´óÏó´«Ã½

That is the word which, I'm told, lies at the heart of today's . Don't be surprised, however, if other more politically appealing words such as "quality" (as against "quantity") and bottom-up (as against "top down") take pride of place in the presentation of what we're being told is the most important day for the health service since it was formed .

The surgeon-come-minister believes that patients need to be given greater clout in the health service and that the information revolution will allow this to happen. He's planning to give us all absolute freedom of choice about where we're treated and to supply us with the data to allow us to make informed choices.

Surgical teams will be forced to publish annual quality reports which record their performance in terms of safety, medical outcomes and patient satisfaction. So, in theory at least, we'll all be armed with the equivalent of "Whichdoctor" and able to travel anywhere from Lands End to John O'Groats to get the best possible healthcare.

What's striking about this is how similar it appears to be to the recently released proposals from the Tories. Ministers say that Team Cameron can't mean what they say since they resist the introduction of increased capacity to the NHS - in the form of controversial new GP-led health centres or polyclinics - and hospital reconfigurations.

Whoever's right, it leaves me wondering how much choice there really is between the government and the opposition in this the NHS's 60th year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was not meant to be like this. Gordon Brown badgered Tony Blair to leave office so that Labour could be renewed. He entered No 10 promising change. There has been no renewal and the most obvious change is a collapse in support for his party.

On this unhappy anniversary friends will mutter, foes will shout about the prime minister's misjudgements ranging from 'the election that never was' to the 10p tax debacle.

Too few, though, will mention the economy or note that, across the channel, a politician with none of Gordon Brown's alleged flaws - the charismatic master of communications is not faring much better. And yet even when it comes to the economy, apparently Gordon Brown's strongest suit, mistakes have been made again and again.

Last summer when the red warning lights were flashing on Wall Street, the chancellor was persuaded to deliver an inheritance tax cutting pre-budget report aimed not at the averting or ameliorating the crisis ahead but, instead, at winning an election that was never, in fact, called. He now regrets it.

As the credit crunch bit, fuel and food prices soared and the scrapping of 10p tax rate loomed, a gloomy budget did - well - almost nothing. The prime minister has told friends that he regards this as a "missed opportunity". The chancellor has told his friends that he could do nothing about the 10p tax problem because Gordon Brown was still in denial about it. As it was, weeks later an emergency statement conjured up £2.7 billion to help hard pressed families.

It is not that Gordon Brown, or indeed any politician, could have averted the economic crisis. It is not that there is that much more he could have done given there was no money. What insiders do accept, though, is that the PM has looked behind the economic curve and his government have made a series of tax decisions that have had to be amended or abandoned reducing confidence in the government's economic decision taking.

Team Brown curse their bad economic luck. They regret their economic mistakes. They hope that one day their man will be given credit for those long term decisions he likes to talk of so much - expanding nuclear power, speeding up the planning system and his recent efforts to improve the working of oil markets - all designed to make us a stronger economy in the long run.

They - he - must hope that in the words of that old election song "things can only get better" in year two...or, if not then, year three.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As Gordon Brown reaches his first anniversary as prime minister, a few colleagues and I have taken a look at the man that according to the polls could be the next prime minister - .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

MPs have raised the white flag, and announced the terms of their surrender to people demanding tighter rules for their expenses and greater transparency.

This morning, the Speaker's committee - properly known as the Members Estimates Committee - set out their plans for a transformation of the system. From now on, if the House of Commons vote for these proposals, MPs would get an annual allowance, just under £20,000, for their accommodation, and the servicing of it. Gone would be the so-called John Lewis list of TVs, iPods, and all the rest. Gone, the new kitchens. And gone, the £400 a month food allowance. However, in place of some of these questionable allowances, there is a new £30 a day subsistence allowance, which will not requre a receipt, for the 140 days that the Commons sits for.

In total, this means MPs can claim just about as much as they do now but with much less embarrassment, and much greater audit and scrutiny. All new expense claims will be published every three months. And in the autumn, as I predicted some time ago, a million items, representing the past four years of MPs' expenses, will be published.

