´óÏó´«Ã½

Friday's list of new peers is extraordinary, both for its size and make-up.

When was the last time 56 new peers were appointed in one day? Sixteen Conservatives, nine Liberal Democrat, 29 Labour, one DUP and one Independent.

This at a time when the government is committed to cutting the cost of politics, and reducing the size of the Commons by 10%. So 65 democratically elected MPs are being replaced by 56 unelected, appointed peers.

And whatever happened to the promise in the coalition agreement to appoint new peers to bring the upper house more in line with votes at the last election? Today's list, with almost twice as many new Labour peers as Conservatives, (29 to 16), totally goes against that.

I was mocked when I suggested in this blog that the pledge in the original coalition agreement would require almost 200 new peerages.

With today's appointments it would now require well over 200 peers for the chamber to reflect the 2010 result, and that's on top of today's 56 new appointments.

I write this from holiday in Westmorland in Cumbria where I have learnt that the local MP, Tim Farron, plans to stand for deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

The current deputy, Vince Cable, the new business secretary in the coalition government, announced last night that he was standing down from the party post to concentrate on his government job.

Farron, increased his majority by over 8,000 at the election, turning Westmorland and Lonsdale from a marginal seat into a safe one.

Surprisingly, however, Farron failed to get a ministerial job in the new coalition.

Strangely, the department he was previously shadowing, Defra, is the only major ministry without a Lib Dem.

Farron, who is firmly on the left of the party, must be in a strong position to win the post of Lib Dem deputy.

In his five years as an MP he has become a popular figure among Lib Dem grass roots activists.

He has acquired the job of making the fund-raising speech at party conferences - tub-thumping yet witty.

A friend claims Farron has "already secured the support of a quarter of Lib Dem MPs including one former leader, and most of new intake".

Liberal Democrat MPs will elect the new deputy leader on 9 June. Farron is not expected formally to announce his candidacy just yet.

Although Lib Dem MPs and activists voted overwhelmingly to back the new coalition at their special conference 10 days ago, MPs may prefer as their deputy leader a figure who is not a member of the coalition, in order to help preserve the party's own identity.

Other strong contenders with such credentials may include the long-standing Bermondsey MP and ex-party president Simon Hughes.

He is expected to declare his intentions later the week.

The Lib Dems have announced tonight that they are seeking taxpayers' money to bolster their finances whilst serving in a coalition government.

This follows a story earlier today on this blog, when I reported strong rumours that the Liberal Democrats were trying to keep receiving Short money - the annual payment to opposition parties to help them with their costs. But as the Lib Dems are now a governing party they should no longer be entitled to it.

The money was worth £1.75 million pounds to the Lib Dems last year - which could therefore amount to almost £9 million over the course of a 5 year parliament.

Having now obtained power the Lib Dems will inevitably be accused of trying to rig the system in their favour.

A Liberal Democrat spokesman just told me:

"We are no longer in receipt of Short Money as its current formulation is for opposition parties only.The current system of Short Money does not account for the complexity of situations where there is not a majority government. We are looking to existing precedents, such as that established by the previous Labour Government, in Scotland, to ensure that, as the smaller of the two coalition parties, the Liberal Democrat are able to maintain their operational independence in parliament. Recognising their role in government, the Liberal Democrats believe any such financial support for parliamentary functions should be less than received in opposition. "

Strong rumours reach me that the Liberal Democrats are trying to keep receiving Short money. That's the taxpayers money which opposition parties - yes, OPPOSITION parties - get from the state to help balance the fact that the governing party has the distinct advantage of being in office, with special advisers, and so on. And now, of course, the Lib Dems are a governing party, so shouldn't be entitled to Short money.

Short money was introduced by the Labour Leader of the House Ted Short in the mid-1970s to help opposition parties operate properly. The money was worth £1.75 million to the Lib Dems last year. That compares with their total party budget of around £5 million. So the Liberal Democrats will be in big trouble without that funding.

The sums are calculated on a formula based on the number of seats obtained at the last election and the number of votes.

If the Lib Dems are indeed trying to keep up the Short payments it will look very odd in this era of 'new politics' and financial stringency.

Coming on top of the row over the proposed 55 per cent rule, the Lib Dems will inevitably be accused, having now obtained some power, of trying to rig the system in their own favour.

