David Maddox: The Numbers Game (29) - Bookies' Balls up

As regular readers may know, The Steamie has at times tried to help you add a few pounds to your pockets by offering a tip on the political betting front with mixed success.
Those of you who put money on Iain Gray to become Labour leader may appreciate The Steamie's advice, while those who went for Ann Widdicombe to be Speaker may not.
But we've had some interesting odds regarding who will be the next Chancellor to give a Budget from our old friends at Ladbrokes. Please note these odds are ahead of tonight's debate and may change at 9.10pm, I'm reliably informed.

George Osborne 2/5 (fav)
Alistair Darling 5/1
Ed Balls 10/1
Vince Cable 16/1
Ken Clarke 16/1
Philip Hammond 20/1
Gordon Brown 100/1

So tip of the day would be to put your money on Balls.
With Labour closing the gap there is now a decent chance it will be the biggest party and may even have a majority.
If that were to happen Gordon Brown has already made it clear that he wants to replace Alistair Darling with Ed Balls, despite the fact that many people now believe the current Chancellor is the last remaining minister with any credibility and certainly could claim to have won an election for Labour.

This also applies to the newly published odds on the next Labour leader with the very same Ed Balls at 14/1. Again this tip is based on the fact that the Brownites would support him against the Blairites' David Milliband (the 5/2 favourite). He would also probably have the backing of the major unions including the dreaded Unite.

I'm not just saying this because he is a fellow Norwich City fan, but while Ed Balls is reportedly incredibly unpopular in the Commons he has enough powerful supporters and hangers on to make both sets of odds from Ladbrokes look pretty generous.

Perhaps the clever bet is to actually back Ed Balls on both. Whilst it is extremely unlikely but not impossible to clean up on both it makes a decent each way bet on Mr Balls' ultimate fate based on whether Labour win or lose the election.

Here are the rest of the runners and riders to replace Gordon Brown as Labour leader:

David Miliband 5/2
Ed Miliband 5/1
Alan Johnson 6/1
Harriet Harman 8/1
Peter Mandelson 8/1
Alistair Darling 12/1
Ed Balls 14/1
Jon Cruddas 14/1
Jack Straw 25/1
John Denham 25/1
Andy Burnham 25/1
Hilary Benn 33/1
Yvette Cooper 33/1
Shaun Woodward 50/1
Jim Murphy 50/1
Douglas Alexander 66/1
Peter Hain 66/1
John McDonnell 66/1
Liam Byrne 66/1
Hazel Blears 100/1
Tony Blair 100/1
Alastair Campbell 500/1
Cherie Blair 500/1

Eddie Barnes: The Gordonator is off

Blimey, Gordon Brown was in his element today. Addressing the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow, he was back on home turf, he had pumped-up Scottish Labour activists in the audience, they had Tories in their sights. That's as good as it gets for Gordon.

The speech he delivered was magnificently brass-necked. Just to remember the context, two days ago the Chancellor Alistair Darling acknowledged that Labour, if it wins in May, will have to cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher in order to bring the deficit under control. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne then confirmed that on Question Time on Thursday night. We are heading for a national debt of 1.4 trillion pounds. But today, in his first stump speech of the campaign, the Gordonator simply blasted all that stuff away, as if it were a bit of collateral damage. Instead, he banged out a speech of classic Brown. Labour would protect middle Britain. The Tories would pull the rug from under the recovery. And, as if the recession had never happened, and the deficit didn't exist, it was back to investment vs cuts. Half way through, Brown declared that, if re-elected, he would create a million new high-skilled jobs. It really was like being in a time warp.

You might find Brown's approach a bit galling but the Prime Minister does have a track record of winning. He is making change look risky. He's making caution sound sensible. He claims he's the one with the experience, and that Cameron and Co have none. Can he really get away with all this? It might just be so. After all, he's telling many people what they would really like to believe: that the public finances aren't that bad really, that the country can recover, that we can still have our cake and eat it.

The speech was littered with the usual Brown mistakes - the badly delivered jokes, the smile in the wrong place. But I don't think I've ever seen Brown looking so confident and so brimming with self-belief. Tories beware.

David Maddox: The rise of Willie Bain

I had coffee with Willie Bain (pictured right) recently down in the Commons, one of many I've tried to cram in with MPs before they are fully distracted by the need to persuade people to vote for them.
While I met Mr Bain during the autumn campaign for Glasgow North East, it was difficult then to weigh him up, largely because Labour kept him so well protected and the only quality they highlighted of his was his "localness" as opposed to the outsider SNP candidate David Kerr.
So it was a bit of a relief to find out that Willie Bain appears to be a capable and articulate politician, which is not something you can say about all MPs.
And since he came down from his parents' high rise in Springburn to help save Labour in Glasgow North East, Willie's stock appears to have risen.
In a very short time he has become the parliamentary private secretary (PPS) to transport minister Sadiq Khan. Being a PPS - or bag carrier as it is more disparagingly known - is the first step to becoming a minister.
His swift elevation is certainly partly due to the fact that he is relatively young, 37, and, unlike many of the younger up and comers standing in safe Labour seats in Scotland, actually has a hinterland outside party politics, having worked as a lecturer in public law in London.
There is no doubt he is one to look out for in the future depending on Labour's fortunes at the election, although he will certainly be coming back.
However, there is actually a more serious issue going on with the way Gordon Brown tries to control the Chamber highlighted by a recent report by the Public Administration Committee in the Commons.
It has raised concerns about the size of what is called the payroll vote which represents 40 per cent of the Labour MPs. These are the MPs who have a government job, including the lowly PPSs who are not actually paid a ministerial wage, and who then have to resign if they vote against the government.
By drafting in as many MPs as possible on the payroll vote Gordon Brown can limit any potential rebellions. MPs within the payroll vote are not even able to go against the government line in less strict one or two line whipped votes, let alone three line whips.
The committee actually agreed with one of Mr Brown's predecessors, Sir John Major, who said last year that the size of the payroll vote was leading him to have doubts about the first past the post voting system. He suggested it should be halved.

David Maddox: A future fare for all with Gordon Brown

Lobby journalists have just discovered the price of a bus ticket with Gordon Brown.
One day on the election battle bus with the great leader is £595 while a full election season ticket is a snip at £12,995.
That's certainly an interesting way of raising election funds.
So when Mr Brown unveiled that rehashed election slogan "a future fair for all" maybe he just misspelt fare.

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.