Now, none of this is without cost. MPs have been told that that exercise alone cost £900,000. And the committee believes that's likely to be an underestimate. Will these proposals, if they go through, mark an end to the controversy? No, there are still questions about why certain MPs need second homes where they have them. There are questions about MPs who are married, and the claims they make. There are sure to be other unpredicted questions too.

However, most of the issues that have caused such controversy in recent months appear, at first sight, to have been dealt with by these proposals. Unless, of course, you know differently.

UPDATE, 12:50PM: In response to some of your comments, let me attempt to clarify a few details.

The proposed accommodation allowance would be payable on production of receipts only to cover rent, mortgage interest, repairs (though not home improvements), cleaning and maintenance but not furnishings, household goods and the like.

The proposed daily subsistence allowance of £30 will not require receipts - just prove of attendance at the Commons.

Neither will be taxed since, I'm told, the Inland Revenue do not tax expenses/allowances for working away from home.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

From time to time, intriguing polls make their way into my inbox. Today, the AA has sent me the . Two-thirds of them say that they'll vote for a different government if the price of petrol rises above 125p. And almost half, 49%, say that the government is most responsible for the rise in the price at the pumps.

No wonder at the weekend. He was rewarded with a small increase in the supply of Saudi oil, and some of the best news coverage that he's had in weeks.

No wonder too, that David Cameron hinted, at his news conference yesterday, that the Tories would find a way to, in his words, share the pain between the government and the driver the next time fuel prices rise. He hasn't spelt out what this means. Perhaps it means that he will plan a petrol fund, paid for from duty rises that then can be paid back to the tax payer in the form of tax cuts if the price falls later on.

PS. My story on Alistair Darling's fate caused a flurry yesterday, and a flurry of different newspaper interpretations. Read the or the and the chancellor is safe in his job.

Read the and you're told he's not.

Read the and you're told that the Downing Street machine has not quite managed to put to bed rumours of Mr Darling's demise.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A year ago, Gordon of the Treasury was packing. He was about to make the longest journey of his life - moving next door from No 11 to No 10.

After a decade of being restricted to governing the economy, Gordon Brown was now making plans to govern everything else. He and his closest advisers took for granted that he would carry with him the lexicon of the Brown decade - prudence, stability, no boom and bust. They were preparing to unveil what he would call "a new government with new priorities".

What a difference a year makes. It is the old priorities of an old government that are at the heart of Gordon Brown's new problems. No surprise then that some in No 10 are arguing that a new economic plan should be the centrepiece of an autumn fightback.

They have concluded that the old tunes are sounding dated. They believe that it's no longer enough to declare that the man who steered the economy away from the rocks for 10 years will be able to do so again. Instead, I'm told, the public is to be presented with a new analysis: explaining why the PM is not merely whistling in the wind when he predicts that the British economy will weather the current storm; setting out how future decisions on tax and spending; on the environment, education and skills will help prepare Britain for a better economic future.

Now, this raises a mighty big question. A question highlighted by the fact that a cabinet reshuffle is said to have been pencilled in for around the same time. Does a new economic plan need a new chancellor? It's a question some close to the PM are pondering.

The arguments for a change are simple. Alistair Darling, it's said, has not established himself as a strong independent figure in the City, the country or in Parliament. The last thing the government needs at this time, the argument goes, is a cautious conservative chancellor.

The arguments against begin with sympathy for a man who, many of his colleagues believe, has calmly and stoically taken the rap for the PM's mistakes -whether a Budget dictated by the election that never was or the unwillingness to accept there were losers from scrapping the 10p tax rate.

The debate soon turns, of course, to who would take over - Alan Johnson, some say, would have the popular touch and is English, to boot. So too, David Miliband who's bright enough to easily make the switch from the Foreign Office. Promote either and Gordon Brown would be promoting a man who could soon replace him. Why not then the man he may want to succeed him - his old economic adviser Ed Balls? Blairites are not alone in thinking of many reasons why not.

Darling, an old friend and trusted ally of Brown's, may well survive in his job but a question some are pushing this for the summer is whether Gordon Brown should lay down his friend for his political life.