My efforts to get a response from the Liberal Democrats this afternoon have met with silence.

I know an email is circulating amongst senior Lib Dems with details of my enquiries. Perhaps one of them could get back to me.

The TV debate format cannot be repeated in 2015 - at least not without a huge stink from Scotland and Wales.

The crucial fact - and one widely overlooked - is that the 2015 general election (scheduled for Thursday 7 May) will be on the same day as full elections for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies.

So any attempt to re-run debates with the three main parties will be seen as hugely unfair to the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who are both now governing parties in Scotland and Wales respectively.

This is a very different situation to 2010, where the SNP lost its legal challenge to the debates - partly because it took action so late.

So another big headache for my bosses at the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and their colleagues at Sky and ITV.

If the Labour wants an open, all-encompassing debate over its future, and a great variety of choice in who is to lead the party, then it is going about it in a very strange way. An odd way indeed.

The party's leadership election is now scheduled to take more than four months, between now and the party conference in late September.

But under the timetable announced today, candidates have only until Thursday week, 27 May - nine more days - to nominate themselves

Nobody is going to put himself, or herself, forward without being confident of getting the necessary 33 nominations from fellow MPs.

To do so and then not get enough support would be pretty humiliating. But getting 33 backers could be very difficult in the narrow time frame.

Left-winger John McDonnell, for instance, who says it's "another stitch-up", thinks it will be very difficult to get 33 supporters, especially at a time when Parliament is not really in full flow, and many new MPs have yet to find their feet.

What's more, many MPs have yet to think things through, and don't want to commit themselves so early.

Andy Burnham could face the same problem. Ed Balls could be another victim too, though I suspect he will eventually make it onto the ballot paper now that John Cruddas has withdrawn from the contest.

I can understand why Labour would have wanted to keep tight control of the contest when they were in power, and Gordon Brown was the leading contender.

But now? It's almost as if the party can't shed its apparent old habit of trying to stitch everything up.

Why not keep nominations open until the end of June, by which time new MPs will have got a better measure of possible contenders?

Now the contest could well be confined to male former political advisers in their early 40s who read PPE at Oxford.

Hardly the all-embracing image the party surely wants to project.

(Not that there's anything wrong with reading PPE at Oxford - I did). But some variety, please.

My old friend Tom Fairbrother writes to say:

(1) In 1754 one brother succeeded another as prime minister - on a less positive note, Pelham had to die to make way for his older brother, the Duke of Newcastle. 

(2) The French centre-right politicians Jean-Louis and Bernard Debré are twin brothers, sons of Michel Debré, first prime minister of the Fifth Republic - they rarely agree about anything (eg Jean-Louis was pro-Chirac, Bernard pro-Balladur), and I suspect there is a strong element of personal dislike there. 

(3) There are numerous medieval examples of conflicts between/among brothers - in 1478 Edward IV had his brother George ("False, Fleeting, Perjur'd Clarence") executed for treason - the legend that he was drowned in a malmsey butt has never been disproven, and perhaps the victim was allowed to choose..."

So, other sibling rivalries please.

Remember the Conservative conference last autumn when the former Army chief was announced, amid much fanfare and also in David Cameron's speech, as the surprise new member of the Conservative team.

And the story was that Sir Richard would probably be given a seat in the Lords and a ministerial job in a new Cameron government.

Old defence hands quickly intervened however, and said it would be unwise to make Sir Richard a defence minister, and that he would be seen by the other services, the Navy and the RAF, as too pro-Army.

There were also questions about the propriety of Sir Richard moving so quickly into party politics having only just stepped down as Chief of the General Staff. He was also seen as a bit of a loose cannon.

So what happened to Sir Richard? It seems the idea was quietly dropped. And if anyone asks, then the need to make room for 20 Lib Dems will be cited as ample excuse for his disappointment.

I remarked last week on the fact that Ken Clarke is now back in government, 38 years after first serving as a whip in the Heath government.

But David Howell, or Lord Howell of Guildford, can do even better. He is now a minister of state at the Foreign Office, having joined Heath's government in 1970, as a whip and junior minister as the old Civil Service Department. That's a ministerial span of 40 years.