Chris Mackie: Glasgow North East - the turnout

There is some typically insightful stuff from Mike Smithson at his ever fascinating Political Betting blog this afternoon. Despite near-universal predictions of a depressingly low number of people actually bothering to cast their votes in today's Glasgow North East poll, Mike has a decent stab at arguing that the official turnout could be surprisingly high.

He argues: "Just look what happened a year ago in the last by election where Gordon Brown campaigned. That was held in early November and we saw more than 52% of those on the electoral roll recorded as voting - which wasn’t that far short of the general election figure. "

This, the increased postal vote and the 42 per cent turnout in the Glasgow East poll has led Mike to put his money on the turnout being higher than 38 per cent.

Despite the weather in Glasgow holding up so far, I think this is slightly optimistic. The big issue he fails to tackle is the impact of the expenses scandal and the resultant voter apathy - a problem felt especially keenly in a constituency such as Glasgow North East. This effect will be exacerbated by the absence of any real political fight in the seat since Michael Martin became speaker. Numerous party workers have told us of the logistical problems they have faced during this campaign caused by the lack of any meaningful voter data or polling records on which to base their campaign strategy.

Things have not been helped, frankly, by the vague air of chaos around the whole enterprise caused by the existence of a number of no-hoper candidates all fighting for attention. That is undoubtedly a welcome sight in any democracy, but it has not helped any semblance of a pervasive narrative for the election break through to the media and subsequently, the voters.

The Glenrothes and Glasgow East fight were fascinating contests because they represented a clear referendum on the popularity of the Labour government. This contest has no such backdrop, despite the efforts of the SNP, and that is partly because of the number of competing voices shouting to be heard. There have been snatches of the BNP furore, a smidgen of red-faced socialist outrage and a touch of Tory toffage, but nothing that has dominated the news agenda throughout the campaign.

On the other hand, the increase in the postal vote will help, so it seems likely the doomsday predictions (see below post from David Maddox) will not materialise, I therefore confidently predict a turnout of around the 30 per cent mark and fully expect to be proved hopelessly wrong tomorrow morning.

David Maddox: Don't count your chickens....

Labour have just put out a press release with the following subject title: "Words from the Prime Minister on Willie Bain's election"

I know Labour are confident about Willie Bain winning Glasgow North East, but perhaps they should wait for the voters to do their bit on Thursday before announcing the result.

Just to clear up any confusion these were not words from Gordon Brown prepared in the event of Mr Bain's anticipated victory, but comments from his morning briefing of journalists supporting his party's candidate.

Glasgow North East: Willie Bain, Labour. Prime Minister visits Glasgow

I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister to the constituency this afternoon.

Gordon and I visited North Glasgow College – a shining example of what Labour has achieved in the area. I’m proud that Gordon was so impressed with the building, and the opportunities that the college provides for people in my area.

It’s sad that some people want to talk down our community, but I think the college is a great example of the changes I have seen in my life here.

I’ve put some more information up on my website. The man in the photo with the Prime Minister is my dad (also Willie). He was really proud to meet the Prime Minister.

It was taken inside our campaign centre, which is in the old college building over the road from the new one. The building was opened by a former in 1909 by Earl Rosebery who was Prime Minister in the 1890s. The foyer contains a moving and sobering war memorial to the college students who died in the First World War.

Willie Bain
Labour’s Candidate in Glasgow North East

Eddie Barnes - Osborne's lack of ankle room

Did George Osborne show too much ankle last week? Gordon Brown is out of the stocks this morning, using an interview to proclaim that Osborne's doom-mongering of last week, and the tough policy prescriptions he said would be required were over the top. One well-placed Labour contact yesterday, who has taken defeat for granted for the last few months, yesterday told me that the possibility of victory is now back on. Osborne and Cameron are now tied into their stark plans for how to deal with the public sector crunch for the next nine months. This is based on their stark predictions for just how deep UKplc is in trouble. But what if, as Brown claims today, the economy improves, that gaping deficit suddenly begins to fall, and the UK's credit rating actually goes up?

Labour strategists think that the Tories have got carried away by polling, which both of them have, showing that people want to hear it straight, and want to be told up-front how bad things are going to get. That gamble appears to have paid off, according to a new poll released today, which suggests people approve of Osborne's approach. But what people say to pollsters might not be what they think in the privacy of their own home (or ballot station).

In other words, what if people are basically liars? It's all very well being honest with the voters. But what if the voters aren't being honest with you?

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: Brown vs the media

Fresh from his combative performance at the party conference yesterday, Gordon Brown appears to have decided that along with the Conservatives, he is going to take on the media as well. The Prime Minister was in an unusually confrontational mood during an interview with Sky's Adam Boulton this morning, describing Boulton as "a political propagandist" and repeatedly accusing Sky's political editor of getting his facts wrong, and failing to ask the right questions.

Coming on the morning that Sky's Murdoch stablemate The Sun officially declared for the Conservatives, you can imagine why Brown might be a little sore at the media coverage he is receiving. It's all so unfair isn't it?....last week, he is lauded as World Statesman of the Year by Bono....this week, all the British press pack want to know is whether he's definitely going to cling on until the election date.

The Brown's are said to be furious about whay they see as the bias of the UK press pack. Newly self-cast as official underdog, it now looks as if the PM is preparing to cast the media as part of the great conspiracy trying to force a Conservative government upon the country. It's another of Brown's dividing lines: on the one side, there's him and the silent majority, who want to talk about the "issues that matter"; on the other, there's the media elite who are only interested in froth and personality.

Dangerous ground. It was never an either/or situation. The truth is that both personality and issues matter. Brown could take a leaf out of Lord Mandelson's book who has managed to turn the media's fascination with his own personality to his considerable political advantage.

None of this is that easy to take on board when you're facing the pummelling that Brown is getting at present. But it would be Prime Ministerial to try.

David Maddox: Was the Labour Party trying to tell Gordon Brown something?

M People's Moving on Up sounds pretty uplifting when you're a party staring defeat in the face, but on closer inspection it is an odd choice of song to play Gordon Brown off the stage with, perhaps in more ways then one.
Read for yourself:

You've done me wrong, your time is up
You took a sip (just a sip) from the devils cup.
You broke my heart, there's no way back.
Move right outta here baby.
Go and pack your bags.
Just who do you think you are?
Stop acting like some kind of star.
Just who do you think you are?
Take it like a man baby if that's what you are.

[chorus]
'Cos I'm moving on up.
You're moving on out.
Movin' on up.
Nothing can stop me.
Moving on up.
You're moving on out.
Time to break free.
Nothing can stop me,
Yeah.

They brag a man has walked in space,
but you can't even find my place.
Mmm there ain't nothing (not a thing) you can do
'cos I've had enough of me baby being part of you.

