BlogGems

An occasional series dedicated to bringing the choicest comments from the blogosphere to a slightly wider audience.
No 1.

"The primary advantage of Labourhome over ConservativeHome is that LH is not dedicated to lining up the entire British working class and buggering them one by one."

Alex Hilton, owner of Labour Home and Recess Monkey, interviewed on the Mars Hill blog.

But whose Big Clunking Fist?

The next election contest, said Tony Blair yesterday, will be "a flyweight versus a heavyweight." He said of David Cameron: "However much he dances around the ring beforehand he will come in reach of a big clunking fist and, you know what, he'll be out on his feet, carried out of the ring."

He's right about Cameron, of course. The public will find him out before long and the Tories will discover that they have massively overestimated the impact that Blair's departure will have on their electoral prospects.

But did Blair's comments constitute the long-awaited endorsement of Gordon Brown, as seems to be the consensus this morning, or could it be, as The Sun suggests, that John Reid could still be the one to send the Boy David crashing to the canvas?

After all, as the commentator Peter Dobbie wrote a few years' back, the Home Secretary does have something of a reputation as a pugilist in Westminster circles.

What does seem to be clear is that Blair has endorsed Brown or Reid, as opposed to any other candidate - which is exactly how it should be. The two of them are head and shoulders above any other candidates when it comes to experience, gravitas, and the ability to command an audience, and if there is to be a contest, then those should be the two names on the ballot paper.

In other words, it's surely now time for Hutton, Milburn, Johnson and all the other John Major-alikes to crawl back under their stones and let the real men fight it out.

Reid still keeping options open

There has been much speculation in the blogosphere over recent days concerning John Reid's intentions towards the Labour leadership, for instance:

PoliticalBetting.com
Politaholic
The UK Daily Pundit
Guido Fawkes.

Two things appear to have kicked it all off - firstly Gordon Brown's rather ill-judged kneejerk reaction to Friday's acquittal of BNP leader Nick Griffin - which managed the not-inconsiderable feat of making Reid look like a liberal - together with a view in certain influential quarters that Brown will invariably end up becoming enmeshed in the loans-for-lordships affair.

I make no comment on any of this, other than to say that I don't believe Reid has ever ruled himself in or out of the leadership battle. As I wrote HERE ten days ago, "Gordon has the conditional backing of everyone that really matters. But they still reserve the right to challenge him if it all goes wrong."

Certainly this piece in yesterday's Guardian by Jackie Ashley - a journalist with close links to the Chancellor's camp - suggests that the Brownites are taking absolutely nothing for granted.

November 15 Update: Is the heavily law-and-order orientated content of today's Queen's Speech designed to help a Reid leadership bid? Mike Smithson thinks so.

All shades of opinion

I came across the new blog aggregator Political Opinions a week or so ago and added a link, and it seems that many other top bloggers including Dizzy and Jonathan Calder have since been doing the same.

The site has been put together by Grant Bowskill and I have to say I am fairly impressed. Design-wise, it is certainly a big improvement on UK Political Blogs and its search facility is far advanced, enabling users to search specifically for Conservative Blogs or Journalist Blogs, for instance.

At my suggestion, Grant agreed to put in direct hyperlinks to the most popular categories and I have accordingly added these to my blog as well under the relevant sections. For the benefit of those who can't be bothered to scroll all that way down, they are:

Conservative Blogs
Labour Blogs
Lib Dem Blogs
Journalist Blogs

There's also a section called Commentator Blogs which I think means blogs written by people who are neither journalists nor overtly party political.

Contest lacks the Footie factor

There are two recurring themes I have noticed in recent blog postings about the Labour leadership contest. Firstly, the unfavourable comparisons that have been made between the current crop of contenders and the stellar line-up in the race to succeed Harold Wilson in 1976, and secondly, the related issue of the current lack of a recognised leader of the left.

As Mike Smithson pointed out on PoliticalBetting.com today, the '74-76 Wilson Government contained an extraordinary concentration of political talent, with no fewer than six Cabinet "big beasts" putting themselves forward for the leadership.

They included both Michael Foot and Tony Benn from the left of the party - two acknowledged giants besides whom the current-day lefty hopefuls Michael Meacher and John McDonnell are mere political pygmies.

So is it because the left has been effectively marginalised under the current leadership - "Exit Hard Left Pursued By Blair" as one memorable newspaper headline put it a few years back? Or has the left just been desperately unlucky in that all those who might have become its standard-bearers have, in some way or another, fallen by the wayside?

I would contend that, by and large, it's the latter. While Mr Blair clearly does have a very different attitude to party management to Mr Wilson, preferring to lead from the front rather than trying to hold warring party factions together, I do not think he would have excluded the likes of Robin Cook or Clare Short from his Cabinet had they not decided to exclude themselves.

