Will DC bring DD back?

No, says Iain Dale, who as Davis's close friend and former campaign manager probably knows more than most.

But I'm not so sure. As I've said on Iain's blog, Cameron does not strike me as a vindictive man and if, in time, it becomes clear that bringing back Davis in a senior role would strengthen the team - which in my view it will - I think he'll probably be prepared to let bygones be bygones.

Whereas incoming Labour Prime Ministers are required by the party's own rules to appoint Shadow Cabinet members to the Cabinet - although it didn't stop Tony Blair sacking four of them after a year - there is a fairly long Conservative tradition of bringing in heavyweights from outside whenever the party enters government.

Lord Carrington, chosen as Foreign Secretary from outside the then Shadow Cabinet by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, was an example.

There has been much talk in Tory circles about whether Prime Minister Cameron would bring in, not just DD, but also IDS, Ken Clarke and even Peter Lilley if he wins the next general election.

Such talk is a tacit recognition that the current Shadow Cabinet, while strong on intellect and ideas, is lacking in that indefinable quality that, in the days of Trollope, used to be known as "bottom."

My guess is that at least two of the aforementioned "Big Beasts" will return, and that the first Cameron Cabinet will indeed look fairly different from the current Shadow Cabinet line-up.

The Harman Hypothesis

Much comment in the MSM and blogosphere alike today over the leadership chances of Harriet Harman as she stood in for Gordo at PMQS. The Sun reckons she's already plotting to take over, as does Andrew Rawnsley. Mike Smithson on Political Betting rates her chances, but Ben Brogan thinks she's already blown it. Iain Dale suggests Jack Straw could be in on the plot, while a thoughtful Tory perspective comes from new-kid-on-the-blog Alan Collins.

So what do I make of it? Well, if Harriet Harman is seriously being talked about as the answer to Labour's problems, it merely demonstrates the depth of the crisis the party is in.

Harman is political Marmite - she has her very strong admirers among a certain stratum of politically-correct London society - but she is not, and never has been, generally liked by the broader mass of the British public.

This did not really matter when Labour was choosing a deputy leader. The job of deputy is more about reassuring the faithful than reaching out to the uncommitted. But it will matter if and when the party comes to choose a new leader - particularly after their experience with Mr Brown.

I suspect that Harman knows this, and that her comment at PMQs about there not being enough airports for the men who would leave the country if she became PM displayed a certain degree of self-awareness.

Her primary objective in any leadership battle will be, firstly, to hold onto the deputy leadership - a generational shift in the leadership, for instance to David Miliband, could make her a casualty along with Gordon - and to secure the sort of senior role in the next Cabinet that Gordon has denied her.

I suspect her real aim is to be Justice Secretary rather than PM, but letting the speculation ride for a bit will do her no harm in this context, as it underlines her claims to be seen as a "key player" and strengthens her position for the inevitable job bargaining that will accompany a leadership change.

My guess is that she will eventually throw her weight behind the "Anyone but Miliband" bandwagon that appears to be growing and back the candidate most likely to give the Foreign Secretary a run for his money. As things currently stand, that surely means either Straw, or Alan Johnson.

The greatest finals

The Monday after the end of Wimbledon always leaves me with a similar feeling to Twelfth Night. Something you look forward to all year has been and gone for another 12 months, and it is invariably a week or so before life returns to "normal."

Was Nadal-Federer the greatest Wimbledon Men's Final in history? Many are already saying so. For my part, I would rank it in my Top 3 alongside Borg-McEnroe (1980) and Smith-Nastase (1972) although I still think the most remarkable performances in Wimbledon history were Arthur Ashe's outfoxing of a rampant Jimmy Connors in the '75 final, and John McEnroe's demolition of the same opponent nine years later.

I reckon I have watched part or all of every Wimbledon Men's Final since 1970. Here's my Top 10.

1. 1980 Borg bt McEnroe. Still the greatest final for me - just. Lit up by McEnroe's sheer genius.
2. 2008 Nadal bt Federer. Nadal manages to hold it together despite blowing two match points in the 4th set. Incredible.
3. 1972 Smith bt Nastase. A lovely period piece from a gentler Wimbledon age.
4. 1975 Ashe bt Connors. The greatest individual Wimbledon performance - Ashe's tactics echoed those of Ali against Foreman.
5. 1977 Borg bt Connors. Possibly Borg's best final - Connors was still the best player in the world at the time.
6. 1984 McEnroe bt Connors. Mac's masterclass - surely the most comprehensive demolition job in the history of Wimbledon finals.
7. 1992 Agassi bt Ivanisevic. The counterpuncher overcomes the big server, a rare occurence at 1990s Wimbledons.
8. 1991 Stich bt Becker. Almost as big an upset as Ashe-Connors, Stich played serenely well to win this one.
9. 1970 Newcombe bt Rosewall. Heroic effort by Rosewall, who regains from Nadal the title of "best player never to win Wimbledon."
10. 2004 Federer bt Roddick. Roger at his sublime best - he made poor Roddick look ordinary.