Just who do you think you are?
This time you've gone too far.
Just who do you think you are?
Take it like a man baby if that's what you are.

[chorus]

David Maddox: Labour and the Brown stuff - aka The Numbers Game (21)

More and more it seems that bookmakers are providing the first early comment on the political fortunes of parties at key events.
This is because they track the bets punters make during big speeches
PaddyPower has just sent through a fascinating analysis of the affects of Gordon Brown's speech on the odds as it inspired people to lay bets on everything from his party's popularity after the conference to how long the applause would last.
One immediate effect though is that Labour's odds remain unchanged to win the election at 11/2 with the Conservatives remaining hot favourites at 1/12.
According to PaddyPower: "In general the speech looked likely to have a small positive effect on Brown’s approval rating next month with a fall in YouGov’s poll to 21-25% starting at 9/4 and drifting out to 3/1. The key time coming just after 3.00pm when Brown discussed pensions. A rise to an approval of 26-30% remained favourite throughout the speech, starting at 13/8 and finishing at 11/10."

Here were the key moments for the political gamblers when a flurry of bets were placed:

Length of Applause
14:31 Sarah Brown
14:36 Talk of Labour achievements
14:47 Talk of Bank collapse
14:52 New Banking Law and banks paying people back
15:02 Raise tax at top
15:13 Talk of troops
15:22 Personal Care for Free
15:25 Abolish heriditary principle in house of lords
15:31 Talking of dreaming

Approval
14:31 Sarah Brown
14:41 Talk of employment and saving jobs
14:49 Talk of his parents and family values with NHS
14:55 Climate Change deal
15:03 Free Child Care, Child Tax Credits
15:09 Talk of immigration
15:14 Threat to Iran


PaddyPower has also given us a series of post speech odds:

Who will win the next UK General Election?
1/12 Conservatives
11/2 Labour
80/1 Liberal Democrats

Gordon Browns’ October Approval Rating (Yougov Poll, Sept 09 = 26%)
16/1 10% or less
12/1 11 - 15%
8/1 16 - 20%
3/1 21 - 25%
11/10 26 - 30%
3/1 30 - 35%
8/1 36 - 40%
10/1 Over 40%

How many seats will Labour win at the next Election?
5/1 Less than 150
11/10 150-200
13/8 201-250
6/1 251-300
10/1 301-350
33/1 351-400
50/1 Over 400

It will be interesting to see how accurate the above is and whether the cash pundits are as good or better than us political hacks.

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.

Rift? What rift? - Eddie Barnes

Gordon Brown has clarified that, contrary to reports this morning claiming that President Obama had ignored his requests for some face time while in New York, in fact they have never stopped talking since he arrived there.

Following widespread reports in this morning's press that the White House snubbed Brown over a meeting, Brown says today: "I talked to President Obama."

For good measure, he adds: "I talked to him at the meetings."

Just in case we hadn't got the message, he goes on: "I talked to him before I came to the meetings here."

He continues: "I had a long talk with him after Monday’s meeting."

And just so as it's crystal clear, he concludes: "We are meeting today, we are chairing two meetings."

Got that? President Obama had better make sure he keeps his bedroom door locked tonight.

David Maddox: Recognition (of sorts) at last!

For more than two years now British government ministers and Whitehall officials have rather tiresomely referred to the Scottish Government as the old rather more demure title the Scottish Executive.

This irritating attempt to look down at Holyrood, started when UK ministers stopped their Scottish Labour counterparts from adopting the government name, has been supported by the London based press, much of which has yet to move beyond May 2007 in its approach to devolution.
But finally it appears that Alex Salmond's administration is finally on the verge of getting its due recognition in London, courtesy of a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the Number 10 briefing this morning.
He was trying to fend off questions about the statements made by the PM's best political friend Ed Balls and Mr Brown himself on whether the UK Government wanted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi freed.
In response, the premier's spokesman said: "The most important part is that this was a decision for the Scottish executive government."
"Finally!" a source very close to First Minister Alex Salmond told me a few minutes ago.

Eddie Barnes - Brown still unclear on Megrahi

Gordon Brown has just issued another statement on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. He repeated his point that this was a matter for Scottish Ministers. He said he had told Colonel Gaddafi of this point when he met his recently. He pointed out that it was in the wider interests of the UK and the wider world to welcome Libya back into the international community. He insisted there was no double-dealing with regard to Mr Megrahi's release.

"There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double-dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to influence Scottish ministers."

But so far as I could tell, he still didn't say whether or not he believed freeing Mr Megrahi was a good thing or not. As a result, the statement will have failed to lay the issue to rest.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game returns

Things are getting so bad for Gordon Brown that bookmakers have now started taking bets on how badly the public think of him.
Paddy Power is asking punters to put their money whether their mouths are on the beleaguered PM's latest Yougov approval rating and the one he will have at the next election.
Even though he claims that he has now fixed the economy, I fancy any of the odds 4/1, 6/1 or 8/1 for the various estimates below 20%, especially after his latest McAvity act on the Lockerbie bomber.
Here are the odds:

Gordon Brown September Approval Rating
8/1 10% or Less
6/1 11% - 15%
4/1 16% - 20%
11/8 21% - 25%
3/1 26% - 30%
9/2 Over 30%

Gordon Brown’s Approval Racing At The Next General Election
6/1 10% or Less
5/2 11% to 20%
11/8 20% to 30%
7/2 30% to 40%
8/1 Over 40%

Eddie Barnes - Brown butts in on Burma, so why not Scotland?

GORDON Brown is "both saddened and angry" at the decision. He believes that it showed that the authorities were "determined to act with total disregard for accepted standards of the rule of law and in defiance of international opinion".

Has the Prime Minister finally broken his silence over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi? No. That was the Prime Minister talking earlier this month about the sentencing of Burma's opposition leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi. It seems that when the Burmese judicial system acts, it's the PM's business to make his views known. But when the Scots system does, it isn't.

Amid all the conspiracies about why Brown is refusing to say what he thinks about the decision to release Al-Megrahi, could the truth be a little more mundane? What if, as with Aung Sang Suu Kyi, Brown agrees that Al-Megrahi should indeed be allowed home? Prezza thinks so. The Church of Scotland thinks so. So might the PM also believe in a "compassionte" decision? Not that he can say so, seeing as Scottish Labour has come out four-square against it.

All idle speculation, but until Brown makes his views known, that's all we're left with.

Eddie Barnes: Malloch-Brown on Mr Brown

Most of the focus on former Foreign Office Minister Lord Malloch-Brown's interview in the Telegraph today has rightly focussed on his claim that "we definitely don't have enough helicopters" in Afghanistan (which he is now rowing back on, incidentally).