Either of Cook or Short could have gone on to establish themselves as the leader of the anti-war left, and thereby become a significant player in the forthcoming contest. But Cook sadly died, while Short threw away her position by her increasingly bizarre behaviour.

But if Gordon Brown's chances have been boosted by the lack of an obvious rival from the left, he has been even more fortunate in the trials and tribulations that have befallen his potential opponents on the right of the party.

If Alan Milburn had lived up to his early promise and not flounced out of government twice, if David Blunkett hadn't self-destructed after straying too far from his working-class roots, if Charles Clarke had developed some political finesse to go with his undoubted ability....then Brown might now be facing a much stiffer fight.

The 1976 contest was of course won by the centrist figure of James Callaghan after the two wings of the party cancelled eachother out. In particular, he benefited from the divisions between Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey and Tony Crosland, the Gaitskellite Friends and Rivals who could not agree which of them would be the candidate.

What today's Labour Party really lacks is not so much a Foot as a Crosland, someone who can provide some sort of intellectual framework for a left-of-centre government in the early 21st century. David Miliband probably comes closest - but he is one for next time round.

Blair cannot escape shadow of sleaze

Avoiding the temptation to write about the US elections, I returned to thye cash-for-questions affair in my latest column and accompanying Podcast this weekend.

As Mike Smithson speculates, the ongoing inquiry - which ministerial spinners assured us would be completed by now - could play an increasing important part in determining Tony Blair's departure date.

"Given the rate at which the wheels of British justice turn, it is reasonably unlikely that any charges will have been brought by the time Mr Blair leaves office as scheduled next summer.

"But the prospect of having the ongoing inquiry overshadow his final months in office has led some to speculate that Mr Blair could yet surprise us all and go early."

Has Johnson really quit the race?

Unlike Ben Brogan, I don't seriously believe Alan Johnson plans to do a U-turn and come back into the Labour leadership race - but I have to say that his new campaign website launched today had me wondering a bit.....

Yesterday, Johnson made clear he would be backing Gordon Brown, describing the Chancellor as a "towering political figure" and praising his "gravitas, experience, and intellect."

Fair enough, but somebody should have told the person putting together the media section of his new website which seems to be slightly off-message in this respect.

It currently contains the following stories, all seemingly promoting the idea of Johnson as a candidate not for the deputy leadership, but as a rival to Gordon for the top job.

"Alan Johnson displayed his leadership credentials to the Labour Party conference yesterday when he announced plans to restore confidence in school exams and to help children in care." Greg Hurst, The Times

"When the backstabbing finally stops, could Alan Johnson be the man who delivers the fatal blow to Brown?" Rachel Cooke, The Observer

"For many Labour MPs he represents the perfect alternative to the Chancellor, being everything that Mr Brown is not." Anthony Browne, The Times

"Gordon Brown's enemies are pinning their hopes on Alan Johnson." 'Bagehot," The Economist.

November 13 Update: This was post was picked up over the weekend by both PoliticalBetting.com and The Daily, both of whom provide interesting angles on it. On balance I tend towards The Daily's verdict that it was an unintended hangover from Johnson's earlier plans to contest the leadership, rather than Mike's interpretation that AJ might re-enter the race at some stage.

Johnson wakes up and smells the coffee

Education Secretary Alan Johnson has now formally ruled himself out of contention for the Labour leadership and announced he is contesting only the deputy's post - not at the Press Gallery Lunch as speculated on The Daily but in an exclusive interview with the BBC. That will piss a few people off for a start.

I must confess to being surprised. I am after all on record as having said that Johnson would "do a Prescott" and stand for both posts, while making the deputy leadership his main target. I wasn't the only one who thought this though....

What really did for him I think was his poorly received speech at the Labour Conference. He must have realised at that point that he didn't really have the support in the party to mount a meaningful challenge.

His withdrawal and declaration of support for Gordon Brown could have one of two effects. It could demonstrate that the momentum behind Brown is now such that he is unstoppable, or alternatively it could concentrate minds in the "Anyone But Gordon" camp to the effect that either (but not both) of John Hutton or Alan Milburn now emerge as serious contenders.

My assessment of the situation is that, with more than half the Cabinet on his side and the opposition to him fragmenting, Brown is looking pretty unbeatable, but politics abhors a vacuum and if at any point Gordon is seen as in any way vulnerable, someone somewhere will step into it. Even a very reluctant David Miliband might be persuaded if the alternative is a Labour election defeat.

A few weeks back, I produced this breakdown of where the various Cabinet members stand on the issue, and I think it's now time for an update.