This is the script of my essay on this morning's Today programme.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I'm brooding on the contrast between the two speeches at the Mansion House last night. The chancellor's message, indeed his peroration, was to be confident, although, of course, he insisted that he'd never be complacent. He ridiculed comparisons between today's inflation rate and that of the 1970s - not only is it lower, he said, but inflation now comes from abroad rather than being home-grown.

Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, on the other hand, had a very austere message. Average take-home pay would stagnate this year, he said. He and the bank would do whatever was necessary when it came to interest rates. In other words, if you put your pay up in order to counter inflation, the governor was warning he'd put up interest rates to curb it. Either way you pay in the end.

So why the softly softly approach from Alistair Darling? Was it an agreed soft cop hard cop routine? Is the chancellor concerned about talking us into recession? Has he made the political calculation that it is better to invite the unions into a confrontation with the bank rather than with a Labour minister? Whichever it is, it makes a stark contrast with chancellors of the past who would have told us all to tighten our belts and prepare for difficult times.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Have you noticed, it's not ? Despite the return of inflation, despite the spectre of a price wages' spiral, despite the prospect of interest rate rises, the Tories are not, they tell us, focusing on the economy.

Instead David Cameron repeats the mantra again and again, that the heart of his strategy is to do for society what Margaret Thatcher did for the economy. Thus he highlights proposals on families, on welfare, and on schools and this week makes a major speech about the environment, hinting that he'd stop Heathrow's expansion at a potential cost - yes you've guessed it - to the economy.

So why is this? In part, because Cameron genuinely believes that improving society is the one thing he wants to do, and could do, if he became prime minister. In part, because the bad economic news works to the Tories' advantage without them having to do very much. In part, because there is a link. The Tories claim that if they cut the cost of social failure - a promise first made, you may recall, by Tony Blair - that they will be able to improve the efficiency of the economy and deliver those hallowed tax cuts.

There is though, I suspect, another reason. Read and you'll get a hint of it. The Tories fear being seen as too different to Labour.

Research shows that that people judge what is wise and what is risky by how different it is to what they've got now. Promise to cut taxes when no-one is and people think it's risky. Promise to raise them when no-one is and they assume that's risky. Thus it's better to show that you would be not that different, just better than the current incumbents.

The question is, how much thinking is going on behind the scenes, not about what George Osborne the shadow chancellor says, but what he'd actually do as chancellor? For all our sakes, I hope it's a lot.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Most people didn't need the governor of the Bank of England to tell them that inflation is a problem. For months now, people have been able to see for themselves - in their fuel bills, the price of the pumps and the cost at the supermarket.

and that letter however, do mark the return of inflation to the centre of British politics. Due anytime soon, a debate about how best to sort it and who is best placed to do it. Downing Street these days is full of briefings and discussions about the price of oil. Look hard at Gordon Brown's rhetoric and you can see a real change.

Yesterday the prime minister described the trebling of world oil prices as the most worrying situation in the world. Last week he talked of ending the globe's addiction to oil. This Sunday he travels to Jeddah, the capital of Saudi Arabia, for a summit with the king.

What's his aim? It is not a short-term increase in the supply of oil and therefore a cut in petrol prices, we're told. It is, instead, to reduce the significance of speculation in oil by City commodity traders.

He hopes that if the long-term supply of oil is more certain - a question for the producers like Saudi Arabia, and if the long-term demand for oil is more predictable - a question for the Chinese and the Indians - that then there will be less cash to be made from speculating on oil price hikes, speculation that can lead to actually increases in prices.

This is classic Gordon Brown, wrestling behind the scenes with something he genuinely believes is a major long-term problem. It will be fascinating to see what progress he can make in the weeks to come.

PS. Many people have been baffled by President Bush's banter with me at yesterday's news conference about whether I had a hat. Without going over very old ground you can .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I am in mourning. George Bush has given his last news conference on British soil as president of the United States. I will miss him, not, I hasten to add, because I politically back him (or indeed oppose him - that would be inappropriate) but because he gives a great news conference.