The biggest post-war ministerial span I can think of is Quintin Hogg, 42 years, between 1945 and 1987. Winston Churchill had almost 50 years - from 1905 to 1955.

But William Gladstone, as usual, trumps them all, with an incredible ministerial span of 59 years, from 1835 to 1894.

Lord Howell first became an MP in 1966, before David Cameron was born.

He is also George's Osborne's father-in-law, but in ministerial terms, junior to his son-in-law.

On the question of whether the Milibands are the only brothers to run against each other, Tom Sanderson has e-mailed to say that the Rockefeller brothers, Nelson and Winthrop, both ran for the US Republican presidential nomination in 1968.

The Rockefellers stood against each other at the 1968 Republican convention, before Richard Nixon beat both of them (and several other contenders, including Ronald Reagan).

Nelson Rockefeller, was governor of New York, and ran for the presidency several times. In 1974, he become Gerald Ford's vice-president. Winthrop died in 1972.

Today's coalition agreement contains a commitment by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to introduce a House of Lords either "wholly or mainly elected", and elected by proportional representation.

In the interim, however, the two parties carry out their own PR operation on the upper chamber, and increase relative party strengths in the Lords to reflect the share of the vote by the parties at the 2010 election.

A quick calculation suggests this would mean about 95 new Lib Dem peers (up from current strength of 72), and 74 new Conservative peers (on top of their existing 188), while Labour representation (211) would stay the same.

But if Labour is allowed to create several new peers, and by convention they will be following the election and Gordon Brown's resignation, then the Conservatives and Lib Dems would be allowed to have even more new peers than the figures above.

The result could be 200 or so new members of the Lords.

Which all seems rather strange when both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are committed to cutting the cost of politics, and reducing the size of the Commons by 10%.

Boys at Eton are waiting anxiously to see whether David Cameron's election will result in them getting an extra day's holiday.

That has often been the college tradition whenever an Etonian has become prime minister. But there is some doubt as to whether the practice will be followed this time.

"I believe it has been something that has been done in the past," a spokesman told Newsnight.

"As far as whether or when we would have a holiday this time, this must be a decision taken by the head master and others, and still has to be discussed."

Surely the head, Anthony Little, wouldn't be such a spoil-sport?

David Cameron is the 19th British Prime Minister to have gone to Eton, though I note that the has yet to add his name to the list.

On another matter, I was amused to see that the website declares on its front page: "The Fourth of June will be on Wednesday 2nd June."

Oh dear, my previous blog on the procedure for sacking ministers in the new two-party government has caused a spot of bother.

Indeed, if I was being mischievous I might claim it as the first small split in the new coalition.

My report that only the respective leaders could sack a minister from their own party (and Cameron couldn't therefore sack Cable, for example) was based on a briefing this afternoon with two of Nick Clegg's senior aides.

"That's not true," one of his spokeswomen has just rung to say.

"The ultimate responsibility for the hiring and firing of ministers, regardless of which party, lies with the Prime Minister."

She added that this statement followed consultation with her Lib Dem colleagues to try and clarify the issue.

I understand that the Liberal Democrats will have representation in every government department.

On the question of how ministers can be sacked, I am told they can only be dismissed by the leader of their own party. So Vince Cable, for example can't be sacked by David Cameron, only by Nick Clegg.

David Cameron has a big problem with women, by which I mean women appointments to his Cabinet, as I have forecast here before.

And the Lib Dems certainly don't help. The Liberal Democrats have fewer women MPs proportionately than any of the big three parties, and none is in line for Cabinet.

The most senior Lib Dem woman is probably Sarah Teather.

Mr Cameron is going to have to disappoint a large chunk of his Shadow Cabinet, and may well end up with just three or four women - Theresa May has been named as Home Secretary.

I would also predict Caroline Spelman and Sayeeda Warsi. Teresa Villiers possibly.

Given how much the world has moved on in the last 20 years, that may be regarded as being as big a setback for the cause of women as John Major's first Cabinet in 1990, which contained no women at all.

If we are to get a Lib-Con government, the incoming Cabinet could be blessed with as many as nine people with experience of party leadership:

David Cameron
Nick Clegg
William Hague
Michael Howard
Iain Duncan Smith
Paddy Ashdown
Charles Kennedy
Sir Ming Campbell
David Trimble

If a coalition government involving the Lib Dems and the Conservatives comes to fruition it will produce severe problems for broadcasters in the allocation of airtime.

