David Maddox: No place on the Tory front bench for Scotland

David Cameron and the Conservatives have been painfully aware of their lack of support north of the Border. In a radio interview recently Mr Cameron admitted his party would not win many seats, even though they are targeting 11.

For this reason Mr Cameron and his party (at least in Scotland) have been keen to promote the so-called "respect agenda" should they win power in the UK without much of a Scottish mandate.

The details of this are well known and often repeated - ministers regularly visiting, an annual PMQs with MSPs, post Pre-Budget and Budget briefings, the Scottish Secretary giving a verbal report to MSPs on the implications of the Queen's Speech etc.

But respect needs to be symbolic as well, which brings us on to the last Scottish questions in the Commons before the election. This was my second since transferring from Holyrood to Westminster and today, like the last time, it was noticeable that shadow Scottish Secretary David Mundell (pictured) was shunted off the front bench to make way for other (more senior) colleagues for PMQs which followed immediately afterwards. today he was shifted before Scottish questions had even finished.

On both occasions poor Mr Mundell was forced to sit awkwardly on the steps between the back benches.

In comparison Jim Murphy remained on the Labour front bench throughout PMQs.

The sight of the frontbencher responsible for Scottish affairs being pushed aside so unceremoniously is not exactly the sort of respectful image for Scotland that the Tories have been so keen to claim is their own.

Eddie Barnes - David Cameron's masochism strategy

An interesting insight into the likely style of the coming election campaign has emerged in the last couple of days. Viewers of the Ten O'Clock news last night may have seen David Cameron being getting a rough time of it during a visit to apprentices in Lewisham yesterday. One young bloke began heckling Cameron, before piping up a line that could have been dreamt up in Labour HQ, wanting to know why the country should try out someone untried like Cameron, when what they needed was experience.

Homus Spindoctorus (1997 version) would, of course, have done his best to try and crush the tape of this before it came out of the camera. But the 2010 Tory team have done the exact opposite. The heckling can now be seen on YouTube, uploaded by the Conservatives themselves. It is reported they are hoping that the video will go viral. So what's going on?

This is basically a mutation of Tony Blair's masochism strategy, when the Prime Minister deliberately threw himself in front of the public's bullets in the hope of soaking up their fury post-Iraq. Now that we're all so fed up of spin and presentation, the new spin isanti-spin. It looks like, in this election, it is going to take the form of un-cut, potentially embarrassing, but very 'real' incidents along the campaign trail. The calculation will be that while the leader may well get caught out, they will at least (a) be noticed by a disaffected watching public who turn the TV off when politics comes on and (b) get plaudits from the same people for simply engaging in the first place. Sitting up from the sofa, Mr Swing Voter may well turn to Mrs Swing Voter and nod that "at least he has the guts to take it on the chin". The internet becomes the perfect medium for this to spread. Viral video clips spread word of mouth, and are something we actively decide to watch, so the impact it has on us is more substantial than something broadcast which washes over us on the box.

I'm not quite suggesting that Central Office wants Cameron to get hit by eggs and custard tarts over the next few weeks, but when we punters are in such a sour mood, distrusting anything that politicians say, perhaps the only thing that will make us connect with a politician is if he is subjected to an unprovoked bit of the verbals from a fellow member of the great unwashed. This is particularly the case for Old Etonian David Cameron as he attempts to show that he's just like one of us. You never know, it might even seal the deal.

David Maddox: The onward march of the patsies

Just seen the press release about Pamela Nash being selected as John Reid's replacement as the Labour candidate for Airdrie and Shotts.
Her main qualification appears to be that she was Dr Reid's parliamentary researcher, although to be fair the 25-year-old does actually come from the constituency.
She is the latest in a long line of candidates whose political and indeed life experience is based on working in either the Westminster or Holyrood bubble. They are what is sometimes termed as the patsies (politically ambitious twenty somethings) who go to work for a party as soon as they graduate in an effort to forge a political career.
There seems to be less room for people who have had experience in a profession or lived much of an adult life for that matter.
Now that does not mean Ms Nash will make a bad MP or candidate, I'm sure she will work very hard, and it is not as if having an experience of a trade union or business makes somebody a good MP.
But in the end bringing experience to parliament, having a hinterland, does help inform debate and scrutiny and improve legislation.
It is interesting that as we are near to an election Labour's NEC has a far greater say over shortlists. Dr Reid's replacement could have been done in 2007 when he announced he would retire although the selection then ended in a bitter dispute between party bosses and the local party. Maybe Ms Nash with her strong local links makes an excellent compromise between these two points of view.
But one concern that is being raised privately by Labour members is that constituencies are being pushed into taking on patsies who hand picked by the Labour leadership because they will toe the party line and essentially their campaigning skill sets suit them for modern machine politics.
But in case this seen as an attack on Labour, the march of the patsies is a feature of every major political party in the UK.
One of the most prominent former patsies is the Conservative Party leader David Cameron, whose first job upon leaving university was to be a Tory Party researcher in Central Office.