Cabinet members explicitly and publicly backing Gordon Brown for the leadership

John Prescott
Margaret Beckett
Peter Hain
David Miliband
Hilary Benn
Alan Johnson

Cabinet members who have not expressed a public preference but who are known allies of Mr Brown

Jack Straw
Alistair Darling
Douglas Alexander
Des Browne
Ruth Kelly
Stephen Timms

Cabinet members who are currently remaining neutral or who have expressed no known public or private preference

Tony Blair
Patricia Hewitt
Hilary Armstrong
Jacqui Smith
Valerie Amos

Cabinet members who, while not allies of Mr Brown, have signalled that they will not run against him for the leadership

John Reid
Hazel Blears

Cabinet members who have privately expressed doubts about Mr Brown and who could reliably be expected to support "Anyone but Gordon" - if such a candidate exists

John Hutton
Charles Falconer
Tessa Jowell

Incendiary devices

Okay, so Bonfire Night has been and gone, but I was heartened to come across this post today from the influential Labour blogger Kerron Cross, calling for a ban on the general sale of fireworks.

Says Kerron: "I don't really understand the arguments for keeping fireworks on sale to the public when you look at the nuisance, injuries and disruption they cause. I welcome the Government clamp down on sales but...we need to ban the general sale of these devices - they should only be used by trained professionals at properly organised events."

I couldn't agree more. Apart fom the noise nuisance of having fireworks going off up to a month either side of November 5, there is absolutely no need for them to be on general sale given the growth of organised events. I went to an absolutely marvellous one on Sunday night at Belper Town Football Club which had everything you need - a great bonfire, plenty of food and drink, and a stunning diplay set to the music of Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds.

Anyone in any doubt about the destruction fireworks can wreak in the wrong hands should read this horrific tale from the pages of the Blackpool Gazette.

This blog is a Mid-term Elections Free Zone

I have never really understood American politics. Never understood how an allegedly educated country could possibly elect as its president someone who failed to remember the names of other world leaders during a TV interview, and certainly never understood how someone who lied about never having had sexual relations with a White House intern could possibly be allowed to remain president after being found out.

I could go on. I don't understand, for instance, why people of a generally Christian worldview like myself tend to vote for centre-left parties in the UK, but invariably vote for the Republicans in the States.

So because I don't get American politics, and because I don't really want to take the trouble to try to get it, I am hereby declaring this blog a Mid-Term Elections Free Zone (a former editor of mine will appreciate the irony.)

For those of you who feel compelled to know more of what is going on over the other side of the pond, and what it might mean for us back home, I direct you to the BBC, to PoliticalBetting.com, and the good people at Blairwatch.

Spin cycle

One of the best blogs around at the moment is Dizzy Thinks, which today features this little tale about the announcement of some Government funding for the nine English regions "to tackle local congestion and inform the debate on a national road pricing scheme."

As Dizzy rightly points out, the sum of money in question - £7.5m - actually only works out at around £800,000 per region, a figure which "wouldn't pay for much more than the hot air consultancy fees" and which compares with the £200m cost of introducing congestion charging in London.

"However, the real killer comes in the second paragraph of the press release. It says the "money comes from the second round of an £18 million fund, set up in July 2005". So errr. hang on second... it's not a further £7.5 million at all, it's the same money from a lump sum already agreed and announced."

A story of little consequence in itself, then, but one which illustrates a wider truth about the Blair Government and its use of the technique of "repeat messaging."

This was an idea originally developed by New Labour in opposition which they have carried with them all the way though government. It works on the Orwellian premise that if you repeat something often enough, the people will have no alternative but to believe it.

Thus the life-cycle of a typical Government announcement would look something like this:

1. A forthcoming Government initiative is leaked to a friendly newspaper. The story is neither officially denied nor confirmed, but by giving someone an exclusive, it guarantees big headlines for the story in at least one newspaper and guaranteed follow-ups in all the rest.

2. A few weeks later, the story is confirmed in a ministerial press release, which receives little coverage other than perhaps a few pars in the Guardian's Society supplement.

3. Gordon Brown reannounces it in the Budget. Close analysis of Gordon's Budget speeches show that most of the contents, especially those relating to spending announcements rather than taxation, have already been announced.

4. The relevant Government department then produces its own separate release setting out further details of the Budget "announcement," followed by

5. Nine separate regional press releases setting out what the Budget "announcement" will mean for each region, which are usually identical apart from the insertion of the words North-East/North-West/East Midlands etc.

6. The money finally comes on stream, enabling the relevant department to announce it yet again.

7. Regional ministerial visits are organised around the announcement, showing how it is being spent in a particular region with acompanying photo-ops. Theoretically, there could be as many as nine of these.