But the interview contains several other gems from a man who, in the parlance, has hinterland. Malloch-Brown earned his straps as one of the "alpha dogs" in the legendary Sawyer Miller political consultancy in New York - the firm which effectively wrote the rule book in the 1980s and 9os on How to Win Elections. It's fair to say he knows a thing or two about politics.



In the interview, he provides a fascinating insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Gordon Brown. Asked by Mary Riddell whether Gordon Brown has grasped the notion of losing next year, he declares......



"No I don't. That's one reason why, for all the criticism, he is a remarkable leader. He has this Churchillian faith in his belief that he can persuade the British public he's the one."



And whilst admitting that Labour's chances look "incredibly bleak", he nevertheless backs Brown as the man to lead them onwards.



"He'll be the candidate. He's got something no other politician in the Labour party has. He thinks he can win."



Riddell comments: "It is possible to detech in Lord Malloch-Brown's voice more than a hint of disbelief".



Brown won't be giving up, in other words, even when everyone else has thrown in the towel. It might make him delusional. It also means he's a stayer.

David Maddox: Afghanistan - the Peter Principle

Dr Laurence J. Peter (pictured right), the Canadian born hierarcheologist, is probably best known for the Peter Principle that "everybody rises to the level of their incompetence."

He argued that at some point every position was held by somebody incompetent to do the job and the real work was done by those who had not yet reached their own level of incompetence.

It sounds like former RBS chief Sir Fred Goodwin's professional epitaph.

And any observer of politicians would know that this is especially true in the world of politics where the threshold for the level of incompetence is all too often very low.

Which brings us on neatly to the continuing conflict in Afghanistan and the historical vortex of incompetence that the world's various powers have found themselves in for more than 150 years.

A less well known but even more pessimistic quotation from Dr Peter is on history.

"History teaches us the mistakes we are going to make," he said.

It seems a very apt quote on the day that Gordon Brown orders more troops into Afghanistan following President Obama's plea for more support in a conflict that eventually, if we look at historical precedent, seems doomed to failure.

The late George MacDonald Fraser's novel Flashman perhaps offers most readable object lesson in history for Afghanistan. it charts the demise of the British army's first catastrophic foray into Afghanistan under the command of the incompetent Scottish Major General Lord Elphinstone(an historical example of the Peter principle) ending up with his force's massacre in January 1842.

MacDonald Fraser's building of history around the hilarious antics of the cowardly, womanising bully Flashman (of Tom Brown's Schooldays infamy) adds pathos to an unfolding tragedy known as the First Afghan War.

Since 1842 the British have been back, the Russians had a go, the Americans have been in along with the British (again) and others. Even with more technical weaponry, none have tamed that country or its warlords.

The cause of stopping terrorism, saving women from the Taliban's awful abuses and turning a failed state into a successful democracy are all worthy and just ones. And it is also true that British troops are currently out-killing Taliban ones - 15 to 200 in the last month.
But in the end every major army has failed in Afghanistan, the sooner this is recognised and the allies get out the less lives may be wasted.

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......

David Maddox: Making history

Here is the new Cabinet announced by Gordon Brown today. It contains many surprises, some over-promoted (Ainsworth), some who Mr Brown wanted to sack (Darling) and some who thought they would never return (Hain).
But look carefully at the list because if things go really badly on Sunday night with the European election results it could be the shortest serving Cabinet in British political history.

Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service
The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal; Minister for Women and Equality (and deputising for the Prime Minister at PMQs)
o The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council
o The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson
Chancellor of the Exchequer
o The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
o The Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor
o The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
o The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
o The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for International Development
o The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
o The Rt Hon John Denham MP
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
o The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
o The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Health
o The Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
o The Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP
Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
o The Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Minister for the Cabinet Office, and for the Olympics and Paymaster General
o The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP
Secretary of State for Scotland
o The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
o The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
o The Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP
Secretary of State for Wales
o The Rt Hon Peter Hain MP
Secretary of State for Defence
o The Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP
Secretary of State for Transport
o Lord Adonis
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
o Ben Bradshaw MP

David Maddox: And the important news is.... baa

As Labour goes into meltdown and the UK Government appears to be on the verge of collapse you can always rely on the Lib Dems to come up with the top news story of the day.

Their press release's headline screamed out:

SCOTLAND’S SHEEP FARMERS NEED MINISTER TO ACT OVER EID

EID is apparently electronic identity tagging. The trouble is that most of the sheep people are thinking about today are the panicking Labour MPs in Westminster and the only EID in play will be the one the despairing PM (pictured right) is no doubt trying to put on his last remaining ministers to make sure he can keep track of them before they too decide to resign.

Gerri Peev: Sugar not so sweet on Brown

The Brown-Sugar relationship may have soured before it has even been consumated.
Gordon Brown has offered a peerage and an enterprise role to Amstrad chief Alan Sugar.
But the love-in between the two has not always been so strong.
Back when Brown was Shadow Trade Secretary in the 90s, Sugar wrote a letter lambasting him for failing to do his "homework", warning that Labour did not the solution for getting the country out of a recession.

This letter appeared in the FT on 19 March 1992, after Brown appeared to accuse City bosses of feeding off the recession:

Sir, I have noted with disgust the comments of a certain Mr Gordon Brown who has accused me of doing well out of the recession after reading the letter published in The Times from 40 top industrialists.

I do not know who Mr Gordon Brown is. Excuse my ignorance, but I don't. Whoever he is (shadow trade and industry secretary), he has not done his homework properly. The man doesn't know what he's talking about. How he has the audacity to say that Amstrad, or Alan Sugar, has flourished in recession is a complete mystery to me.

Amstrad made its first loss ever this year. It is not a secret that our share price has tumbled to about one-seventh of what it was. The value of my shares has collapsed from Pounds 500m to Pounds 100m more or less overnight. The salary I have been taking in the company is pretty meagre - about Pounds 170,000. It's nowhere near the million-pound bracket. So this talk that I have prospered in the midst of recession is total nonsense.

I personally have made a lot of money in my time, despite coming from a working class background in the East End. The money hasn't been handed down from family to family or by the old boys' act. I was able to start from scratch.

When taxation was 98p in the pound under the last Labour government I would have been spending my time doing what I am doing now - creating wealth and producing employment. I would have been better off going to Bermuda, the Virgin Islands or Timbuktu.

But I don't want to go to Bermuda to avoid tax and lie on the beach. I don't like paying tax, but I agree that the 40 per cent I pay at the moment is reasonable and fair when you balance the fact that the country has got to run itself somehow, and I like living in England.