David Maddox: Clarke takes centre stage

As a new boy down in Westminster I had never really appreciated until this morning how much the Conservatives need the presence of Ken Clarke, hush puppies and all, to give their top team substance until this morning.
The City raid by the three top men who hope to be running Britain's economy from about 7 May (Cameron, Osborne and Clarke, pictured above in slightly happier bigger poll lead times) represented a high risk strategy.
You can read more about it in tomorrow's Scotsman, but essentially the message is one of economic Armageddon if Labour win. It can't be ratcheted up much higher than that really.
However for this message to work you need somebody of experience and substance to deliver it. Neither Cameron nor Osborne have it yet and the warnings from them do not sound credible, which is why the floor was essentially thrown open to the former Chancellor for most of the presentation.
There is far more to Mr Clarke than the girth of his waste which suggests a long experience of business lunches. He sounds and looks like a man who knows what he is talking about, which given that he left the economy in a healthy state, is true. His two "senior" colleagues in comparison look gauche and in Osborne's case quite clearly in need of the Clarke endorsement he received.
The only problem with this strategy is that you cannot help but think the Tories might be further ahead in the polls if he was the one due to reside in 11, Downing Street or even the more famous address next door the Tories might still be further ahead in the polls.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (28) - What is the Cameron effect?

Fascinating Yougov poll around today with the Scottish sample a decent size at 562. It gives the first taste of political opinion since David Cameron's visit to Scotland for the Tory conference in Perth and the back end of last week.

Con 21 Lab 37 Lib Dem 15 SNP 21

According to Scotland Votes, the Scotsman's election calculation partner website, this provides the following results in a general election for Scotland (changes from 2005 in brackets) :

Con 2 (+1) Lab 39 (-2) Lib Dem 11 (no change) SNP 7 (+1)

Amazingly different polling results to 2005 but very little change with just Ochil and South Perthshire going from Labour to the SNP with Labour also losing Dumfries and Galloway to the Tories.
But the important thing is that makes a lot more results very close and could see many more seats changes hands.
This is shown by the different prediction from Electoral Calculus:

Con 4 (+3) Lab 39 (-2) Lib Dem 9 (-2) SNP 7 (+1)

It suggests that the Tories also gain Argyll and Bute and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk from the Lib Dems on top of the gain for them and the SNP predicted above.

But what this poll really shows is that the Tories are in play for all 11 targets, including ones held by the SNP such as Angus and Perth and North Perthshire. But it does not really take the Tories beyond the margins of support they have been polling in for a long time now, which leaves a question mark over the Cameron tartan effect of last week even though 21 per cent is at the high end of Conservative support in Scotland.
It does illustrate again how the boundaries work in favour of Labour and the Lib Dems and against the Conservatives and SNP.
But what it does is suggest that in Westminster terms at least the SNP vote is collapsing and that they are leaking support to Labour.
If this is true it is a victory for the Labour tacticians in Scotland who have relied on what they believe is an innate anti-Toriness in Scotland and are trying to squeeze the Nationalist vote by portraying a Westminster election as a competition between the two big parties.

Eddie Barnes - The Dave and David show

If the gossip floating around Scottish Tory circles is to be believed, the event which took precedence in David Cameron's diary when he came to Scotland last week was not the party's one-day conference in Perth, but Cameron's lunchtime engagement at the Scottish Press Fund lunch in Glasgow which preceded it. The reason? Mostly because the event was being organised by David Dinsmore, the editor of the Scottish Sun, Scotland's largest selling daily newspaper.

The background to this episode goes back to last autumn when the English edition of the Sun decided to leap into bed with the Tories. Dinsmore, however, decided to play hard to get, declaring that he was "yet to be convinced". With the Tories polling only 20% in Scotland, it was not hard to see why. Nor is it hard to see why Team Cameron is now so keen to woo Dinsmore....if there's one thing about open doors, it's that you want to push them.

The Scottish Sun editor is clearly enjoying being a Tory tease - at the lunch last week, he made a few barbed comments in Cameron's direction about his difficult it was to get a date in his diary. Cameron responded with a light-hearted comment noting that, while he respected devolution, he hoped that in the case of the Scottish Sun, they would follow London's example. It was like watching a Jane Austen courtship ritual. It remains highly unlikely that David will actually agree to Dave's advances, but that's not to say the charm-offensive isn't working. Even Scottish Sun columnist Bill Leckie offers some grudging praise for Cameron in his column today.

Cameron isn't the first ambitious politician who has set out to win hearts at News International - and the rewards and the dangers remain the same. In Scotland, the reward within his grasp is the country's biggest-selling paper if not on his side, then certainly offering an open mind. That is probably as much as the Conservatives can hope for north of the border at present. The dangers, however, are that the courtship of one stable ends up enraging other media outlets, especially if they feel that announcements and interviews are drip-fed through certain favoured publications. As Labour long ago found out, this all soon spins horribly out of control, amid much gnashing of teeth - a noise which Cameron might have heard at the tables of certain newspapers last Friday.