Today is yet another example to join the list, when Dubya claimed that one thing he would leave behind after he left the White House is "multilateralism to deal with tyrants". Some people may be rather surprised to learn that, after the decision to invade Iraq was taken in not an entirely multilateral way.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Interesting guest list at last night's dinner for President Bush at No 10. As well as the prime minister, the foreign secretary and the chancellor, there were a series of historians; Simon Schama who's been none too pleasant about George Bush, David Cannadine and Martin Gilbert. But the name that stands out is that of John Hutton, the business secretary.

Not just the business secretary, Mr Hutton's also a keen amateur historian. He's formed a bond with Gordon Brown since publishing a book about World War I. This is fairly surprising however, given that Mr Hutton used to share a flat with Mr Brown's nemesis, Alan Milburn, and to share Mr Milburn's views of Mr Brown.

Although last night's dinner was not "a working dinner" but a chance to chew the fat on Anglo-American history, students of cabinet ups and downs will be intrigued that Mr Hutton was thought worthy of a place at Downing Street's top table. And it will fuel suggestions that if there is to be a reshuffle, Mr Hutton's name may well be in the frame for defence secretary. I should note however that Des Browne is looking fit and well, and keen to keep his job.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been inundated with calls, texts, and blog comments praising David Davis' decision yesterday and some have questioned why I have suggested it may be a nightmare for the Conservative Party.

So here are ten reasons:

1) It will pit the Tories against the paper whose support they most want to win - The Sun

2) David Davis might lose the by-election, robbing the Tories of a talented politician

3) Davis may win big, emphasising his status as a potential rival for David Cameron

4) The by-election may be a damp squib in which no major party runs and is seen by many as a waste of tax payers' money

5) David Davis wins and gets back into the shadow cabinet where no-one knows what he'll do next and is therefore a divisive force

6) David Davis stays on the backbenches and becomes a focus of discontent with David Cameron and a divisive force

7) The Conservative Party is forced to have the divisive debate between libertarianism and authoritarianism

8) The Conservatives are diverted from their strategy of focusing on schools, welfare and family policies

9) David Cameron does not look in control of his top team

10) For the first time in months Gordon Brown is helped to avoid dreadful headlines which today would have read ("I did no deal, honest")

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Wow. Cor blimey. Gordon Bennett.

Just some of the repeatable things said round Westminster on hearing the news that David Davis planned to step into the history books by resigning his seat to take the fight for civil liberties to the people.

What David Cameron said in private when he was told - not asked, not consulted, mind you - is probably unbroadcastable.

The two Tory Davids - one who beat the other to become Tory leader - insist they've not fallen out and not rowed about policy.

David Davis has, however, bounced his leader into a by-election he didn't want, on an issue he wanted to move on from and he has done it without consulting his colleagues in the shadow cabinet. It is hard to see how the two men could work comfortably with each other in future.

The man who is already the former shadow home secretary insists he's making a principled stand and laughs off suggestions from friends and foes alike that he's having a late life crisis.

A politician who is a self-confessed adrenalin junkie has just injected a little unpredictability into British politics.

PS: Earlier I wrongly said that there was no precedent for this. Thanks to those who pointed to the following:

George Lansbury, 1912
The Labour MP for Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley resigned to fight a by-election on a platform of votes for women. The Labour Party disapproved of his resignation and Lansbury lost the contest to the Conservative candidate by 731 votes.

Northern Ireland, 1986
All 15 Ulster unionist MPs resigned and provoked by-elections in protest over the Anglo-Irish Agreement. 14 of them were re-elected, many with increased majorities, but they ultimately failed to influence Government policy.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This resignation is quite extraordinary and without precedent that I can think of in British politics and means that politics is now utterly unpredictable.

(Here was my initial reaction on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News channel just after Mr Davis's statement.)

David Cameron has lost control of his strategy. This was not his decision. He was not asked for his agreement. He was informed late last night by David Davis that he was going to do this come what may. That he was going to resign and trigger this campaign. This is not a campaign that Mr Cameron wants, it is not part of his strategy and indeed, I am told by senior Tories who know Mr Cameron well, that this was David Davis' personal decision and will be his personal campaign.

