor on the one hand and the prime minister on the other.

Last night the shadow chancellor George Osborne seized on the warning by the world's biggest bond investor, Pimco, that Britain faced seeing its credit rating downgraded and that it would be selling off UK government bonds this year (see more on this on my colleague Robert Peston's blog).

The head of Pimco's European investment team is the brother of the cabinet minister who is said to have Gordon Brown's ear now - his former economic adviser Ed Balls - allowing Osborne to claim that even the Balls family don't trust the government's deficit reduction plans.

Mandelson's also had concerns that Labour risked looking like it was turning its back on the New Labour coalition and relying on a core vote strategy.

Thus, he stresses that the government will "always be vigilant" that the tax burden on businesses and highest earners "does not become so great that it damages our long-term competitiveness".

He goes on to tell his party to focus on "the politics of production" - wealth creation - not "the politics of distribution".

UPDATE, 11:55: I have now had the chance to read the full text - as against a few extracts - of Peter Mandelson's speech.

At its heart is an important argument - clearly laid out - but there is also an intriguing political admission and an important omission.

Peter Mandelson's argument is that economic growth stimulated by government activism is the best cure for the deficit. He warns that cutting spending faster - as the Tories advocate - risks "kicking the prop" from the British economy.

Even if quicker deficit reduction produced lower interest rates, he argues that might not be enough to get the economy growing again as the Japanese discovered.

Now for that political admission. Reviewing the growth policies of recent decades the business secretary describes the privatizations of the 1980's made by the Margaret Thatcher government as "timely".

What's more he concedes that industrial relations underwent a valuable sea change.

Perhaps most importantly though, Mandelson does not use the word "cuts" which he dearly would like the prime minister to use. Instead in his speech he talks about "real reductions" and impacts on other services which "cannot be painless".

And that omission is most striking when it comes to what's going on in his own department. Whilst hailing universities as a possible source of future growth he doesn't point out that their budget is taking what he would call "real reductions" and they call painful cuts.

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

"We can't go on like this" declares the Conservatives' new poster campaign.

Yes, many might be forgiven for thinking, we can't go on with week after week of political photo opportunities, dossiers, manifestos and hyperbole about gaffes, disarray and U-turns.

But hold on just a second. Campaigning's barely begun and we've learnt a great deal already:

• The Tories cannot afford to introduce a transferrable tax allowance for married couples but dare not drop the idea altogether. They still have to decide what to do instead.

• They have also had to drop their pledge to scrap mixed sex wards and ensure that "every patient will be given the opportunity to choose a single room when booking an operation in hospital."

• The chancellor has conceded that under a re-elected Labour government no government department would escape cuts and does not deny estimates that these could average 17%.

• Alistair Darling also refused to rule out increasing VAT to 20%.

Not bad for the first day.

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

Is it "I do", "I might", or "I won't tell"?

Ever since becoming Tory leader, David Cameron has promised to recognise marriage in the tax system. Ever since, he has failed to spell out what that actually means, what it will cost, and how he will pay for it.

Today in an interview, he told me that his only tax pledge was to cut inheritance tax. So I asked him: is talk of a married tax break a promise or a hope? The answer was that it was definitely a hope, but certainly not a promise.

Robinson: On the issue of a tax break for people who are married: is that a promise, or just something you hope one day to do?
Cameron: It is something we want to do, something we believe we can do, it's something, within Parliament, I'll definitely hope to do. I'm not today able to make that promise. Because today, we face a vast budget deficit [...]
Robinson: But if people want certainty, on some of these tax cuts they want - you're saying today, "I'm sorry, I can't give that certainty"?
Cameron: We're not able to give people absolute certainty on everything. [...]

Senior Tories tell me that they have still not decided whether to spell out their policy ahead of an election, or to leave Mr Cameron's vague words to stand as they are: vague and un-costable.

There has been a long and vigourous internal debate between Tories who say that tax breaks for married couples risk alienating the growing number of unmarried couples, and those who say that they would be a clear expression of Conservative values which would show that David Cameron is willing to weather a controversy.

Fearful that Mr Cameron's remarks might be reported as downgrading his promise, the Tory leader's spokesman tonight insisted that the party would definitely recognise marriage in the next Parliament, but still refused to say how, when and at what cost.

This leaves the party open to Labour's charge that they want it all ways: able to dangle the prospect of tax breaks, without explaining to the electorate how they'll pay for them.

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

Christmas is finally over. We are all back to work. The nation is in the grip of a big freeze.