In summary, the Sun might be creeping through the clouds for the Scottish Tories, but as is usually the case in Scotland, that doesn't mean it isn't raining elsewhere.

Eddie Barnes: The morning after

David Cameron enjoyed the political equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel this morning as he was interviewed on the Today programme. Usually when an opponent describes his enemy as being "completely divided" as Cameron did this morning, you would take it with a pinch of salt. But after yesterday's coup flop, the Tory leader was guilty only of being a bit behind the news cycle.

If Gordon Brown is not throwing staplers this morning, then he never will. His attempt to re-assert authority over the party and government has been completely de-railed. Just to rub it in, a poll in the Sun today shows that 58% of people would not change their vote even if there was a new Labour leader (19% said it would make them more likely to vote Labour as against 14% who said they'd prefer Brown to stay). It also puts Labour on 31%, to the Tories' 40%, again showing a narrowing of the Conservative lead. But the poll was taken on the 5th and 6th January. What, I wonder, would the gap be if a poll was taken today and tomorrow, now that the public has once again been reminded that the party is totally divided?

As has been pointed out, the coup has put Labour in the worst place possible, having re-exposed both the mistrust the party has in their leader, and also their timidity over their failure to boot him out. It was excessively optimistic of Mr Hoon and Mrs Hewitt to think they could change this - after all, we've known for two years that the cabinet won't do anything. Any prospect of a cabinet minister finally doing the deed appeared to die out on Newsnight last night when Lord Mandelson was categorical in his support for Mr Brown. Mr Hoon then happily conceded that his efforts had failed.

Glasgow North East: Ruth Davidson, Conservative: Trust in Politics

Well done the Steamie for coming up with this idea. I’ve been blogging on this campaign for sometime and I’m glad now the other candidates won’t be able to run away when I ask them a question!

During the five months that this campaign has been running it has become clear that the issues in Glasgow North East are not that different from those across Britain. People are worried about their jobs, worried about Labour's recession, worried about public services, and worried about crime.

MP's from all parties have betrayed the trust that the public had placed in them. That is why David Cameron apologised as soon as the details of MP's expenses claims came out, because it was wrong and the people of Britain deserved an apology. It was then that he said he wanted a new type of politics - which was when I decided I should put myself forward as a candidate. I am not a career politician, but I do believe that politics needs new people to get involved, get stuck in, and try and change things for the better. As candidates we all need to work to restore the public’s trust in politics.

That is why the very first thing I did following selection was to promise to run a clean campaign - which I invited all the other candidates to join. I have kept to that - the Conservatives won’t use personal attacks in order to get votes. That is why I have pledged to be open about my expenses if elected. Simple things, not exploiting expenses, discussing the issues not the personalities, but I think that they help people to believe I will keep my word if elected.

David Cameron and the Conservative Party believe the same thing. That is why we have been honest about the problems with the public finances. Instead of pretending nothing needed done, the Conservatives have told the truth that there will have to be savings in Government spending. We don't want to reduce spending, but we have to be realistic and tell people the harsh truth that Labour have spent all the money – and it is up to the next Government to repair the damage.

That’s why in the Scottish Parliament we have identified ¼ billion pounds worth of savings. Take Scottish Water out of public ownership, stop this nonsense of free prescriptions and free school meals for people who can afford to pay. Some things in life are not free – we have to accept that, especially in this current climate.

This election is about which party can bring the change that is needed to Glasgow North East, and to Britain. The Conservatives have the policies that will create jobs, repair the public finances, and help to fix our broken society. Most of all, we are the party that will be open and honest with the public – that’s what is needed to help rebuild trust in politics.

Gerri Peev: Forget Blair for El Presidente, what about Boris?

David Cameron should be careful what he wishes for. Clearly, he doesn't want Tony Blair to overshadow his own ascent to power. Imagine Barack Obama skipping London and heading straight to Brussels to deal with President Blair instead of Prime Minister Cameron.
As the Tory leader said, he does not want an "all singing, all dancing, all acting" president in the form of Blair. The truth is, Blair is a smoother, more experienced and better version of Cameron than Cameron. Perhaps, however, he should be mindful that should Britain miss out this time but have a chance for the second pop at the presidency, the alternative could be just as dangerous.
Sources tell me that Boris Johnson may not want to serve more than one term as London Mayor. Again, Cameron is slightly nervous about Boris coming back to Westminster in some senior capacity and possibly challenging him for the top job in future. After all, he is the only contemporary Tory leader with any experience of government. So how about Boris Johnson for EU President? He went to an international school in Brussels while his dad was a Eurocrat. He also frequently boasts of his Ottoman heritage - quite useful in the current context of the EU debate about whether or not to let Turkey in. And the timing could also work. Boris' term as London Mayor is set to end in the middle of 2012 - around the same time that the first term of an EU president was up for grabs....

Eddie Barnes - Tories claim the moral high ground

A few initial thoughts having just left the conference hall in Manchester.