Now Mr Cameron has moved very quickly indeed to replace Mr Davis insisting that there are lots of issues on which the Tories have to have opinions and views and stances other than 42 days. But interestingly he's kept his options open. is personally very close to David Davis and they agree entirely on the civil liberties agenda. It's therefore possible that if Mr Davis wins on this issue, he could get his old job back on his return to the Commons.

But there's a lot of water to go under the bridge before then - not least the fact that we will have a by-election in which the Lib Dems apparently will not put a candidate up against Mr Davis. They were the big challengers to him so it's a straight Tory/Labour battle in addition to any other third or more marginal parties which will put themselves forward.

No-one today can have any idea frankly what the consequences will be other than they are unpredictable and it's a very dangerous time for David Cameron indeed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Rumours are sweeping Westminster about a row involving the Tory shadow home secretary and his leader David Cameron. Friends of Mr Davis deny that he is resigning but confirm that something's going on, will bring you more as soon as we have it.

UPDATE, 12:55PM: A senior Conservative source described David Davis's decision to resign as an MP as 'a personal decision' which Mr Cameron only learnt of late last night and went on to say that Mr Davis' by-election campaign would be personal and not be backed by the full resources of Conservative HQ. Another source described the decision as 'weird'.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A victory, say Gordon Brown allies, is a victory. The prime minister, they say, ignored warnings that he'd lose the vote, he stuck to his principles and he did what he believed was right.

It was though a nine vote victory delivered thanks to nine unionist votes and was a victory that came at a price.

Ministers and the DUP insist that no deals were done but Unionist MPs grin widely when asked about future financial help for the province.

Labour MPs meeting in the Commons tearoom asked each other "What have you been offered by Gordon?" Some have been told about a relaxation of sanctions against Cuba, others about improved support for sick miners.

Talking of the sick, one Labour MP fighting cancer was asked to leave his hospital bed to vote with the government. Another was wheeled in to the building in a wheelchair after an operation.

So, Gordon Brown did win but he could not do so with the votes of his party alone - even after all the wooing, the arm twisting and the cajoling

It was not the victory he would have wanted.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

These are good days to be a potential rebel with a cause. If you're willing to trade your opposition to 42 days for pretty much anything you may well get it from the government whips or from Gordon Brown.

One MP is boasting that they were told that the prime minister would oppose American sanctions on Cuba. Another that they've been promised an improvement in the miners' compensation scheme. A third, who's not had a phone call from Gordon Brown in 20 years, was granted 20 minutes of his time in a phone call.

Will these converts, if they convert, prove enough? My hunch is probably yes. There it is, just a hunch. I do not smell panic in the Labour whips' office or around the corridors of the House of Commons.

However, Gordon Brown wants not just to win but to win without the help of the Democratic Unionist party, or of a handful of Tory MPs like who might back his cause.

He wants tonight's vote to be the first symptom in the story of his recovery. The moment in which he is seen no longer as a ditherer but as a principled leader who took a stand.

As for the DUP, they are receiving more attention than they have in a very long time. Yesterday David Cameron spoke to their leader. Today, Gordon Brown is expected to speak to, if not meet, him and other DUP MPs. If they or anyone else can think of something they want from the government in return for their vote in the 'Aye' lobby tonight, this is a very good time to ask for it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's a serious allegation. Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti alleges that the government have sexed up the evidence for an extension of detention without charge to 42 days. Her claim comes because ministers have cited the example of two people alleged to have taken part in the alleged plot to blow up planes across the Atlantic in 2006. In these cases yet to come to court the suspects were held by the police for 27 and 28 days respectively - up to, in other words, the current legal maximum.

Liberty's claims are right but their defence lawyer has revealed that the police had the evidence to charge them after four days and 12 days respectively, thus demonstrating that no extension of the period allowed to the police to question terror suspects is needed.

Ministers are sure to angrily deny the charge of sexing up, a phrase that deliberately echoes the allegation made about weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the Iraq war. They will say that the police only hold suspects for as long as is necessary to gather the evidence necessary to bring the appropriate charge.

