³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Everyone's thoughts will be with Gordon and Sarah Brown tonight, after that their four-month-old son Fraser has .

My thoughts instantly turned to an event a couple of years ago which I attended at 11 Downing Street. It was, ironically, to raise funds for the . The star of the evening was Emily Thackray, pictured on the right with the Chancellor.

Emily is beautiful and charismatic and looks a picture of health. However, she is very ill with cystic fibrosis. When she told the assembled company that she was being considered for a transplant as "time is running out" I well recall the impact she made. Several people in the room fainted. The chancellor was visibly moved. So much so that I asked my camera crew to give him some privacy.

The good news is that two years later Emily is still with us. She was told in March 2005 that without a lung transplant she only had a year left to live but she is - I'm told - still fighting on.

The even better news is that parents like the Browns hold out real hope that a gene therapy cure will be developed which will mean that their children will never go through what Emily has suffered. Not so long ago cystic fibrosis was a disease which only children had. Now half its sufferers are adults.

No parent would want to hear what the Browns have heard but they are not despairing. Their son Fraser is lively and healthy and they will hope and pray he stays that way.

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

It isn't only ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ self-absorption that has me and others buzzing about the news of Michael Grade's defection to ITV this morning - although I'm all too aware of the danger of that.

This is a story about the future of the country's largest public sector organisation after the NHS, whose budget is being fought over within Whitehall. It's a tale about who governs the nation's biggest broadcaster after the damage done to it by the Kelly/Hutton episode. And it's the media world's equivalent of football's "tapping up" row - think Ashley Cole being lured from Arsenal to Chelsea.

It's come at a sensitive time for my employers because ministers are still arguing about what level to set the licence fee at. The Beeb asked initially for a rise significantly above inflation. My information is that they'll be very very lucky to get inflation itself. Why? The licence fee feeds into the Retail Price Index at a time when inflation's rising. The Treasury are also desperate to set an example of discipline to the rest of the public sector.

And, finally but crucially, because the chancellor respects but does not love Auntie. Cynics will say that's because he's obsessed these days with keeping Murdoch and the Mail happy. Friends say he's simply suspicious of a large, London-based organisation with a tendency to keep asking for more.

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

If you're not a Radio 4 listener you may not know what the fuss is about. If you are, you'll be in no doubt. Allow me to add one small tribute to the many that are being paid to my colleague - the World at One's Nick Clarke - .

Nick asked once asked what I consider to be the perfect question - proving that you could balance persistence with courtesy. He was being fobbed off by the government's straight-bat man Alastair Darling who was insisting on talking about the Tories' policies and refusing to answer about his own. Nick paused briefly after one such answer - just long enough for the audience to notice. Then in that gloriously rich bass of a voice asked, "Minister, just for the sake of neatness could you answer the question I asked you". Glorious.

He is a huge loss.

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

The news emerging from this morning's Cabinet will be greeted with disappointment by some and scepticism by others.

I'm told - and not just by the spin doctors - that the Cabinet had a good and serious first discussion about Trident. It should be noted, though, that this was more a discussion about the process of taking a decision than it was a debate about the issue.

It has now been agreed that there will be a White Paper next month followed by three months of consultation and a Commons vote in the New Year. The White Paper will address the why, the whether and the how. In other words, why have a deterrent at all in the post Cold War world; whether you need to take a decision now and how to keep it - upgrade or replace Trident - if you do.

It will end with a specific recommendation. The vote looks likely to be on that rather than merely on the principle of keeping an "independent nuclear deterrent" or on a menu of options (who wants, one minister said to me, the Commons to design a new nuclear weapon?)

Ministers on all sides are eager to brief how grown up and consensual this debate was. So that's all right then? Well no, it won't be for many outside who fear that this decision is being over-informed by fear and hurry.

• The fear in question is not of others who might have nuclear weapons but of Labour politicians who grew up in the 1980s of being portrayed once again as unilateral disarmers. This was, I'm told, raised to general laughter this morning.

• The hurry in question is the desire to get this divisive issue sorted before a Labour leadership election.