1. The most significant moment was Cameron's riposte to Labour on poverty. "Don't you are lecture us about poverty," he said. "You have failed us and it falls to us, the modern Conservative party, to fight for the poorest who you have let down." A great cheer and standing ovation followed. After decades of ceding the moral high ground to Labour and being cast as the nasty party, Cameron is trying to claim it back. The hall loved it - two decades of feeling like social pariahs is fast disappearing.

2. Shadow Ministers can rest easy.....Cameron effectively used the speech to confirm that they are going to get the jobs they currently occupy, which must have come as a particular relief to people like Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox and Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Teresa May.

3. Iain Duncan Smith looks like he's going to get some new kind of job as the Minister for Social Justice, although the party has confirmed following the speech that there won't be a new post created. No doubt he will soon be renamed the Minister for Easterhouse - the place where the former leader's conversion to poverty issues first began.

4. Can we leave Bono alone now? Or is he going to pop up at the SNP conference next week to say how great they are as well? Having now appeared on a giant screen at both Labour and Tory conferences, it now seems no party feels complete with a commendation. This needs to stop. Tories, the detoxification thing....we get it.

5. The recession didn't get much of a show. Cameron gave it a distinctly cursory mention at the beginning of the speech before moving onto his favourite topics of social responsibility and poverty. Look out for negative reaction from the City about the Tories still not getting the financial crisis.

Eddie Barnes: Exc: Watch Dave sitting in hotel room!

FORGET The Speech, now we have the Official Build Up To The Speech. The Conservatives have posted a video on YouTube this morning in which David Cameron is seen in the comfort of his hotel room preparing for his big moment at the Manchester conference later today. In the course of a searching interview with a Tory staffer, viewers can learn that Cameron is worried his voice is sounding "a little bit reedy" and that he is having to do some "trimming" to keep the speech down below an hour.

Cameron also declares that The Speech will seek to focus on the "other side" of the coming recession in an effort to lift the gloom-mongering mood of the conference. In other words, with George Osborne having spent Tuesday telling everyone that there were black clouds coming, Dave today will show how he can see a day when the sun will shine. Let's hope he doesn't break out into song.

Just in case we haven't got the message I've just got back from watching William Hague in the conference hall and I can report that the backdrop to the platform has changed. For the last three days there have been a series of apparently random moving images of British streets, which bring to mind one of those bizarre pieces of installation art you find at modern art galleries which just show a video loop of something over and over again. But the street scenes have now gone, the camera has tilted upwards, and the screen simply shows blue sky and white fluffy clouds. The Messiah cometh.

Gerri Peev: Cam is Pol Rogered

APPARENTLY Tory leader David Cameron has been left fizzing over the snap showing him sipping champagne at party conference.

The frontpage of today's Mirror shows the Tory leader brandishing a glass of Pol Roger (a snip at only £140 a bottle) – and pictured next to him is The Scotsman's former political editor Fraser Nelson.

Cameron was papped at the Spectator party by a Mirror photographer, who was wrestled to the ground. The photographer threw his camera to a colleague who managed to make a dash for the exit before the incriminating pic could be wiped.

Now cheeky punters at Ladbrokes have laid bets with odds of 14/1 that Cameron will mention the word champagne in his party conference speech tomorrow.

The bookies think the Tory leader will have an equally gloomy speech to his Shadow Chancellor, offering odds of one to three that he will use the term tough decisions, and 5/2 that he will talk about “austerity”.

He may perhaps like to avoid apeing Nick Clegg in talking about “progressive austerity” though. As one senior Lib Dem said, it sounds like a wasting disease.

Unsurprisingly, punters don't rate the chances of Bercow, Bullingdon or duck island featuring in the speech and price them all at 25/1.

Ladbrokes' Robin Hutchinson said: "He's probably hoping his champagne moment will come in May next year".

Too bad he could not wait to put the party into conference....

David Maddox: Is the SNP trying to suppress democracy?

Interesting developments today over the great TV debate debate, if you get my drift.
Gordon Brown finally accepts, if somewhat reluctantly, to have one in principle. To be fair on him this is further than any of his predecessors have gone, even if he did have to be harried into accepting the idea.
Then, rather sinisterly, the SNP announce they will go to court to block any Scottish viewing of such a debate if they are not allowed to participate.
The Nationalists' argument is obviously that as arguably the best supported party north of the Border they would be unfairly disadvantaged if Alex Salmond or Westminster leader Angus Robertson were not part of it.
No doubt they still believe in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s that separation from the UK is the most important issue to discuss - most people in Britain might disagree.
If this were a Scottish election then they would have a point, but it is not. It is a UK election and this is the opportunity for people to see who they would rather want as Prime Minister - Gordon Brown or David Cameron.
There is just about enough moral justification to include Nick Clegg as leader of the Lib Dems, even though nobody but himself actually seriously believes he will be resident in Number 10 any time next year.
It would be a nonsense for tens of millions of non-Scottish voters to have to listen to a party they cannot vote for and a subject (Scottish independence) for which they care little and have no real say.
And where do we draw the line? Should we have the Greens, UKIP and the BNP who have more supporters across the UK than the SNP? Should we have all the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the various Northern Irish parties?
No we should not. The whole thing would become a joke.
So what the SNP want, essentially, is to make sure that Scots are the only voters who cannot watch these debates and take a view on who would be the best PM for Britain. It would be Scots, thanks to the SNP, who would have their democratic rights undermined.
The one compromise that seems reasonable here is the suggestion that there should be debates involving other cabinet ministers and their shadows.
If this were to happen Messrs Salmond or Roberston could take on Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, David Mundell of the Tories and Alistair Carmichael for the Lib Dems in a specific Scottish edition on STV or/ and BBC Scotland.
However, we know from previous occasions that Mr Salmond's ego is too big to debate with mere Scottish secretaries or ministers. He refused an offer to take on Mr Murphy at a conference about 10 days ago and famously was mocked by Jeremy Paxman when he refused to engage with David Cairns.
It will be interesting to see how this all resolves itself. But my guess is that it may not be Gordon Brown's reluctance that stops these debates but the SNP's hubris.