This allegation is a sign of how desperate both sides have become to sway the last few votes. Gordon Brown has taken to calling MPs who've not heard from him in two decades for long, very long, conversations.

UPDATE, 11:50AM: The government angrily reject claims that they sexed up evidence on 42 days and without talking about specific cases, point to the remarks of Sue Hemming, head of the counter-terror division in the CPS, giving evidence to the public bill committee in the House on 22 April 2008, who said:

"We certainly did not keep people in unnecessarily. There has to be a certain amount of time for the police to investigate. If you arrest people, the police have to look at what the plot is, who is involved and what the evidence is. As with any case, the pre-charge detention time has to allow a certain amount of time for the police to investigate and question. I seriously dispute any allegation that we kept people in any longer than we had to."

In the same session, Ken MacDonald, director of public prosecutions, said:

"The idea that we have sufficient evidence after 14 days, but, for some reason best known to ourselves, wait until 26 or 27 days to charge is wrong."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The final withdrawal of British troops from Iraq could be announced by the end of the year, I understand. Discussions have begun in Whitehall about British forces pulling out of the country if the security situation continues to improve as it has in recent months.

Ministers are under pressure from the military to release the 4,000 troops currently serving in Iraq at a time when British forces are under huge pressure in Afghanistan. Previously announced plans to reduce troop numbers to 2,500 were put on hold after what was labelled the "Battle of Basra" in March.

On a recent visit to Iraq the Defence Secretary Des Browne was able to walk the the streets of what he described as the "transformed city" of Basra for the first time. He also took tea at an outdoor café with the local commander of Iraqi forces.

I understand that the government's next announcement on troop numbers will be made in July. This is unlikely to be the moment when full withdrawal will be announced.

The withdrawal of troops could take many months after a political announcement is made. Although at the beginning of this month, several hundred support troops remain in the country.

The Ministry of Defence insisted tonight that "no decisions" had been taken by ministers about withdrawing troops from Iraq and dubbed the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s report "speculation".

PS. For the cynics amongst you, the timing of this story is mine and mine alone. There is no link between it and this weekend's deaths in Afghanistan or the impending vote on 42 days.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The cabinet sports supremo has made quite a splash with the big idea . Andy Burnham learned at the knee of the previous culture and sport secretary who drove through with a lot of ideas of free admissions to museums and art galleries.

Burnham learned that he had to overcome Whitehall's resistance, the scepticism of many about whether it was a waste of money, and to have confidence that making something free would massively increase participation. He was inspired once again by the fact that the by daring to suggest that museums might charge once again.

Burnham's hope that this initiative would increase participation in sport, will help to tackle the nation's obesity problem, and it's also a practical big idea that the government needs to restore its flagging fortunes. If it worked it may well help his fortunes too.

UPDATE, 02:00PM: Who swam for free first? Much debate about whose idea free swimming really is. One minute I hear that in Wales there's been free swimming for old and young alike for some time. Next I'm told that Tory-controlled Westminster council offered free swimming for the under-16s after school some years ago. Any more offers?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

So Giles Chichester has done for members of the European Parliament what Derek Conway did for MPs.

after it was revealed that he broke the rules on expenses when thousands of pounds were paid into a family firm of which he was a director.

Mr Chichester was, would you believe, not just the leader of the Tory group in Strasbourg but the man charged by David Cameron with ensuring that the rules were observed. Team Cameron didn't share his view that this was merely a "whoops-a-daisy" moment.

Understandably, Team Brown cannot resist observing that, once again, it is a Conservative who's been found taking a less than entirely rigorous attitude to paying themselves the public's money.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

HARLOW, ESSEX: It was billed as "the new politics". The Conservative leader would be live, unscripted and unprotected from the tough questions that would be posed by all-comers at a genuinely open meeting. The Tories claimed that their leader would be doing something that Gordon Brown would never dare to do. They believed they were genuinely taking a risk. David Cameron even joked with his shadow cabinet before the meeting that he was ready to dodge eggs thrown by protesters.

The reality last night was very very different. An audience which was largely elderly, largely Conservative-supporting and largely posed sympathetic questions produced a meeting that felt anything but new.