In the past we have frequently included a Lib Dem voice, and held three-way discussions on programmes such as Newsnight.

With a coalition that will be difficult. The danger from the Lib Dems' point of view is that they may now only appear on TV when one of their ministers is involved.

Three-way discussions may become a thing of the past, since there would be no three-way division of opinion.

And if we had three people in the studio then Labour would say that the government has two voices - Conservative and Lib Dem - and the opposition - Labour - only one.

Such a situation would also be good news for Labour, since unlike the main opposition party hitherto, they won't have to share their opposition status with a third party.

There's no precedent on this. The last time we had a peacetime coalition was before the broadcasting age.

This could prove a much more difficult issue for the broadcasters than organising the TV debates.

Why?

First, so many Labour MPs are against a Lib-Lab coalition, from across the party, and ministers too, among them Andy Burnham, Diana Johnson, and, it is said, Jack Straw.

And remember the depleted Parliamentary Labour Party is full of MPs from areas like Scotland and northern England where Labour is in fierce competition with the Lib Dems, and where they hate PR or even AV.

The other big factor is the Lib Dems fear of another election. They cannot afford one and fear it would mean losing yet more seats.

That is why the Lib Dems suddenly switched yesterday to wanting a fixed-term coalition arrangement. Only the Tories can offer that with any certainty. A Lib-Lab coalition could easily fall at any moment, especially after a few by-election defeats.

The clincher for me though was a Lib Dem MP who is pretty sympathetic to Labour telling me this morning that a deal with the Conservatives was the only viable option.

"I can't believe how much they've offered us," he said. "The Tories have basically rubbed out their manifesto and inserted ours. We'll have to cope for four or five years with our flesh creeping, but still."

During the campaign, and at the height of their surge, I remarked on how the Lib Dems would have trouble getting any MPs elected from ethnic minorities.

So it proved. None of Nick Clegg's 57 can be so described, and no ethnic minority candidate got anywhere near for the party.

The Liberal Democrats are ready to hold a special conference within a couple of days if a deal is done with the Conservatives or Labour.

This is the third part of the Liberal Democrats' so-called Triple Lock, agreed at their conference in Southport in 1998. This requires backing from three quarters of all Lib Dem MPs, and three quarters of the party's federal executive, and failing that two thirds of a special party conference.

A number of locations have been earmarked, I'm told, and the plan is that the conference will comprise the same people who would normally attend the annual conference.

I'm also told that the party is likely to seek approval from a party conference even if it doesn't have to, and the deal has achieved the necessary backing from MPs and the federal executive.

Andrew Stunell clearly has no place in these negotiations. Take a look at the teams:

Liberal Democrats:
David Laws (public school and Oxford Cambridge*)
Andrew Stunell (grammar school and Manchester)
Danny Alexander (comprehenisve school and Oxford)
Chris Huhne (public school and Oxford)

Conservatives:
George Osborne (public school and Oxford)
William Hague (comprehensive school and Oxford)
Oliver Letwin (Eton and Oxford Cambridge*)
Ed Llewellyn (Eton and Oxford) 

Labour:
Lord Adonis (independent school and Oxford)
Lord Mandelson (grammar school and Oxford)
Ed Miliband (comprehensive school and Oxford)
Ed Balls (public school and Oxford)

Mind you, it could be worse for Mr Stunnell. He could be a woman.
{*Corrections}

The remarkable thing about these talks is how controlled and tight-lipped the Lib Dems are being. Normally it is hard to get Lib Dems to stop talking.

Indeed as I chased the Lib Dem negotiating team down Whitehall I remarked how unusual it was for politicians to be so silent.

"I've not known anything like this since IDS," I remarked, referring to the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan-Smith who called himself the "quiet man".

Chris Huhne couldn't resist a smile.

Seriously, the fact that Lib Dems are being so quiet, and there have been no leaks from MPs or the federal executive is probably a sign that things are going well, and a deal may be possible that squares the party.

"AV asap" said one placard. "Does Nick agree with us?" said another. "We want Nick, cos he's fit," and "FPTP lame."

A bizarre demo outside the meeting of Lib Dem MPs this afternoon, trying to stiffen the resolve of the party's commitment to electoral reform, and fearing a sell-out.