So that's why I'm here. That's why I'm still spearheading my company and that's why I'm still employing people, innovating and surviving in a very difficult market.

Our letter to The Times talked of the importance of the enterprise culture for the future prosperity of Britain. The thing that frightens me the most about a Labour government is that it suppresses enterprise.

For instance, Labour's talk about investment is a bit of a joke. The capital allowances for machinery, plant and equipment it urges are not going to encourage people to rush out tomorrow and start equipping a factory or making products.

If you've got good design and innovative products you don't need any help, thank you very much indeed. You get on and make it. Amstrad is a classic example. We built our own factories in Shoeburyness in Essex without a penny grant on an 11-acre site. From there, in 1980, we fought off the Japanese to turn ourselves into the market leader in audio equipment. I didn't need help from anybody at that stage because we had invented good merchandise and good products.

The same goes for satellite dishes today. We rule the satellite dish market in this country and half of Europe and the dishes are made in Birmingham. I didn't need any investment or any help to do it. All I needed was the government to keep out of the way. More than 1m dishes have been sold to date in this country alone. When we placed the orders in the factory the satellite hadn't even been launched. It's that sort of entrepreneurial spirit the Conservatives believe in and Labour doesn't understand.

The reason Labour flourished many years ago was the 'them and us' situation that prevailed in England. There were the rich and there were the poor. At that stage maybe I would have sympathised with the need for a Labour government.

But that's all been changed now. Look around. Yes, there are the very poor and more should be done for them. But almost everybody's got a microwave oven, a car and a colour television - maybe more than one colour television in their homes. Let's be honest with each other. 'Them and us' doesn't exist any more, as I have demonstrated.

I have been able to come from the working class, achieve what I set out to achieve and not be suppressed by anybody. Likewise, in the stock market today there are bright young men with a Cockney accent doing deals and buying and selling shares. It's not just the Heskett-Smythes mob that are doing it. Anybody can do it.

The government has made mistakes; nobody's perfect. To be sure, somebody took his eye off the ball. Now the belt has been tightened and there have been casualties. But it is not just the poor unemployed factory worker from the Midlands who is being thrown out of work. So are the merchant bankers, the stockbrokers and the estate agents.

Labour offers no sort of route out of recession. It's out of date and - as Brown's remark shows - it hasn't done its homework.

Alan Sugar,
chairman,
Amstrad,
Brentwood House,
165 King's Road, Brentwood, Essex

After Purnell, Smith, Blears and now Hutton, hasn't Brown learned his lesson in trying to recruit to half-hearted converts?

Gerri Peev: Biggest story so far in Brown meltdown

As the Cabinet implodes and Brown clings on by his fingernails (which incidentally are very short because he bites them), news reaches us of the most momentous development so far.

A telescopic SNP press release lands in the inbox:

Its headline reads: BROWN MELTDOWN REFLECTED IN HEARTLAND BY-ELECTIONS

LABOUR JUST CLING ON IN SAFEST WESTMINSTER SEAT IN SCOTLAND

The release details the earth shattering news that the Labour vote in a by election in Coatbridge North and Glenboig in North Lanarkshire has collapsed.

But er, Labour still won. This is hailed as a massive blow for Gordon Brown by Bruce Crawford.
A clever Labour press officer would actually dress this up as a victory for the PM, given the range of catastrophes facing him.

The headline about the Aberdeen man lost at sea springs to mind...

David Maddox: Meeting the great unwashed

Gordon Brown and his senior ministers will be in and around Glasgow tomorrow ahead of a full cabinet meeting.

The event is part of an attempt to take government to the people and follows events in other major cities including Birmingham. Of course, it smacks suspiciously of a copy of Alex Salmond's National Conversation initiative of taking the Scottish Government cabinet on a tour of Scotland for its summer recess meetings last year.

But one interesting aspect of tomorrow's events is the question and answer session for the public ahead of the cabinet meeting. This, of course, has not been advertised so Glaswegians or any other Scots who may wish to attend cannot just walk in off the streets.

Instead Mr Brown and his colleagues will have an invited audience. I am assured by a senior Whitehall source that the audience "will not only consist of Labour Party members" be cause it is a government event.

Apparently, what has happened is that an arms length polling company has been asked to find an audience of a suitable balance including some school children and readers of a Glasgow based tabloid and listeners of a commercial radio station have also been selected.

Nevertheless, you get the feeling that there will not be a question about dodgy e-mails and the recently departed spin doctor Mr McBride.

And it seems a long time since a Prime Minister to hear and answer on the views of random members of the public in a genuinely open forum.

The last one to do that in relatively recent memory was John Major in the general election 1992 (see picture top left) when he took his soap box out on the streets, got on it and took on all comers. I knew the Labour party activist, later Portsmouth councillor, John McIntyre, who managed to hit Major with a rotten egg in Southampton, which perhaps sums up the dangers of letting the public too close. McIntyre had to go into hiding for a while after that and was surprisingly coy about talking about his moment of national fame.

Tony Blair only liked to meet invited audiences because of the potential embarrassment caused by angry voters. Famously when he was cornered by an angry woman outside a hospital in the 2005 general election campaign, he was lost for words.

The usual reason for not allowing in the public is of course one of security and terrorism, but such concerns did not seem to bother politicians of the past.

The last Prime Minister to have a cabinet meeting in Scotland was the last Liberal to hold the post, David Lloyd-George in Inverness in 1921. He, like the other leading politicians of his day including his friend and colleague Winston Churchill, regularly addressed mass uninvited audiences despite living in uncertain times.

It should be noted that the auspices of the Inverness meeting are not necessarily good for Mr Brown. A year after his Scottish sojourn Lloyd-George's government fell in a general election, Mr Brown faces the British electorate in the next year too.

Gerri Peev: Waiting for Gordo - and Obama

Long wait this morning for US President Barack Obama in the Locarno Room at the Foreign Office. Not a grain of coffee in sight.
It should have been a stampede but the early morning must have put off a lot of hacks. Mr Prez himself looked a bit weary. Jet lag and trying to rescue the world will do that to you (or perhaps it was just breakfast with the PM).
Biggest dilemma: Do hacks stand for the US President, or risk looking like they are staging a "sit in" if their US colleagues rise for their head of state? Traditionally, British journalists do NOT stand for the American president. To do so would be deferential. I resolve not to stand. As it turns out, the two leaders launch straight into their statements so there is no time.
Best quote: (From the President Obama): "Don't short change the future because of fear in the present."
One observation: President Obama picked two women and a male journalist when taking questions - all of them wire services.
Brown picked four males, three broadcasters, one tabloid political editor.
The British hacks are overwhelmingly white, middle aged and male in comparison to the more diverse journos who have flown with the President. Wonder if he notices?