Eddie Barnes - Cameron's European nightmare

David Cameron must be wondering this afternoon whether the political Gods vote Labour. On the eve of a party conference which has been months in the planning, and which will be watched intensely by voters across the country as they weigh up the look of their next likely government, the toxic issue of Europe suddenly blows up in his face.

With the news emerging that Ireland has backed the Lisbon treaty, it now looks as the matter will be ratified before the General Election. Cameron is committed to holding a pre-ratification referendum, but still won't say what he'll do if it's ratified by the time he gets in. Ken Clarke says this morning it would be a "disaster" if that issue became the dominant theme of the conference. Disaster? Who mentioned disaster?

Cameron has now issued a statement, repeating his position. "If the Treaty is ratified and in force in all Member States, we have repeatedly said we would not let matters rest there. But we have one policy at a time, and we will set out how we would proceed in those circumstances if, and only if, they happen," he says.

The Cameron position pre-conference appears to be along the lines of "I've yet to make up my mind, and that position is final". Not for the first time, Europe is causing the party a nasty headache. Not what Team Cameron wanted.

Eddie Barnes: Brown's last stand

GORDON Brown has just arrived in Brighton for the last Labour conference before the general election, and he brings with him a new secret weapon in his bid to beat David Cameron at the next General Election. The secret weapon is called....David Cameron.

Having spoken to Labour contacts today, it appears the entire aim of this conference is to try and shift all the attention away from Brown and instead focus it firmly onto the Conservative leadership. Yes, there will be plenty on the plans Labour has for its next term in office but the main aim will be to put a rocket up the Tories. The message will be along the lines of "you think we're bad? Just wait until the next lot get in." Crucially, this has the advantage of uniting the fractious party faithful, seeing as hating Tories is just about the only thing they can agree on any more. So focussed is the attack that even Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, whose day job up till now has been to shadow the SNP administration, will devote his entire speech on Monday to the Conservative threat. Those on cliche-watch this week should look out for the phrase "elections aren't referendums, they are choices". Count the number of times you hear it.

Chris Mackie: Tories and Nationalists get cosy

There is some thoughtful stuff from former Scotsman hack Fraser Nelson over at the Spectator website. As well as some barbs directed at the SNP for its handling of the Lockerbie Bomber release and a fascinating snippet about Alex Salmond meeting Gideon, er sorry, George Osborne on an flight between London and Edinburgh, he throws up some interesting politics surrounding the relationship between the UK Conservatives and the SNP.

His contention is the likely Conservative general election victory could offer the Nationalists a route to financial independence by playing on English Tory Party unease about the level of public subsidy offered to Scotland. www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/5275838/part_4/politics.thtml

Here is the key section: "For some time, nationalists in Westminster have been quietly cultivating Tories who are known to resent the level of subsidy sent to Scotland (public spending per head is still 24 per cent higher than south of the border). They propose a new settlement. Why not set Scotland’s budget at whatever Scotland raises in tax? This is, after all, how the Basque country deals with Spain. Several Tories, including many on the front bench, are interested."

The move would certainly be popular among the core Conservative support in England, but does Cameron really have the stomach to abandon the strictly unionist line he has been careful to maintain during his leadership? Unionist Tories in Scotland may well begin to think that they have been sold out by their leadership, although the move might well play well to some of the small "c" conservative sections of the SNP support, so it could be a case of electoral swings and roundabouts.

Whatever happens, it will be fascinating to see the relationship between Eck and Dave emerge in the event of a Conservative victory next year.

Chris Mackie: Bring it on (or maybe not)

If this interesting snippet from James McIntyre of the New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/brown-labour-minister) is to be believed, it would certainly put the Labour cat amidst the SNP pigeons:

"Meanwhile, a separate idea, bold if controversial, is quietly being considered for the same election day: a referendum in Scotland on independence. This reflects a rueful and secretly held sense among some in New Labour that devolution was a mistake which emboldened nationalists and strengthened the hand of Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party’s leader and Scotland’s First Minister. Brown has long fretted about British identity and about how people increasingly define themselves as English, Welsh and Scottish, rather than as British.
A referendum would call the Nationalists’ bluff. It would be a high-risk strategy. But Brown would be gambling on the majority of Scots who continue to recognise that the social, economic and political union remains much more than the sum of its parts."