It's intriguing that it's been Tories - like the former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo - who are saying don't replace Trident.

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

LONDON: My colleague John Simpson may have but I was almost incarcerated there.

Having been forced out of bed at midnight UK time - a healthy 5am in Islamabad - we journalists had been promised that we would get to Kabul in time to broadcast the news of the PM's first visit to news-hungry breakfast audiences. Our chopper landed in plenty of time but it was frustratingly close to, though not in reach of, our satellite dish in the Presidential compound.

The only way to get onto the Today programme was my trusty mobile. As I chatted to Ed Stourton I was aware of a growing queue of British and then Afghan officials waving at me and mouthing something about my mobile. I responded by mouthing back "on the radio" and walking in the other direction.

In the process of trying to talk coherently about Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan and fob off requests to get off the phone eagle-eared listeners may have noticed that I confused my North Waziristan for North Wysteristan (one emailer sarcastically suggested that this may be where the Wysteria originated).

My punishment for ignoring these requests was to be ordered to sit in a car by the Hamid Karsai's security team. Apparently they had wanted to have the mobile sniffed by sniffer dogs. Oddly my explanation for my disobedience had been lost in translation. I thought everyone knew what the Today programme was.

They then decided that since I was incapable of obeying orders I would be banished from moving inside the Palace walls. And it would have stayed that way had it not been for the diplomacy of our man in Kabul. I am eternally grateful.

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

KABUL: There's a saying in Afghanistan - which I put to President Karzai and Mr Blair in a news conference this morning - that "those in the West have all the watches, but we in Afghanistan have all the time".

I mentioned it because the question remains whether the Taleban might just wait until the international community goes away, and then simply come back. Mr Karzai answered by saying that, yes, they do have time in Afghanistan, but that meant they had the time to rebuild the country. He said that the journey we had made this morning, from Helmand province to the capital, and which took us just an hour by air, would have taken up to 40 hours to complete by road just three years ago. Now, he said, thanks to the reconstruction, the journey could be made by road in five hours.

Whether there is enough time to bring the Afghan people on side is matter for debate, of course, as the views of Nato commander Lt Gen David Richards make plain.

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

KABUL: I've come with the prime minister from Pakistan to next door Afghanistan. Behind me, here in Kabul, is the screaming of the engines of the Hercules that has brought Mr Blair and his party from Camp Bastion in southern Afghanistan, where he's just spoken to the UK troops, and told them that "in this extraordinary piece of desert", the security of the 21st century is being played out.

The Taleban, of course, have never gone away. Fighting in the south of this country, described by commanders as "the heaviest since the Korean war", has made reconstruction efforts all but impossible.

Later today Tony Blair will meet President Karzai and his cabinet, and the general in charge of Nato forces here, Lieutenant General David Richards, who has argued that very few of the population here are either in the Taleban or are committed to it - perhaps 10%. He thinks perhaps 20% are totally opposed. So that leaves 70% in the middle, waiting to see who is going to win. And his view is that if there is not real clear victory and clear progress towards reconstruction by next Spring, that 70% may take the view that it's better to have the stability that the Taleban brings, albeit with the brutality as well, rather than waiting another year for international forces to rebuild this country.

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

Islamabad: Blairforce One has just touched down in the Pakistani capital. The prime minister is here for talks on Sunday with President Musharraf.

No meeting could better illustrate the moral and political ambiguities inherent in the "war on terror". No relationship better demonstrates the limits of that war's rhetoric of black and white certainties. No alliance better explains why the idea of reaching out to the Syria and/or Iran, is now fashionable - providing they, like Pakistan, become "part of the solution and not part of the problem" .

Tony Blair will hail President Musharraf as a key ally in the war on terror. He will, I suspect, hold back from praising him for his role in the battle to spread freedom and democracy. General Musharraf, it's worth remembering, only became president once he took control of his country in a military coup. Since then he has talked much about encouraging the development of democracy without ever being elected himself. He was "deemed to have been elected" after being backed by Pakistan's electoral college.