"We want Nick," they were chanting. Among those present the tactical voter, Billy Bragg; Will Straw of Left Foot Forward, and John Strafford of the Campaign for Conservative Party Democracy.

It was Monty Pythonesque at times.

When I did a piece to camera saying the crowd was angry, a man interrupted me to say "We're not angry".

"So what are you then?"

"Peeved," he said. "I'll be angry on Monday," said another.

Nick Clegg had no option but to come out and address them. He was clearly astoniished that so many people should take to the streets in favour of PR.

But significantly he made no promises. He made no commitment to PR or electoral reform, only to "political reform", very different from electoral reform, but the same initials, of course - PR.

Convenient that.

Britain may have to get used to minority governments and hung parliaments.

In retrospect history may judge that the 2010 election result wasn't really the anomaly that we think it is, but the fact that this country has gone 65 years, since 1945, with only a few brief spells when we've had governments without a majority.

Anyway, I suspect we are now going to have to get used to it. In reality, many in the British political system are already used to it, thanks to two trends over the past 40 years. First the rise of the Liberal Democrats as a serious third force (and also the nationalists in Scotland and Wales), which has seriously challenged the old two-party system. Second, the advent of PR systems in the assemblies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and in Scottish local government. Hence a hotch-potch of governing arrangements - coalitions and minority regimes, as I illustrated in Ipswich on Monday.

And Parliamentary systems in the Commonwealth and Europe have been accustomed to having governments without a majority for decades. Even Britain was used to it in the past, in the days when there was a big block of Irish MPs at Westminster, and during the first four decades of the 20th century when Labour gradually replaced the Liberals.

As I've said before, I suspect that over the next 50 years majority governments may become the exception not the rule, especially if the Lib Dems finally achieve some form of electoral reform.

One forgets sometimes just how big some constituencies are. We are driving directly from Newtown in mid Wales to David Cameron's final rally in Bristol tonight. A beautiful drive.

More than an hour ago we first passed posters for Roger Williams, the defending Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, and his Conservative opponent Suzy Davies. And after more than an hour's drive we are still passing their posters!

Goodness knows how they ever afford to print and distribute them.

This afternoon David Cameron was in Newtown in Montgomeryshire, the seat held by the Lib Dem maverick Lembit Opik.

It means David Cameron can say he's visited all four parts of the UK in the last 36 hours. Has any party leader ever done that before in a campaign?

But Montgomeryshire is a pretty ambitious target. If the Conservatives took this seat they would be home dry, but this historic seat must be the most anti-government constituency in the whole of Britain.

Montgomeryshire has only once voted for the government party in the last 130 years - in 1979 when it went Conservative for one parliament. For most of the last century it has been Liberal or Lib Dem.

David Cameron coud have faced a rather embarrassing opponent in Montgomeryshire. In 1996 when its previous Lib Dem MP, Alex Carlile, announced he was stepping down, the local Liberal Democrats approached a young woman called Ffion Jenkins whose family were staunch and well-known Welsh Liberals. Was she interested in being their candidate?

Ffion Jenkins thought about it for a few days, I'm told, and then said 'no'.

Montgomeryshire Lib Dems picked Lembit Opik instead, and Ffion Jenkins shortly afterwards married William Hague.

The organisers of the election leaflet website have referred local Labour and Conservative campaigns in two seats in London over the distribution of leaflets which appear to masquerade as polling cards.

This, say the website organisers, has been done by both and the in Islington South, and also by .

According to The Straight Choice site, the law is very clear:

"No person shall for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a parliamentary election issue any poll card or document so closely resembling an official poll card as to be calculated to deceive."

David Cameron will be utterly unfit to form a government this Friday. So, too, will Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg.

This business of campaigning through the night is complete madness. It never happened before. How many extra votes does a politician really get from a fire station in the middle of the night, or early morning in a fishing port?

It's a terrible American import to British election campaigns. But in US presidential elections candidates are elected, make an acceptance speech, celebrate, and then take a long rest.

Here, in contrast, our Prime Minister may be elected on Friday after several days without much sleep, and weeks of knackering activity. And then he'll form his Cabinet, and perhaps a whole new government by Monday. And he may also make some radical policy announcements.