While no doubt being supported by Wendy Alexander ("bring it on" etc), I agree that the move would carry extreme risk for a Prime Minister not known for his bold decisions. On the plus side for Brown, taking control of the referendum would allow him to dictate its terms and could embolden the "no" campaign before the SNP has a chance to make inroads at the Westminster elections. The likely upsurge in the turnout would also help to get the Labour vote out - something it manifestly had problems with in the Euro elections.

Looking at it with a more Machiavellian eye, if we assume the Labour party expects to lose the next election, a referendum on election day could give an incoming Team Cameron the mother of all constitutional headaches to deal with should the Scottish people vote "yes".

But is he really brave enough to take the Nationalists on in this way? I suspect he has neither the gumption nor the resources to fight two battles simultaneously, especially with the stakes so high. After all, even if he won the referendum, it is unlikely he would be in office to enjoy the political benefits it would bring - those, you suspect would be David Cameron's to savour.

Eddie Barnes - Brown falls into the trap again

The exchanges at PMQs today perfectly highlighted the Conservative trap which Brown obligingly keeps falling into. Cameron repeatedly asked Brown to correct his assertion last week that capital spending will increase until the Olympics in 2012 (the figures, from the 2009 budget, are actually as follows: 2009: £44bn; 2010, £36 billion; 2011, £29 billion; 2012, £26bn).

Pretty bang to rights you might think. But Brown wouldn't admit it. Instead he laboured on about the increase in spending between 2007-08 and 2009-10. OK, but unless the Olympics is being moved forward by two years, this doesn't explain his claim from last week.

The actual numbers game here is a side show. The Conservatives' real aim is to expose Brown's evasive behaviour. The tactic is simple. The Tories know that Brown will never ever concede anything to them, so deep is his hatred for them. So they simply ask him to do something reasonable - like admitting to his little porkie over spending last week - and then sit back, happy in the knowledge that, once he has turned down their request, his unreasonableness will have been exposed for all to see.

Imagine if Brown had just admitting to his mistake about spending going up right until the Olympics in 2012. He might have said something like "you know what, I'm glad you raised that because the truth is I got that bit wrong. I'd like to apologise to the House about that. But I'd also like to point out that at least we've brought forward capital spending until 2010."

Yes, he would have had 160 Tory MPs screeching at him. But so what? The sound of Tory MPs screeching is guaranteed to turn off swing voters. And the public watching the exchanges on the telly would have admired Brown for his honesty. But it's not Brown's style, is it? Keep digging......

Gerri Peev: Is Cameron on the mummy?

David Cameron's response to Julie Kirkbride's resignation is interesting. He seems to be trying to push the mummy buttons by agreeing that he hoped more women would not be put off entering parliament by the expenses scandal.

"It is also extremely important that part of that reform should include better ways of enabling women to combine the roles of politician and mother."

This could spectacularly backfire, not least because the majority of parents, let alone working mothers, do not ask their employers to subsidise their childcare arrangements.

If anyone can afford a nanny or an extension to house their au pair, it should be an MP who has claimed £170,000 in living expenses over the last four years.

Margaret Moran, the Luton MP who was forced to quit over her home flipping and her claims for dry rot treatment on her partner's house, which is 100 miles away from her constituency, also tried to pull the female martyr card.

She said she had to work hard and needed to spend time with her partner. Welcome to the real world. Most people struggle to juggle. Perhaps her partner could have shown some support by moving to London or her constituency.

There was talk at Westminster some time ago of installing a creche at the site of the underground shooting range that still exists beneath the Sport's and Social Bar. It was vetoed.

With talk of MPs being "suicidal" over the expenses furore, we can now understand why.

David Maddox: Clearing out the dead wood

It seems that the expenses saga, at least for the Tories, has become a convenient excuse to break the vice like grip that a group of the old buffers had on safe seats.

Douglas Hogg and his moat is a classic example while this morning's victim Sir Peter Viggers (pictured) and his £2,000 duck house and massive gardening bill is another.

Sir Peter is the MP for Gosport and a former banker who is not short of a bob or two. I knew him well when I was covering politics in Portsmouth and found him a very decent and amiable chap.

However, his hopes of a high flying political career ended in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher decided he was too wet for her tastes and since then he has been trying to find a role for himself on the back benches.

His one last chance to make a name for himself was when he ran Douglas Hurd's appallingly hopeless leadership campaign a then that was it.

It apparently took just two minutes for David Cameron to tell poor old Viggers that his career as an MP was over.

But it is interesting those without a future like Viggers and Hogg are given short shrift while Alan Duncan who is part of the front bench team was able to get away with a lame apology for his £7,000 of gardening expenses and a cheque returning the money.

Gosport (majority: 5,730) like Hogg's Sleaford and North Hykeham seat (majority: 12,705) are pretty safe ones.