8. The second round of funding comes on stream, as in Dizzy's example above, potentially kicking off the whole process again.

Of course, like much else about New Labour's news management techniques, the whole policy of repeat messaging has backfired spectacularly. The one question journalists always ask about these kind of announcements is: "Is it new money?"

When, nine times out of 10, the answer to that question turns out to be no, it becomes very easy to conclude that nothing the Government announces is funded from new money, with the result that even genuinely new announcements are then routinely ignored.

I think the record for Government reannouncements is held by the launch of the Regional Venture Capital Fund, which began life in the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, and was then transferred after the 2001 election to the DTI which decided to reannounce it all over again.

Even though it was an initiative designed to help poorer regions like the North-East, I must confess that, after the first five times, I simply gave up on it.

The lost leader's lament

This BBC interview with the former Labour leadership contender Bryan Gould has been around for a few days but I think it's well worth a read, if only for his less-than-flattering views of the current crop of leadership hopefuls.

On John Reid: "It would be frankly amazing if he became the next Prime Minister."

On David Miliband: "He seems to be more of a back-room intellectual who lacks the political touch."

On Charles Clarke: "The most serious challenger in terms of ability but he has been behaving in a bizarre way recently."

On Alan Milburn: "Government didn't seem to suit him - he became more pompous".

Neither does Gordon Brown emerge unscathed, with Gould appearing to damn the Chancellor with faint praise. "He's got deeper roots than Blair with the party, more affection for the party than Blair, but the reason he was dumped as a leadership candidate by Peter Mandelson in 1994 was because Tony was more voter friendly."

His most complimentary words are reserved for Jack Straw whom he praises as "a politician to his fingertips", before adding obliquely: "I don't think he's got charisma or the personality to be prime minister, but that's not to say that someone without personality can't become the prime minister."

I rated Gould very highly during his time in British politics and was sorry to see him depart to the world of New Zealand academia, although I don't doubt that the move has proved a happy and fulfilling one for him personally.

In 1992, he was told that he would get John Smith's backing for the deputy leadership if he agreed to stand aside and allow Smith a free run at the leadership, but refused and was ultimately elected for neither post.

This begs the interesting counterfactual question whether, had he accepted the deal and thereby become Acting Leader at the time Smith died, Gould might have actually become leader instead of Tony Blair.

My bet is that he would, at the very least, have held on to the deputy leadership, and gone on to become a senior figure in the Blair administration, with John Prescott's Cabinet career following a similar path to that of Frank Dobson.

Saddam should be spared the hangman's noose

Tony Blair says he is "against the death penalty, whether it is Saddam or anybody else." Nevertheless, the Government appears content to allow Iraqi justice to take its inevitable course, and the former Iraqi dictator's days on earth are now surely numbered.

The inconsistencies in the Government's supposedly "ethical" stance have already been well highlighted by Guido Fawkes. As one poster on Guido's blog put it: "If you are against the death penalty, you at least need to be consistent."

My consistent position, for what it's worth, is that I am against the death penalty, whether it be for a guilty man like Saddam Hussain or a wholly innocent one like Mirza Tahir Hussain.

As a Christian I believe that the only way to break the cycle of violence is not vengence, but forgiveness. It may sound idealistic, not of the real world, but in actual fact we see this principle played out again and again in the real world of international politics, and in life generally come to that.

Other interesting, thoughtful contributions from the blogosphere today - both for and against Saddam's execution - have come from:

Skipper
Mars Hill
John Wilkes
David Cox
Rachel from North London

I'm happy to go with this from Rachel: "Personally, I'm not comfortable with the death penalty. Even for crimes against humanity. He should rot in jail, thinking on what he has done. As should others, who cold-bloodedly ordered actions resulting in the deaths of thousands, based on ''policy'', posturing and lies."

November 7 Update: I really ought to add a link to this piece by Adam Boulton whose heroic questioning of the Prime Minister yesterday was broadcast journalism at its best.

Some have accused Adam of "rudeness" but they should remember that the Prime Minister was initially seeking to avoid giving an answer to the question by hiding behind Margaret Beckett's coat-tails. This was pretty shabby behaviour in my view from someone who has always prided himself on strong leadership and leading from the front, not least on the whole issue of Iraq.

It won't be The Sun wot wins it for Dave

Ever since the 1992 election and the claim that "it was The Sun wot won it" for John Major's Tories, a legend has grown up around the Rupert Murdoch-owned red-top and its perceived level of political influence.