David Maddox: Banking on tonight's game

Scotland and Iceland today take each other on in what may still be a crucial group 9 World Cup qualifier at Hampden.
But in reality this is a battle of the banking basement as the previous competitors for the “Best Small Country in Financial Services” now contest for "the biggest bailout."

Scotland, with its proud 300 plus year tradition as sound bankers, and Iceland, the Johnny come latelies of the banking world who turned small financial advice services into major banks in a decade, both ended up on the same scrapheap with their reputations in tatters.
So on April 1, the day we celebrate fools, it seems appropriate to assemble two world beating teams of politicians and bankers from the two countries who played their part in the dramatic matches of the last few months.

This is after all a grudge match for the Icelanders after Gordon Brown impounded their assets when their banks collapsed.

Scotland

Sponsor: The British taxpayer

Home ground: Hamstrung

Goalkeeper: Gordon Brown - Also captain and manager because he doesn't want anybody else to be in charge. Keeps annoying his team mates by referring to them as Team GB and going on about relocating to London in 2012. Perfect candidate for a keeper because he reckons he saved the world, although most people don't even think he can save himself.

Left back: Sir Peter Burt – As the creator of the apparently formidable HBOS team the veteran performer found he was not allowed to return to head the team sheet when it was sold off.

Right back (behind GB): Alistair Darling - Keeps going off to the corner flag and muttering about the worst season since the 1930s. Only useful for bringing on the half time oranges to feed the hungry bankers.

Centre back: Sir James Crosby – Former HBOS team captain, hand picked by Brown to shore up the defence but had too many long lunches and waived the attackers through, arguing that the less defenders tackle the less goals they concede.

Centre back: Sir George Mathewson - Architect of the RBS team hailed as the best ever, until it was discovered it had been taking performance enhancing credit. Not wanted by the HBOS team, but he still is allowed to play in Alex Salmond’s five aside team.

Right whinger: David Cameron – Qualifies through his Scottish grandfather (the one he doesn’t like to mention to his English club mates). Always complaining that he should be the captain. His tactics involve sitting on the sidelines doing nothing in the belief that it will turn the season around.

Left whinger: Alex Salmond - GB would prefer him left back far away. Keeps wandering out of position and trying to wrestle the captain's armband off GB. Dazzles everybody with his twinkle toe moves on spivs and speculators, but then ends up firing the ball into his own net - known as the "open goal mouth technique."

Holding player: Sir Tom McKillop – When the chips are down it is said (by UK government sources) the former RBS chairman can always play keepy uppy with the money just long enough for his old team mates to walk away with it in their pockets. Just ask Sir Fred.

Playmaker: Andy Hornby – Became a crowd pleaser with captivating play that seemed too good to be true in his quest to take HBOS to world glory. Unfortunately it was and his bank became the Accrington Stanley of finance rather than the Manchester United. Now on a loan spell at Lloyds.

(Too far) Forward: Jim "April" Faulds – Former Dunfermline BS captain was fed up with safe mid-table obscurity so changed sport to appeal to a new commercial market. Fell flat on his face and complained loudly when Alistair Darling wouldn’t come over with a large sack of oranges to revive him.

Striker: Sir Fred Goodwin – Former RBS top shot is happiest when he is firing (other people). Likes to play an expansive game. Unfortunately currently without a club after he mortgaged its assets on a has-been Dutch international, but still commands a huge salary.

Stuck on the bench: Vince Cable – graduated in Glasgow and is recognised as the only player around who knows what to do. But his team mates won’t let him on the pitch because his Lib Dem club play too far down the divisions and may not even get European qualification in Scotland in the election in June.

Iceland

Sponsor: Previously Icesave otherwise known as British savers, but more recently the Russian Government.

Home ground: Wreck’ya’bank

Goalkeeper: Geir Hilmar Haarde - dumped as Prime Minister of Iceland after dropping the financial ball in 2008, not even able to save his own country let alone the world.

Left but not back: Björgvin Sigurðsson - Iceland’s first trade minister was the only one to do the honourable thing and quit the team.

Central defence: Jon Sigurdsson - as Iceland Financial Services Authority’s chairman he took a similar view to defence as Sir James Crosby, except with less tackling.

Playmaker: David "playing the odds" Oddsson (Capt) – as prime minister he orchestrated the team’s expansionist style and then as central bank governor he organised the non-tackling defence. Amazingly, was still miffed when dropped from the team sheet.

Central Midfield: Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson – Chairman of the now nationalised Landsbanki, Iceland’s biggest bank, but fortunately knows a bit more about football as the owner of West Ham United.

Diamond geezer formation: Sigurdur Einarsson, Kaupthing bank chairman; Kjartan Gunnarsson, vice chairman of Landsbanki; Larus Welding, Glitnir bank chief executive; and Thorsteinn M. Jonsson, chairman of Glitnir - Impressed the world with their intricate passing of money until people realised that it wasn’t only the ball that was full of air.



Playing in the hole: Paul Carter – Leader of Kent County Council gained residency status for the Icelandic team by leaving £50m of taxpayers’ cash in the country for years even after he was told to get out.

Sweeper: Björk – bringing in a new broom, the pop singer is clearly the only talented player on the park because she does not have any background in finance or politics. Reinvented herself as a venture capitalist to save her country from oblivion, but is likely to walk away with the ball because she does not want Iceland to play internationally any more.

Final result: They both lost.

Hamish Macdonell - take the short odds

ONE punter has decided that even the short odds from Ladbrokes on the next election are too good to miss.
But given the performance of the markets, maybe it is not such a bad shout. The unnamed gambler has put £9,500 on there being a General Election next year - at 1/5.
Given that the Prime Minister has to call an election by the middle of next year anyway, all the punter is doing is betting that Gordon Brown is too cautious to call a snap election this year which, given his past form, is probably a good bet.
Ladbrokes also offer the Conservative Party at 1/6 to win most seats, with the Labour Party available at 4/1.
The Tories are 4/7 to secure an overall majority.
ends

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: Washington warns of Brown rot

This was the headline on a press release from the US Embassy in London: International Team Sequences Genome of Brown-Rot Fungus.
Have relations with the US really gone off? We had heard the PM had received the "short red carpet" treatment in DC in contrast to the Messiah's welcome extended to Tony Blair, but this was potentially a real insult.
On closer reading, it is a press release documenting a breakthrough that will make production of fuel from plants more cost effective and energy efficient. Far more important than a diplomatic stand off. Not quite as much fun though.