True the Totnes seat of Anthony Steen, the third to get the boot, is just 1,947, but in the present political climate that's relatively safe.

It means that young hopefuls with a future can break into safe seats and build a career and the hasbeens and neverwases are cleared out. I'm told there will be a much bigger clearout to come.

One young Tory said to me over lunch: "This is basically the best time to be a young Conservative and would-be candidate looking for a seat for generations."

David Maddox: Tory conference - No longer the McBridesmaid

The Tories wheeled out two "celebrity" speakers this morning. One was the knife crime campaigner John Muir, the father of Damian who was brutally murdered by a knife wielding thug in 2007, who had come to endorse the Tories' new policy of two year minimum sentences for people caught carrying knives.
Before that though was their "controversial" new convert, the leading QC Paul McBride (pictured right).
Controversial because they claimed he joined the Tories three weeks ago and abandoned Labour to do so.
Labour have gone to great lengths to say: "Paul who?" And point out he was not a member at the time and apparently never seen by them.
Lord George Foulkes, First Lord of the Twittery etc, even wrote to the Scotsman ,to question Mr McBride's former Labour credentials. The Baron of Cumnock also asked a question in parliament to check if Mr McBride had declared himself a Labour supporter in his role as a member of the Legal Board, something he would have been required to do if he was a party member or active supporter in the last five years. He had not.
However, Mr McBride maintains he was a Labour supporter for most of his adult life, let his membership lapse in the late 1990s, but later attended fundraising events until recently.
Mr McBride has been described as arrogant by some in Labour in recent days, his e-mail address apparently includes the words topQC, but seeing him this morning you can see why Labour are so wound up about his "defection" and the Tories are gloating about it.
McBride is the sort of bright, sharp dressed, talented individual who flocked to Labour in the early years of Blair, but who can see that the bright future is now with Cameron and the Tories.

David Maddox: The numbers game (6)

Reading the polls lately has been a form of masochism for members of the Labour Party, although the Holyrood voting intention Yougov poll at the weekend provided some light relief.

But on a UK level Gordon Brown (pictured right in an appropriately despondent pose), has consistently being staring at a double figure gap with David Cameron (pictured left with a big smile on his face).

However, new research from Professor Paul Whiteley of the University of Essex, has revealed that Mr Cameron may not have quite so much to grin about and, indeed, Mr Brown should cheer up.

In a piece for the House magazine in Westminster, Prof Whiteley has looked at the strength of the Labour and Conservative brands in terms of how people identify themselves.

This has revealed that UK-wide 27% identify themselves as Labour, one per cent ahead of the 26% who see themselves as Conservative.

Prof Whiteley's points out that Labour have consistently run ahead of the Tories in this brand identity test.

And as he concluded: "The Conservatives lead in voting intentions has occurred because non-partisans prefer them to Labour. But non-partisans are fickle and can rapidly change their minds, which is why the next general election is still undecided."

However, one warning for any Labourites out their who think this is the basis of them going on to win. Non-partisans are what we normally call floating voters and they have always decided elections, particularly in the swing seats. As things stand Labour is struggling to persuade any of them.

Nevertheless it would be interesting to know the equivalent voter party identity brand for Scotland.

Gerri Peev: Sad day at Westminster

News of the death of Ivan Cameron, the six year-old son of David and Samantha Cameron, has shocked and depressed all of us who work in the Commons.

It is a grim day at Westminster and the mood is being reflected by the Prime Minister cancelling PMQs. Instead, Gordon Brown, William Hague (who stands in for the Tory leader in his absence at the Dispatch Box) and Vince Cable will offer tributes at noon.

The House of Commons will then adjourn until 12.30. The unveiling of Margaret Thatcher's portrait at Number 10 this afternoon has been postponed.

Our deepest condolences go to the Camerons.

David Maddox: Classic reruns

It did not take the Tories long to dig this old nugget out of the archives (circa 1979 election) when today's unemployment stats showed that about 1,970,000 people in the UK - under the International Labour Organisation (ILO) figures (the UK government's preferred method). According to today's figures, there are around 108,000 in Scotland claiming Jobseekers' Allowance, apparently up 47 per cent from a year ago.
It should be said the ILO figures (just in case this was not confusing) are even worse for Scotland with 137,000 unemployed.
Needless to say the Tory UK press release today rehashed the 1979 message with the word "still" added in for good measure.
But, with David Cameron and the Conservatives well ahead in the polls he may not wish to remind people what happened after this poster campaign when the Tories took power and unemployment shot up to record levels, topping 3 million.

Ross Lydall: David Cameron's non-answer on an independence referendum

A few interesting lines from David Cameron's monthly press conference, which was held this morning. He wants the bankers to "wake up and smell the coffee" with regard to bonuses, and understand that they wouldn't be in jobs - never mind thinking about how to spend their bonuses - if it wasn't for taxpayer support.

However he focused his wrath on top executives - saying he had no wish to deprive the "woman who runs the branch at Auchtermuchty" from receiving a top-up to her basic wage.
Any bonuses that are issued should not be in cash but in shares that could only be redeemed when any taxpayer-funded loans are repaid, he added.