In my view, its election day splash on that occasion (pictured left) was probably the single most disgraceful piece of journalism of the last 30 years. So far as I could make out, the only people who had actually said they were going to "leave Britain" if Kinnock won were Andrew Lloyd Webber and Phil Collins, neither of whom would have been any great loss and one of whom later emigrated anyway.

But in what turned out to be a very tight election race that was ultimately decided by a few hundred voters in a dozen or so marginal seats, I would concede that the Sun's relentless rubbishing of Kinnock probably did have an effect.

Now, with another tight race in prospect in 2009/10, there has been much recent comment over the Sun's apparent hostility towards David Cameron, notably from Mike Smithson, whose PoliticalBetting.com is currently the top political blog in my view, and BBC pol ed Nick Robinson.

Both Nick and Mike speculate that the paper has turned decisively against the young Tory leader following his decision to vote for an inquiry into the War in Iraq and his "tough love" speech of last week, citing as evidence this piece in Saturday's paper by Deputy Political Editor Andrew Porter.

But should Cameron be worried? Well, it is certainly the case that, back in the 1970s, The Sun played a big part in bringing its mainly working-class readership on board the Thatcher bandwagon, and as I have already said, its demonisation of Kinnock almost certainly swung a few votes in '92.

I would go further and say that its subsequent decision to back Labour in 1997 - having previously regarded the party as totally unfit to govern - did send out an important subliminal message to the wider electorate about the extent to which the party had changed.

But would a similar decision to back Cameron now send out the same message about the Tories? Probably quite the reverse.

The Sun's recent attacks on Dave have come from the right, lambasting him for failing to support "Our Boys" and for what they see as a "soft" approach to law and order. As everybody in politics knows, this is just exactly where Cameron wants to be attacked from.

It follows, to my mind, that Cameron ultimately has more to gain from not obtaining The Sun's endorsement at the next General Election than from getting Rupert's thumbs-up.

What really made The Sun a great newspaper in its own way was the political culture which spawned it, which gave it ample opportunities for the kind of dragon-slaying that was its forte.

In the 70s it railed against union power, to great and ultimately decisive effect. In the 1980s it was "loony lefties" (including, it should not be forgotten, supporters of gay rights). In the 1990s, it was Europe.

Now, in a political culture in which everyone is falling over eachother in a mad rush for the centre-ground, there is less need or demand for that style of confrontational political journalism.

In short, The Sun has become a newspaper just like any other. Influential, yes - no paper with its number of readers could fail to be. But a maker or breaker of governments and oppositions no longer.

More on Martin

Following on from last Thursday's post, a fuller analysis of Michael Martin's record as Speaker, and the reasons why he has never managed to become a national treasure like Betty, can be heard in my Week in Politics Podcast, available HERE.

Brown coronation: what's changed, exactly?

The BBC doesn't normally do speculative leadership stories, being content to leave that sort of thing to the written press, so Political Editor Nick Robinson's report of yesterday to the effect that Gordon Brown now looks unlikely to face a Cabinet challenger for the Labour leadership was bound to make people sit up and take notice.

Helpfully, Nick has reproduced the essence of his report on his blog today, in a piece entitled The Future's Brown.

I can't fault his analysis. But where I would slightly differ from Nick is in his assumption that there has really been any great change in the position relating to the leadership since the end of the Labour Conference five weeks ago.

There hasn't, in my view. What has changed is the media's perception of it.

Here's what I wrote at the time. "Mr Brown has largely repaired the damage done as a result of the abortive "coup" against Mr Blair three weeks ago, though he remains on probation for good behaviour....if he continues to behave himself over the next eight months, he might, just might yet get that endorsement from Mr Blair which would kill off all potential serious challenges."

Contrast this, for instance, with the view of the Daily Mail's Ben Brogan who wrote: "The truce is tosh. Tony Blair and his closest supporters are running a stealth campaign to get doubts about the Chancellor's personality and character up in lights. John Reid is emerging as the "Stop Gordon" candidate with the blessing of Number 10."

Both are perfectly respectable points of view, but where I think some commentators went wrong was, firstly, in failing to read the signal in Mr Blair's speech when he said he wanted to "heal," and secondly, by misinterpreting Dr Reid's speech on the closing day as a leadership bid.

As I said on this blog at the time, that was only one of several interpretations, and that Reid's phrase "I intend to play my full part" could be translated merely as a statement of his intention to remain in a senior role under Brown.

My conclusion, then, is that the song remains the same. Gordon has the conditional backing of everyone that really matters. But they still reserve the right to challenge him if it all goes wrong.

The polls, as ever, are the key. If they start to show that Gordon can't beat Cameron but that Reid, Alan Johnson or even David Miliband could, then much of what has been said or written thus far could count for little.