Kenny Farquharson: Do you Twitter?

The Steamie is now available on Twitter (www.twitter.com/thesteamie).

If you have no idea what that sentence means you are:

a. not in tune with the zeitgeist

b. not paying attention

or

c. a High Court judge

For the uninitiated, Twitter is a micro-blogging site where posts are limited to 140 characters.

Everyone's doing it, from Barack Obama to Gordon Brown to Andy Murray to Stephen Fry to, er, me (www.twitter.com/KENNYFARQ).

There's even a rather good spoof Alex Salmond site www.twitter.com/Alex_Salmond (sample posting from the past few days: "Got to love American portion sizes...")

Get tweeting...

Eddie Barnes - Habeus Papam. Maybe.

The Pope might be coming to Scotland next year. Or the year after. Or he might not be.

We hear that Gordon Brown, visiting the Vatican earlier this week, extended an invitation to Benedict XVI to come to the UK, potentially to mark the beatification of the famous 19th century Catholic convert, Cardinal Newman. Number Ten suggested that such a visit might include a trip up to Scotland.

The Vatican has declared that there are no plans whatsoever for a trip to Britain, and the PM's invite has been met with derision by some, including Scotland on Sunday columnist Gerald Warner. Certainly, as this particular Pope has not exactly clocked up the air miles since his election, it's unlikely at present.

If he does, I wonder if I might drop in on Iona. I understand that Brown's gift to the Pope was a small Iona cross, brought from the tiny island off Mull from where St Columba spread Christianity to these shores. Might Brown have planted a seed? This Pope likes to remind people that Europe is a Christian continent - I wonder if he'll be heading for the Oban ferry?

Gerri Peev: Let Gordon eat cake

While the rest of the political blogsphere seems to be plunged into speculation about Gordon Brown's future, the PM is spending the day in his constituency doubtlessly dreaming up more initiatives to stave off the worst excesses of the recession...Perhaps it seems a bit churlish to be talking about his imminent demise on a day when Brown should be celebrating his 58th birthday.
Let's hope Sarah has shredded the papers and put a firewall on the internet so he can enjoy his day in peace.

Eddie Barnes - Hazel tells it like it is.

Finally, somebody in the Labour cabinet has had the guts to say something on-the-record on the great "What-do-we-do-with-Gordon" dilemma. Step forward human dynamo, leather-clad motocyclist Hazel Blears.

In a speech to constituents, the Communities Secretary declares today: "My message to my colleagues is simple: get a grip. Our first loyalty is to the British people. If they think we are more interested in our own jobs than theirs, they will not forgive us."

She adds: "If the mindset is all about what happens after some future election defeat, then the game's up. All this political positioning just helps the Tories."

Hi Ed! Hi Harriet!

Blears's comments will not be welcomed in Number 10 because they finally stand up what everyone knows to be true but which up till now could be dismissed as media tittle-tattle; that with Labour's poll ratings doing even worse than the FTSE and with defeat looming, Cabinet ministers are indeed trying to position themselves as the successor to Brown. It's hilarious to see the petty machinations of these ambitious ministers outed by Blears' guileless honesty.

Two points to make. One, I suspect that the public will respond very well to Blears' kind of straight-talking. Two, I bet plenty that David Cameron would absolutely hate to face her at the next general election.

Just a thought....

Gerri Peev: PM on Jade Goody tragedy

Gordon Brown has just been asked at the Downing St press conference about Jade Goody's battle with cervical cancer. While he paid tribute to the reality TV star's bravery, he missed an opportunity to urge women to ensure they go for a smear test. Slightly awkward topic for a mature male to raise but it is literally a matter of life and death. And there is still a discrepancy in treatment between England, where women are not screened routinely until they are 25 and Scotland, where tests are offered from age 20. Surely time to lower the age south of the border, given that Goody is only 27?

Eddie Barnes - TB GBs lives on

Essential reading for all political junkies is an article in this morning's Times by Tony Blair's former speechwriter Phil Collins (of SW1, not Genesis). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5754901.ece

The piece dissects the Brown leadership style from someone who has seen it on the inside. Collins' central point is that the PM's obsession with political positioning - with finding clear water between him and the hated Conservatives - has ensured that Labour has vacated the centre-ground to David Cameron. "Labour defined itself against what the Tories said. So it is that Labour now finds itself just to the left of sensible on everything," Collins declares. Blairite education reforms from the dog days of TB's empire were dumped to satisfy a few backbenchers and merrily nicked by the Conservatives, he points out. Now, the government has got "bogged down in guidelines for rhubarb crumble recipes and instructions for playgrounds to be painted". The "crumbling empire" of the Home Office has "no policy to speak of" because "the government thinks of crime as a political event....the strategy is clear; close down the topic, stop talking about it, somehow it will go away." It's damning stuff, personal stuff: "He (Brown) doesn't like equality because it's a good idea. He doesn't like it because it's right. He likes it because it's political useful." Ouch.

Damning stuff, and Collins doesn't even sugar the pill with a closing "of-course-he-could-still-turn-it-around" paragraph. The message is that, under Brown, all is lost. I guess the piece might well be written off as a predictable attack from an uber-Blairite (who now is a full-time writer for the Times), but the fact that such a senior former member of Team Blair has chosen to speak out like this is fascinating for tea-leaf readers like me. The constant feuding between Brown and Blair were known as the "TB-GBs" - as of this morning, it appears the feud lives on.

Eddie Barnes - Labour's power is draining away

David Freud, the former government welfare adviser on whose transfer to the Tories we reported at the weekend, explains today why he chose to go. "I got on incredibly well with (Work and Pensions Secretary) James Purnell, but you have to assess where you can make the most impact."

So, it wasn't a difference in policy which made him go. It wasn't a clash of personalities. The reason is far worse for Labour than that. It was that Freud decided to head over to where the action was (or will soon be). Once that kind of thing starts happening, it usually spells curtains for the government.

You can be pretty confident that there are lots of people right now - civil servants, donors, celebrities -who are also assessing where they can make the most impact, and deciding that they too, like Freud, should throw in their lot with the Conservatives. You wouldn't want to be a Johnny-come-lately to the party after all would you?

Just when it looked like it couldn't get any worse, it's been announed today that Tony Blair - fresh from beating Brown to an audience with Barack Obama - has won $1m for his leadership on the world stage. He won the Dan David Prize at Tel Aviv University in respect of his "foresight", "exceptional intelligence" and "steadfast determination" to end conflicts.