This is mad. We wouldn't allow surgeons to operate without sleep, so why allow politicians to conduct major surgery to the government without sleep. And there are strict laws about lorry drivers driving more than a set number of hours without proper rest and breaks.

So David or Gordon or Nick please take a good rest before appointing your Cabinet and making big decisions. Don't appoint a new home secretary without a good night's sleep.

Here's a dare for the Queen. Why don't you say this on Friday:

"Good afternoon, Mr Cameron or Mr Brown etc."
"Good afternoon, ma'am."
"I'd like you to be my new Prime Minister."
"I'd be delighted to, ma'am."
"But on one condition. You don't appoint any of my new ministers until Wednesday. Go and take a break first. Promise me?"
"Well..."
"No, promise me."
"I promise ma'am."

Hilarious goings-on at Granada TV in Manchester tonight, where strangely ITV had agreed to host Labour's big election rally with Gordon Brown and his Cabinet.

At one point a workman was seen unscrewing a big sign with the ITV logo. In the studio itself studio-hands were told to replace their T-shirts which had ITV logos.

Funniest of all my ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporter colleagues have been asked to do their pieces to camera so that the Granada TV sign is not in view.

I am told that at one point a flustered Granada manager came out and said to the TV crews something to the effect of "Archie Norman doesn't want to be associated with the fact that the Labour Party is using the studio".

Mr Norman, the new boss of ITV, was of course a Conservative MP not long ago, and a member of the shadow Cabinet.

Time was when Granada TV was the most socialist of all the ITV companies. Its founder Lord Bernstein was a Labour peer, and in their younger days both Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett worked for the company.

Perhaps the booking was made before Archie Norman took over.

UPDATE: And then Gordon Brown must have infuriated Archie Norman when he opened his speech by thanking Granada for allowing Labour to hold the rally there.

The more that Labour politicians urge voters to vote tactically for the Lib Dems then the more it complicates any claims that the Liberal Democrats may have after the election to moral authority on the basis of their total vote.

If the Lib Dems get 500,000 more votes than Labour, for example, then Labour politicians like Ed Balls will no doubt tell us that the Lib Dem vote was boosted by Labour voters (and maybe Tories too) voting tactically, and that without these votes the Lib Dems would have come behind Labour.

On the other hand the Lib Dems will no doubt complain that the electoral system works against them, and that if voters thought the system was fair, they'd get a lot more votes anyway.

My interview for Newsnight yesterday with the Ipswich Lib Dem councillor Inga Lockington exposed a strange quirk in the British political system.

Mrs Lockington has been a member of Ipswich Borough Council for several years, and also a member of Suffolk County Council. And in 2007-08 she even served as mayor of Ipswich.

Yet interestingly, because she is a Danish citizen, double-councillor Lockington isn't just disqualified from standing as a candidate in the coming general election, she can't even vote in it.

After my blog the other day about the proliferation of manifestos in this election, Labour trumped everyone today by launching a "seaside manifesto" - for floating voters no doubt.

And Gordon Brown also appointed the Dragon's Den star Duncan Bannatyne as his new "seaside tsar".

Incredible.

With Tony Blair out in Redditch today supporting Jackie Smith - of all candidates - I was curious as to whether his predecessor as PM, Sir John Major was doing any campaigning for Conservative contenders.

I'm told not:

"He did all his campaigning before the election kicked off," says Sir John's spokesman, who says the former leader discussed the issue with David Cameron.

"He [Sir John] thinks the spotlight should be on the current team."

I plan not to vote in this election. However, I will gladly do so if any candidate where I live (Battersea) promises to vote for the reintroduction of capital punishment for the blithering idiot who designed the new Kings Cross underground station.

In the old days it was a quick hop between the mainline station and the tube platforms, which took no more than a couple of minutes.

Now one has to go on a long walk through maze of wide new shiny tunnels, which must add at least five minutes to the journey.

Annoying for me. And infuriating if you then miss your train because of the extra time it takes, as I did the other day.

It must be a huge lot of extra aggro for old people. Or people with kids, or with lots of luggage, or who are disabled.

Memo to the next transport minister: there's no point in spending hundreds of millions on faster trains if the walk at the end is a lot longer.

Kings Cross? Bloody furious, more like.