It was not that the Conservatives had rigged this event. Indeed, they'd gone out of their way to make sure they hadn't and insisted that tickets had been given to the first 200 of 600 people who applied for them after posters have been put in the town and adverts in the local newspaper. There were certainly some non-Tories there able apparently to put any questions they wanted.

The problem was rather different. Local Conservatives heard the news that David Cameron was visiting their town first and were so desperate to see their successful new leader that they applied for the first come first served tickets and few independents made it into the meeting.

Is there, though, another problem revealed by what's being dubbed Cameron Direct (due to come to a town near you soon)? Are they soaring in the polls because they're not Labour but they lack the definition required to produce many direct questions for Cameron to answer directly?

PS. Before a member of the Harlow audience writes to point this out, let me admit that I was rather late for the meeting having got lost on the way there! My account, therefore, rests in part on the account of my producer and cameraman who did make it on time!

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Shares in Smith soared last night. As Labour MP's and peers poured out of the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting all were agreed that Jacqui the home secretary had put in the performance of her life. Some went further and claimed that this was the best ministerial performance in the past year or two.

Even those Labour MPs, who still refuse to vote for 42 days - and there are still quite a few - know that the home secretary was not the one to come up with the idea. Instead she was handed this poisoned chalice by Gordon Brown.

Last night in the lobby, some even dared think whether our Jacqui might be the next leader that Labour is looking for. Who better, goes the theory, than a straight-talking Midlands mum, an Aston Villa season ticket holder, who still holidays in a caravan in North Wales to take on the Tory toff Cameron.

Labour's electoral system tends to favour women. Look at Harriet Harman's surprisingly good performance in the deputy leader contest. Now, of course, as Labour ministers keep telling me there are now no vacancies but expect the name of Smith to join those of Millibands and Purnell, Straw and Johnson in the list of candidates to succeed Gordon after he stands down or maybe after he's pushed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"I don't think it is". With those five words Ed Balls ends any suggestion that next week's vote on extending detention without charge to 42 days should be treated as a vote of confidence in the government. That was the question he was asked on Radio 4's Today programme this morning.

What this means is that you should discount any nudge by the whips or wink from a spindoctor that Gordon Brown's future depends on whether he wins next week or not. Let's be clear. He can lose and stay prime minister just as Tony Blair did when he was defeated on his 90-day proposal. That is not to say, of course, that defeat wouldn't have huge consequences for Mr Brown.

The prime minister's hope is that the argument which will dominate politics for the next 10 days will show that he is "taking the right long term decisions in difficult times" and is "on the side" of voters many of whom would instinctively back locking up terrorist suspects for 42 weeks without charge.

If he loses, however, people will be reminded that this is a battle he chose to fight despite having been warned as long ago as last November that:

• there was no consensus for change (he met Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti twice in one day in order to find a deal)
• that he faced parliamentary defeat
• that the director of public prosecutions, the former attorney general and former justice secretary did not support the need for change
• that MI5 would not back his arguments either privately or publicly - the spooks have let it be known that they are "neutral" on the issue
• and that many of his own ministers - not least the man he brought into government to deal with terrorism, Lord West - had had real doubts about whether this was the right priority.

Labour MPs return to the Commons today for the first time since the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. They will watch as the man dubbed the "Tory toff" fills the space once taken by Gwyneth Dunwoody. Many will be asking themselves what they should now do to avoid losing their seats.

When it comes to the vote on 42 days many Labour MPs will vote out of party loyalty, many out of conscience but the group to watch are those will vote out of self-interest. They must decide whether defeating 42 days with the consequences for Gordon Brown is more or less likely to save their skins. One thing they now know, thanks to Ed Balls, is that defeat will not trigger his immediate removal.

UPDATE, 02:50PM: Gordon Brown has, under pressure, confirmed that the 42-day vote will not be a confidence vote by declaring that it will be a "normal" parliamentary vote.

He was speaking alongside the Japanese prime minister - a man who got his job when his party sacked the previously failing leader. John Rentoul of the Independent on Sunday about the parallels... or not.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?