Mr Speaker Martin

I have had always had rather mixed feelings about Michael Martin, both as a man and as Speaker of the House of Commons. On the one hand, I have an instinctive sympathy towards him as a victim of the media snobocracy that invariably sets out to destroy anyone from a working-class background who has the temerity to achieve high office.

One particular public school educated parliamentary sketchwriter, for instance, has been running a vendetta against Martin for years that is based on pure class warfare.

I also have to say that my wife and I were very struck by his hospitality in inviting not only all the Lobby journalists but also their partners to a reception at Speaker's House shortly after his election, and for his courteousness and friendliness to all on that and subsequent similar occasions.

But against that, it has to be said that behind the smiling face and hearty handshakes lies a man whose pettiness apparently knows no bounds.

It was Martin who, as chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee during the mid-90s, was behind the infamous ban on journalists using the Terrace. On another occasion, when chairing a Commons Committee, he insisted on a public apology from a journalist who had inadvertently strayed the wrong side of the line separating MPs from the press bench.

More importantly, in his conduct of the office of Speaker itself, there have simply been too many questions about his partiality towards the Labour Party for comfort.

Then again, such partality is scarcely surprising given the original circumstances of his election courtesy of a "Peasants Revolt" by backbench Labour MPs hacked off by Mr Tony's attempts to tee-up the Speakership for Sir Menzies Campbell as part of his ongoing flirtation with the Liberal Democrats.

I have been accused on Guido's blog of making this up - by an anonymong, natch - but analysis of the voting figures in the Speakership Election show that, by and large, Martin's support came from Labour backbenchers and assorted ministerial Brownites who jumped on the bandwagon in a bid to give Blair a bloody nose.

What is certainly the case is that Martin has never managed to become a non-partisan figure in the way Betty Boothroyd and George Thomas did. Today's blogospheric postings on the subject divide on broadly party lines, with Labour bloggers Mike Ion and Paul Burgin backing his handling of yesterday's PMQs row, and the Tories' Iain Dale arguing it's time for him to go.

As left-of-centre blogger, I am not about to buck that trend. Contrary to what Nick Robinson says, I think Martin was right to stop David Cameron asking questions about the Labour succession, not necessarily because it doesn't relate to the conduct of Government business, but because it's simply a waste of his time and ours.

If and when Blair is ready to give that crucial endorsement - and I suspect that won't be until the contest is actually up and running - he'll announce it in his own time and in his own way, and he won't be giving Mr Cameron the exclusive.

Until then , the best thing the Tory leader can do is accept the Speaker's ruling, stop banging on about it, and go and find himself some policies instead.

Des Browne was telling the truth

Unlike some bloggers, I don't attempt to dress up personal speculation as fact, and neither am I going to pretend I've spent half the day on the phone to "senior Labour sources" getting the inside story on last night's Iraq vote. So the following predictions are entirely the product of my own imagination, though admittedly based on some knowledge of the players involved and some experience of how politics works.

Anyway, here goes.

1. If and when he becomes Prime Minister, Gordon Brown will announce an inquiry into "the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath."

2. Furthermore, he will announce this in the course of his first 100 days in office, in an attempt to stamp his authority on the Government and draw some kind of line under what is, by common consensus, the most disastrous aspect of the Blair Years.

3. When the results of that inquiry are eventually published, Gordon will say that while he still believes the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was the right one, terrible mistakes were made both in the use of intelligence and the planning for the post-war reconstruction. He will make clear that nothing like it will be allowed to happen again.

4. Labour MPs with Brownite sympathies who might have been considering rebelling last night will have been fully appraised of this scenario and encouraged to keep their powder dry until their man is safely in No 10.

From all this, it follows that, whether or not he actually intended to let the cat out of the bag, Defence Secretary Des Browne was essentially telling the truth when he said last night that "when the time is right of course there will be such an inquiry."

For "when the time is right," read: "When we've finally managed to get rid of that bastard Blair."

A last chance of justice

In a few hours time, the House of Commons will vote on the following motion, tabled by the SNP and Plaid Cymru and backed by the Liberal Democrats.

That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.

I hope they get it. Because contrary to what the Government maintains, the Hutton Inquiry and the Butler Inquiry were not enough. They failed to nail the real responsibility for the lies and deceptions that resulted in us going to war on a false prospectus, or to establish the extent of the Blair Government's culpability in failing to plan for the post-war aftermath.

If anyone still believes that Tony Blair did not know that intelligence was being fixed to fit a predetermined policy of regime change, or that he was unaware of the total lack of a reconstruction plan, they should read THIS.

Bloggers 4 Benn?