Musharraf will be praised for his help in countering the threat of Islamic terrorism in Britain and Pakistan will be rewarded with a doubling of development aid over the next three years. There will be less talk, no doubt, about the widespread belief that the Taliban's strength in Afghanistan depends on their ability to operate with impunity in parts of Pakistan with the support of either rogue or retired officers from Pakistan's intelligence service (ISI). That view has been expressed recently by NATO commanders, the Afghan government and a leaked Ministry of Defence thinktank paper. This after a year in which 18 British soldiers have died fighting the Taliban.

It's worth remembering too that - according to his own memoirs - Musharraf was not an instinctive ally in the war on terror. He claims that the Americans threatened to bomb his country back to the stone age if he didn't come on side. By his own account he then calculated whether he could resist. Only when he'd decided he could not did he make his decision to form an alliance with the West.

So, why has the prime minister come to Pakistan to praise rather than to bury our reluctant ally in the war on terror?

First, Pakistan's security services are credited in London with helping stop terror attacks at home - not least in helping to capture Dhrien Barot the terrorist who was jailed for life recently. On this trip Tony Blair will offer £8miilion to help them with forensics, dealing with IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and tackling terrorist finances.

The president's policy of "enlightened moderation" is welcomed in London since it has led him to take on Islamic hardliners in the Sharia courts, the universities and Islamic schools. Indeed, much of the increased development aid Britain is offering will go to subsidise his programme of reforming the madrassa system to ensure that it does not educate the terrorists of the future how to hate the West.

Musharraf, it is also noted, has stayed in office for 7 years and survived two assassination attempts for his troubles.

PS: Downing Street now says that Tony Blair's two words - - were a "straightforward slip of the tongue". Some tongue. Some slip.

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

"It has". Two little words that signify so much. They were uttered by Tony Blair in answer to Sir David Frost's suggestion that the situation in Iraq since the war had "so far been pretty much of a disaster". What do they signify? That the PM knows that there is simply no point any more arguing with interviewers, with the listening public and - arguably - with reality. Tony Blair knows that's an argument that has already been lost. He wishes instead to focus on the argument about who's to blame for the disaster - insurgents he insists - and what should be done now - staying there until "the job is done" he will continue to argue.

Political strategists call this strategy "concede and move on". There is one problem with this analysis. Downing Street deny he meant to say it. He was, they say, merely being courteous to his interviewer by acknowledging his question. Mmmm. As someone who's interviewed the PM more than a few times this argument's new to me. It is, of course, most likely that those two words were not a slip, not part of some strategy but were instead a reflection that Tony Blair doesn't regard the suggestion that the situation in Iraq has "so far been pretty much of a disaster" as remotely surprising.

More important than his views, though, are those of the politician visiting Basra today - Gordon Brown. Which words would he use to describe the situation in Iraq and, more importantly, how to improve it?

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

"You go where the evidence takes you." So says Scotland Yard's Assistant Commissioner John Yates, the head of the 'cash for honours' investigation. His inquiries began wide, taking in politicians from all the main parties, but they'll end within weeks, focussed on one party, and one man - the occupant of No 10.

It's ironic that - which denied that the police were leaking stories - has fuelled so many headlines. Friends of 'Yates of the Yard' insist though that he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Pursuing Tony Blair is dangerous, but not pursuing him, and being accused of a whitewash, could be more dangerous still.

The police seem to have realised that they simply could not justify not interviewing the PM - that that would fuel those who said it wasn't a serious inquiry. Now having said that, I am told that Blair has not been contacted, nor has his solicitor, to set a time or a place for an interview - though that is expected to happen. Nor indeed, contrary to some media reports, has Blair's chief of staff Jonathan Powell been reinterviewed by the police under caution - and nor indeed does he have a date for that.

It seems to me that the political world and the police are in the most appalling bind. The police have to be seen to be asking every question, interviewing every witness, and taking as long as it takes. In the meantime, the politicians simply cannot answer those allegations. So this goes on and on, with nudges and hints and winks, while we in the public will not know if anything is actually wrong for many, many months to come - almost certainly not until Tony Blair has left Downing Street.

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

A plotline has emerged and it's not the one I - or anyone else I suspect - could have predicted.