He dodged yet another question about suspicions that Tory donor Lord Ashcroft remains a tax exile: "Someone's tax status is a matter between them and the Inland Revenue."
However he did indicate support for Lib-Dem peer Lord Oakeshott's private member's bill that is currently proceeding through Parliament, which would ban donations from donors not registered in the UK for tax: "I think that is not a bad idea. I'm very happy to see that bill progress."

And he did just enough to increase the pressure on Jacqui Smith when he declared that "she may have some questions to answer" over her decision to claim up to £24,006 a year in parliamentary allowances by living with her sister in south London rather than a "grace and favour" property normally used by the Home Secretary.

Finally, one for the conspiracy theorists. Asked whether, if he became Prime Minister, he would consider an early referendum on Scottish independence to "shoot the SNP's fox", Mr Cameron steered clear of repeating the R-word.

Instead, in reply to the question, (from Conservative Home's Jonathan Isaby) he pledged to "do whatever it takes" to maintain the Union (note the irony in the number of Scottish seats he expects to win).

For completeness, here's what Mr Cameron said: "If we win the election and if, by some miracle, we don't have 25 seats in Scotland and have slightly fewer, then I would be a Prime Minister who would want to govern in the interests of everyone in Scotland.
"I would recognise the shortage of mandate, if you like, in Scotland by getting straight up there and meeting the First Minister and saying, look, anyone who wants to try to work with me, I will work with them. I will make sure my ministers go to Holyrood and listen to committees there. Likewise, Scottish ministers should come to Westminster and engage with the committees here.
"I would do whatever it takes to govern in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and to try to make sure, that over time, that we can strengthen that United Kingdom. I would be prepared to consider anything to enable us to do that."

Gerri Peev: Cameron signals Top Tory is Osborne and Out

Scewered. Kebabed. Roasted. Just some of the verbs used by colleagues to describe the treatment meted out to Shadow Chancellor George Osborne. The recipe is unveiled in this morning's Sun newspaper. In an interview with David Cameron, the Tory leader reveals he sees William Hague as "my deputy in all but name and people need to know that."

Ouch, which people did he mean? His best friend George? In the joint interview Hague adds: "I won't tread on George's toes". Indeed why bother inflicting more pain when they have effectively kneed him in the groin.

Cameron protests a bit too much when he says that "William, George and I work incredibly closely together...It doesn't reflect on George's position, absolutely not."

Hmmm... Ménage à trois are rarely seen as long-term arrangements. No doubt Osborne will reflect the extent of his betrayal in a few years in a teary-eyed TV interview when he will confirm "There were three of us in that marriage".

Eddie Barnes - Cameron's new map

One thought on David Cameron's announcement yesterday of plans to re-draw and cut the number of UK constituencies. David Mundell, his shadow Scottish Secretary was at pains to insist that this would not affect Scotland any more than anywhere else in the UK. I think I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

Clearly the Tories would love to cut some more Scottish seats. I wonder whether the Calman Commission - the body currently reviewing the powers of the Scottish Parliament - might not give them their excuse. Calman is expected to recommend further transfers of power from Westminster to Holyrood and if Cameron, as PM, agrees to it, couldn't he make the quid pro quo a further cut in the number of Scottish MPs? Wouldn't there be a convincing case to be made that, as MSPs gained in power, Scottish MPs should acknowledge their reduced status with a cut in their number? I put this to a very senior figure in the Tories yesterday who smiled and deflected my query.

Watch out Scottish Labour MPs......

Kenny Farquharson: Obama online

One of the crucial factors in Barack Obama's US presidential election victory - apart from his charisma, his intellect, his integrity and his opponent - was his campaign's use of the internet.

It was the way he raised his cash - tens of thousands of small donations, solicited online, gave him the edge on McCain's big cheques from big business. But the real revolution was in the way the internet was used to foster a direct relationship between candidate and voter.

I joined up to his Facebook group and received regular emails from him. Okay, I know they were written by an aide and sent out in their millions, but it never failed to give me a small shiver when an email from "Barack Obama" appeared in my in-box, and the message started with "Hi Kenny..."

The remarkable thing is that now, seven weeks after the election, the emails keep on coming. And their content gives an insight into how how the lessons learned about the internet during the campaign are likely to be carried through into the Obama administration.

One email landed last night, urging supporters to hold house meetings to discuss what the administration's policy priorities should be. There was even a link to a video of one such meeting to help set the tone.

http://my.barackobama.com/meetingvideo

House meetings were one of the most effective tools of the Obama campaign - a good example of the revolution we're seeing in participatory politics in the US.

I wonder which of the UK parties will learn these lessons most effectively. David Cameron was the first party leader to start a blog, and last year the Scottish Labour leadership candidates all had a presence on social networking websites.

But we've yet to see anyone really use the net to bring politics into hearts and homes in the same way as Obama showed was possible.

Will it be the big political battleground of 2009, potentially a general election year?