What better to warm our hearts, then, than the publication of an election manifesto, or at least a bit of one, along with the start of a massive billboard campaign and a dossier pointing out the black holes in the opposition's policies?

Yes, folks: it's the beginning of a long, long election, and . But before you sigh with weary cynicism, remember that underneath all this, some important choices are struggling to get through. How much should government spend, and when, and on what priorities?

The Tories prioritise deficit reduction; Labour what it calls investment for growth. The Tories prioritise spending on the NHS; Labour on education.

You could perhaps, if you ignore the events of the past 12 months, want to turn to economists for guidance about who's getting it right. , and a survey will give you your answer. .

Labour HQ, 1004: The chancellor has just unveiled what he claims is a £34bn "credibility gap" in Tory plans.

With not the faintest hint of irony, he claimed he was being "generous" to the Conservatives in his interpretation of their plans.

The estimated cost is based on Tory aspirations to cut some taxes and on hints and nudges that they will increase some spending.

This is a copy from the Tories' 1992 war book, when Shaun Woodward - yes, the man who is now a Labour cabinet minister - helped to run the devastating that ended with a surprise victory for John Major against Neil Kinnock.

At this stage, Labour, like the Tories back then, hopes that this analysis will help journalists to ask difficult questions of Tory front-benchers and that they will fall apart under scrutiny.

Later, they will no doubt use this to justify a poster campaign warning of "Tory cuts".

Anticipating all this, David Cameron this morning will unveil a poster of himself to go on billboards right around the country. Its slogan: "We can't go on like this. I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS."

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

It may be a New Year, but it is already feeling very like the old one for Gordon Brown.

Eagle-eyed viewers of the prime minister's interview this morning will have noticed his obvious discomfort. At the end of the programme he stood up to leave and then, when reminded that he was still on camera, refused to make eye contact with Andrew Marr. It's something I've experienced many times before.

The reason, I suspect, is that the interview was memorable, apart from what he had to say about combating terror, for a slip - on election timing; for denial - about the need for public spending cuts; and for defensiveness - about talk of a class war against David Cameron's Conservatives.

On a more positive note, we did hear the PM's answer to what I've dubbed the "cereal box question" - how to complete the sentence "I want another five years of Gordon Brown because...".

The slip came when Marr asked him if there'd be a - a coded way of asking him to rule out an election before May. "Of course," came the reply, before the PM realised what he was being asked and so he hastily added "if it's the right time".Ìý So, May it is... I think.

The denial came when he was pressed repeatedly about the credibility of his "deficit reduction plan". The prime minister highlighted tax rises on the rich and on bankers bonuses but continued to talk of spending increases - not using the "cuts" word once. No wonder Peter Mandelson is frustrated.

The defensiveness stemmed from questions about his reference to Tory tax policy being written on the "playing fields of Eton". This morning the prime minister said that anyone who thought that "anything other than a joke" took "politics too seriously". A message, perhaps, for ministers still proud to call themselves New Labour, who've warned privately and publicly against a class war.

Talking of which, did you notice how in , Gordon Brown writes about "our distinctive New Labour belief is in genuine meritocracy"? One of five uses of the term "New Labour".ÌýIt was used not a single time in his party conference speech (plain old "Labour" was used 18 times) or, indeed, in his interview today.

Finally, here's the PM's answer to that cereal box question. Voters should want five more years of Gordon Brown because:

"He knows how to deal with the British economy's problems and to take us through them, and he knows what sort of economy we can build for the future that will give young people the jobs that they need... he's got a passionate desire to improve our public services and his whole career is based on a passionate desire to see all reach their potential."

It's more than the usual maximum permitted 15 words but there's plenty of time to make it pithier.

Gordon Brown's not the only one to start the New Year defensively.

- kicking off his election campaign - was memorable largely for its attempt to close down two major criticisms.

First, the Tory leader tried to adopt an optimistic pose, fearful as he is that his talk of "an age of austerity" has allowed Brown to warn of a Tory decade of pessimism.

Secondly, he declared that his key values were responsibility and aspiration. The former is no surprise; the latter is an attempt to counter Labour claims that his party stands for the privileged few.

What is likely to have more of an effect than either the Brown interview or the Cameron speech is .Ìý

It's all a New Year's reminder that the outcome of this long, long election will depend as much on what the parties don't plan as the carefully researched, polished and practiced slogans, sound-bites and salvos which we will soon all tire of.

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