With Hilary Benn now officially in the race for Labour's deputy leadership, it is already clear that a head of steam is building up behind the International Development Secretary - in the blogosphere as well as among MPs.

A totally unscientific survey of leading Labour bloggers appears to show support pretty evenly dividing between Mr Benn and Jon Cruddas, with little support as yet for Harriet Harman, Peter Hain or any of the other possibles.

Among the Bloggers 4 Benn are Mike Ion who says: "I admire Benn enormously and feel that he is a man of real moral stature and courage and I am confident that he will have broad appeal both across the party and the country."

Paul Burgin, author of the Mars Hill blog agrees saying: "Like his father - although father and son are from different wings of the Party - he is charming, polite, sociable and thoughtful....He is also down-to-earth and the only sitting cabinet minister I have met who I have dared to address by his first name."

Against that, Reclaim Labour's Harry Perkins reminds readers of a speech earlier this year in which Mr Benn criticised the Make Poverty History campaign this evening for ignoring the role jobs and economic growth play in lifting the poor out of poverty.

Influential Labour blog Kerron Cross appears to be firmly behind Cruddas, as is The Daily, whose Westminster-based authors claim to have been the first to reveal plans for a Benn challenge.

And me? Well, I am really none too sure at the moment who I will back, although, as I will be supporting Gordon Brown for the leadership come what may, I will be looking towards the candidate who I think will provide the most balanced ticket.

In this context, there is a good case to be made for a gender balanced ticket, but Ms Harman was in my view one of the least distinguished of Blair's female Cabinet ministers and the only other female alternative, Hazel Blears, comes from the wrong wing of the party in my view.

No, what is needed to balance a Brown leadership is someone from the sensible left, and, although Hilary Benn may pick up substantial support from this section of the party, I don't think he really fits the bill in terms of bringing an alternative perspective to bear on future policy direction.

For me, then, the choice currently lies between Cruddas and Peter Hain. I like a lot of what Cruddas has been saying about reconnecting the Government and the party, but am not at all convinced that disconnnecting the roles of Deputy Leader and Deputy Prime Minister is the best way to achieve this.

As for Hain, I have great admiration for him and what he has achieved in his career as a campaigner and as a politician but I think there has to be some question mark over whether, alongside Gordon, he would provide a sufficiently fresh face.

So, for now at least, I'm keeping my options open.

Democracy in Iraq? We should have tried it at home first

What's the relationship between the War in Iraq and House of Lords reform? Well, perhaps little, except that they were both in the news last week and therefore provided some of the subject matter for my latest Column and accompanying Podcast.

But is there not a delicious irony in the fact that a Government which has preached so much about the need to export democratic values to other countries cannot, even after nine years in power, bring itself to support a democratically-elected Second Chamber?

"[Jack] Straw's plan for a 50-50 split between elected and appointed peers scarcely seems like a great step forward, especially when a 2003 plan for the Upper House to be 80pc elected came within three votes of gaining Commons approval. But the really amazing thing is that there should be any debate about this at all.

"As one newspaper's leader column put it this week: “The starting point for any debate about any legislature should be that is democratically elected. It therefore ought to be for the opponents of democracy to have to justify themselves.”"

Incidentally, the Lincolnshire Echo version of the column is now no more, having been summarily axed in an email sent out on Friday. Coming soon after the loss of my North West Enquirer column as a result of that newspaper going into receivership last month, it is a not inconsiderable blow.

They say these things normally come in threes, don't they?

Better late than never

Having just come back from possibly the wettest walking weekend I have ever experienced in the Lake District - the highlight of which was having to wade across a swollen river normally crossed by a small footbridge - I am fairly sympathetic towards the Government's belated attempts to push climate change to the top of the political agenda.

Of course, Labour are playing catch-up here. The Liberal Democrats have a well-deserved reputation as the most environmentalist party in British politics, having long favoured greater "green taxation." Latterly, David Cameron has also jumped on the bandwagon and, to be fair, seems to be far more serious about green issues than any of his predecessors.

Nevertheless, today's publication of the Stern Report together with Gordon Brown's appointment of Al Gore as an environmental adviser have to be seen as steps forward. I cannot understand my fellow blogger Iain Dale's oft-stated objection to Gore and can only put it down to pure Conservative tribalism.

When I went to bed at 2am on 8th November 2000 after watching the early results come in, Gore was US president-elect. When I got up at 7am and turned the telly back on, Bush was. There are very few people among my own circle of friends who do not think the world would now be a much better place had that reversal of fortune not occurred.

Pretty Abominable

Okay, so it's a five year old story recently given new legs. But I couldn't let the week pass without commenting in some way on the fresh attempts by Her Majesty's Press Association to put regional lobby journalists out of work by offering to take over their jobs.