It looks increasingly the case that Teflon Tony got out at the right time.

Eddie Barnes: Mea culpa, mea culpa

THE gang of four who presented themselves to the Commons Treasury Select Committee this morning - Sir Fred Goodwin, Sir Tom McKillop, Lord Stevenson and Andy Hornby - were falling over themselves to say sorry during their grilling by MPs. There wasn't the usual mealy-mouthed formulation you tend to hear at this occasions ("if people feel that we have done something out of place, then of course we are sorry about that") but full-frontal, no-nonsense embarrassed apologies for getting everything so horribly wrong.

Good. But now the mob want more. David Cameron hit the airwaves this afternoon to declare that, now that the banks have said sorry, it is time Gordon Brown did so as well. "I think it is now time we had some apologies and admitting to mistakes from the Government," he declared.

Don't hold your breath. Despite efforts from within Downing Street - where aides are said to be eager for Brown to show some humility- Brown has so far resisted the urge to offer up his own mea culpa. The closest he came was his statement last week that plans to toughen up banking regulations could be seen as "an acceptance that it wasn't strong enough" beforehand. Not exactly crystal clear is it? I very much doubt Brown is capable of standing up and simply saying sorry; he is hard-wired to resist giving such presents to his hated political opponents.

This is all very well, but, in this scenario, it won't wash. Something truly enormous has gone wrong and to simply blame it on America or the global banking system -as Brown has tried - will not convince people. To press on in this way, is to put the short-term political game before the far-greater prize of restoring some trust between him and the public.

So rather than jerking his knee in response to Cameron's words this afternoon, Brown should ask himself this: Why is Cameron demanding his apology? Might it be because the Tory leader know it is the one sure fire way to ensure Brown won't make one? Might Cameron actually want Brown to carry on in this manner? Why does Cameron continually bangs on about Brown "not being straight with people"? Because it works?

The PM should give Cameron what he asks for. The Banking chiefs have shown the way. Time to 'fess up.

David Maddox: Bad day for Grays (not just the squirrels)

Iain Gray, the Scottish Labour leader (pictured right), might think that he has enough on his plate taking on Alex Salmond and the SNP, while still trying to sort out the mess his party North of the border was left in after Wendy Alexander vacated the leadership.

But, if this was not difficult enough he seems to have had to contend with everything that UK Labour Party leaders have had to throw at him too.

First there was the suspension of his East Lothian constituency party over the argument surrounding the reselection and attempted deselection of the local MP Anne Moffat.

Then just as he was preparing to give a major speech today on the economy at Ravenscraig where he was to deliver a withering attack on the SNP Scottish Government, then up pops UK Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform Tony McNulty (or McNumpty as one Scottish Labour activist called him today) (pictured left) on Sunday's Politics Show to praise the SNP.

Here's a quick competition, spot the difference:

McNulty on Sunday: "Broadly I think they (the SNP) are doing all they can and they are working – certainly in as far as my brief in terms of employment is concerned – they are working with us in common cause."

Gray today (Monday): "I say very clearly today that, if and when the SNP decide to focus on the economic challenge, concentrate on the actions they can take with the powers they have the Labour Party I lead will not shirk from working with them in the Parliament."

No wonder the Nationalists could hardly stop laughing. Their official spokesman on this occasion, John Mason, the hero of last summer's Glasgow East by-election, suggested that Mr Gray was "overtaken by events" mainly from his own party and perhaps "should have rewritten his speech."

I wonder if this is a picture of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's reaction when he was told how things were going in Scotland.

David Maddox: FMQs - end of the cosy consensus

After yesterday's budget love-in which spilt over into this morning's Lib Dem sponsored debates on borrowing powers and the financial services industry it seemed like we had entered some Never Neverland full of politicians giving each other consensual mutual massages - really quite nauseating.

But, thankfully, First Minister's Questions (FMQs) has at last brought us back to normal. Labour leader Iain Gray has picked one of his old favourites, the Scottish Futures Trust, to attack Alex Salmond on.

"Just PFI with window dressing," said Mr Gray quoting Professor John Kay from a Scotsman article. "Where are the schools, hospitals and jobs?"

As this is third or maybe fourth time Mr Gray has now chosen this subject for FMQs, Mr Salmond's response is well practised. This goes as follows: Yes the SNP is building schools ("started by Labour," cry out Labour MSPs, as they have done on the other occasions), the problems are Gordon Brown's recession or depression as we must now call it, and just wait for Gordon Brown to cut £1 billion from the Scottish budget to pay off his £1 trillion recession debt.

Tory leader Annabel Goldie was keen to find out how many times Mr Salmond had met the Prime Minister. However it was clear she was more keen to promote the Conservative's new helpourhighstreet.com website launched after the SNP agreed to the Tory/ Labour idea (depending which party you are speaking to) of having a town centre regeneration fund of £60 million. She was to be disappointed though, Mr Salmond made it clear he would rather meet Mr Brown than log on to her party's website.

But, the spirit of love (for the Nationalists) has not been dropped by the SNP's new bedfellows, the Lib Dems. Tavish Scott, Scotland's fourth party's leader, chose to use his questions to attack Mr Salmond's greatest enemy Gordon Brown especially his line on "British jobs for British people."

"Would the First Minister use the phrase Scottish jobs for Scottish workers?" he asked.

"Not in the manner the Prime Minister did," answered Mr Salmond.

Which poses the question, what manner would he use it in?

David Maddox: The Italian Job

The dispute over foreign workers coming in to work at the Total-owned Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire has been handled with kit-gloves by the media generally in this country. But it has had an altogether different portrayal abroad.

As my wife is Italian, we have Italian satelite TV broadcast to our house and watch the news on RAI (their version of the BBC) most days. Over there the dispute, which of course is about Italian workers coming into Britain, has put the UK as a whole in a very poor light.

It has made the British look like a xenophobic, racist nation, for which even Scotland is not exempt, not least because of the sympathy strike at Longannet. And Gordon Brown's now infamous "British jobs for British workers" line has not exactly done wonders for Britain's image either.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, the Italians think they have won the contract fair and square and take exception to the fact that their countrymen are forced to live under the protection of armed guards for doing no crime except trying to earn an honest crust for their families.

They also have not been short of examples of Brits working in Italy, not just David Beckham (pictured) at AC Milan, but in jobs that ordinary Italians might realistically think they could do. It is worth noting that in Italy unemployment is running at 6.7 per cent compared to 5.5 per cent in the UK.

Memories here are short. Have we forgotten how angry we in Britain felt when our lorry drivers were attacked by French farmers not so long ago?