This story has been extensively covered by the UK Press Gazette, and also, in one of his less distinguished moments, by Guido Fawkes, who appears to take the side of PA by suggesting that its service can be provided for "a fraction of the cost of having your own lobby correspondent drinking in the bar all day."

I won't dignify that with a response, but the fact is PA has been trying to do this for five years. One of my former editors received a letter from PA encouraging him to sack me as long ago as 2001, but thankfully, it went straight in the bin as, like most editors, he realised that good regional political coverage depends on being able to work a single patch well and not try to juggle four in the air at once as PA's "Lobby Extra" service attempts to do.

As the Express and Star's John Hipwood said: "Times are hard and all regional newspapers need to look closely at their costs. But you do not improve the situation by removing your own Lobby correspondent, making do with an inferior alternative and thereby reducing the quality of your product." All power to your elbow, John.

Balls for Leeds, Battle for Lords

There has been much speculation of late as to the fate of Treasury minister and Gordon Brown first lieutenant Ed Balls following the Boundary Commission's decision to do away with his Normanton constituency. Well, I reckon the answer lies in this recent post on Labour Watch.

It reveals that Leeds West MP and former Foreign Office minister John Battle, has become the latest MP, at the age of just 55, to announce he will not be standing again at the next General Election. Leeds West is but a short train ride away from Normanton and his decision leaves a convenient opening for Mr Balls.

Call me a cynic if you like, but I have been in the political game too long not to believe that Battle's reward for this unexpected act of selfless generosity will be to return to government under Gordon Brown as a Minister in the House of Lords.

Mr Balls meanwhile is tipped by many to succeed his old boss at the Treasury, but I reckon the Brownites have pulled off another deal over that one - with one-time Blairite leadership favourite turned enthusiastic Brown cheerleader David Miliband.

Just whose candidate is Jon Cruddas?

There's a widely-held view abroad in the blogosphere at the moment that Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas is the Blogger's Candidate to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I am sure this perception is at least partly behind Cruddas's recent surge in the betting from around 25-1 last week to 8-1 now.

There is also a related debate going on over at Labour Home as to whether the "Diamond Geezer" is the Left's Candidate. And there has also been some interesting speculation on Political Betting and in other places as to whether Cruddas is actually Gordon's Candidate, and whether the Chancellor is secretly backing him in return for the support of the big union leaders.

Well, I can't enlighten anyone on the latter point, except to say that practically everyone in the contest has been named as "Gordon's Candidate" at one stage or another. A few months back, the conventional wisdom was that he was backing Harriet Harman - until, that is, someone wrote a story implying he was backing anyone but Harman.

On another occasion, he was said to be backing Alan Johnson in return for the Education Secretary not standing against him. The truth is, no-one really knows who Gordon is backing except Gordon himself, and I doubt very much whether it would be in his or anyone else's interests to tell us.

What about "Blogger's Candidate," then? Well, again, I find it hard to see how this legend arose. Alex Hilton, probably the most influential Labour blogger by dint of his stewardship of both Recess Monkey and Labour Home was said by the Daily Pundit to be backing Cruddas, but this is emphatically not the case.

What Cruddas is clearly becoming, though, is, the "Heartlands" Candidate - or more specifically, the candidate both of the unions and, more generally, those party members who have felt disenfranchised by the Blair leadership and want a bigger say in the formation of party policy.

Rightly or wrongly, they perceive the other main candidates - Harman, Johnson, and Peter Hain - as establishment figures who are more interested in futhering their own Cabinet ambitions than repairing relations between the Government and party, and Cruddas's disavowal of any interest in becoming Deputy Prime Minister has proved a compelling sales pitch.

On top of all that, Cruddas is also by far the best organised of the four candidates, as the Daily Mail's Ben Brogan recognised some time back.

So can he do it? Well, there now has to be a very real possibility that Cruddas will gain first place in the trades union section of Labour's electoral college. Although it is union members, not their Gen Secs, who nowadays make that decision, the recommendations of the big union bosses still count for something and I expect most members will follow their lead.

But where the Cruddas campaign will almost certainly fall down is in the PLP. I would be mildly surprised if Hain does not top the MPs' ballot, and there will be significant support there for Johnson and Harman as well - all of which will leave Mr Cruddas needing to come either first or a very good second in the vote among party members to win.

For my part, I am also not at all convinced that having a Deputy Leader who is not actually a member of the Cabinet will necessarily improve the links between party and government in the way that Cruddas suggests, and that the flaws in this proposal may unravel as the campaign progresses.

Either way, you can place your own Labour leadership and deputy leadership predictions by visiting another of Mr Hilton's many internet projects HERE.