Forget the pomp and ceremony... forget the list of Bills to come... forget the curtain call for Tony Blair. The PM had a different script in mind - tearing David Cameron apart. And you know what? He made a pretty good fist of it - an appropriate metaphor for a speech that ended with Tony Blair predicting that the next election would be a contest between a flyweight and a heavyweight. David Cameron could, he went on, dance around the ring all he liked but sometime he'd come within reach of a big clinking fist and then would find himself out on his feet carried from the ring.

Before that, he'd derided his indecision on whether to replace nuclear power stations, mocked the idea that hope was built on talking about sunshine and jibed that Cameron had never taken a tough decision in his life.

In cold print it may read like a trivial or an unduly personal attack but, believe you me, you wouldn't have said that if you'd been ringside. Parliamentary knock-about makes and breaks reputations. David Cameron's took a knocking today and the words of Tony Blair will be echoing in his head - "I may be going out but, on that performance, he's not coming in". Resuming his seat he was virtually hugged by a grinning Gordon Brown.

Downing Street aides were delighted. One told me it reminded him of Margaret Thatcher's swansong when she declared "I'm enjoying this". Hold on a second, though. I thought Tony Blair was planning to stay till next Summer. Wasn't he?!

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

, I can reveal what David Cameron said to Tony Blair on their way from the Commons to the Lords.

The arch anti-Monarchist Dennis Skinner had just heckled Black Rod and suggested that Helen Mirren should read the speech. The Tory leader asked the PM if he'd seen "" - in which he's portrayed rather sympathetically.

The answer, by the way, was "No".

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

Arriving at the state opening of Parliament this morning I felt like I was walking onto the set of a movie. As I rushed through Black Rod's entrance (yes, he does have his own) I bumped into a group of beefeaters waiting for their walk on role. In a corridor I almost impaled myself on the sword of one of the horseguards. Ladies in evening wear jostled with judges in wigs and their lordships in ermine.

It was colourful, it was enjoyable, but I'm still struggling to work out the plot.

The plotline dreamt up by the the Downing Street spindoctors is "security in a changing world" - not just security from bad people whether noisy neighbours or troublesome terrorists but from climate change and pensioner poverty too. It's a neat enough formulation but like all Queen's Speeches I suspect it won't last terribly long. You see the wordsmiths at Number Ten don't actually control what goes into the Queen's Speech. The content, as always, actually stems from a curious mix of:

• Mere chance - "Department A has finally got its plans ready for a new bill"
• Buggins turn - "We turned down Minister B last year and we can't do it again"
• Inter-departmental rivalry - "No-one will take us seriously if we don't have something in the Queen's Speech"
• Party Politics - "Let's make Cameron and Campbell look soft by by forcing another vote on ID cards"

Oh yes, and then there's what the Cabinet decides is in the country's interests. Oddly, after all the build up, this does not include - for now, at least, a terrorism bill. Not mentioned too are the two major issues that will shape the politics of the next year. You may have tired of hearing it but these are - who comes next as prime minister, and when and how we get out of Iraq.

Pause before writing to complain that I am ignoring things of real significance. I am not. The Pensions Bill - linking the state pension to earnings and setting up a form of compulsorily saving - will affect millions of us. The Climate Change Bill - the details of which still have to be hammered out within government let alone in Parliament - will matter hugely too. Significant too will be a bill that will only appear in draft but which may allow the widespread introduction of road pricing.

The next year in politics will - like today's pomp - be colourful and dramatic. Its storyline though has still to be written.

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

Is tonight the night when Tony Blair will finally change course on Iraq in response to the shifting sands in Washington? If that's your hope, you're in for a disappointment.

The prime minister's speech is set to be an echo of the speech he delivered in Los Angeles in August. If you don't remember that speech it's probably because its message was drowned out by the fallout from the war in Lebanon. At the time, though, it was sold as a bold call on the US to change course. What's changed since then is not the message but the influence of those in Washington who agree with the analysis.

The PM spoke then on a need to "re-appraise our strategy". Tonight he'll speak in similar terms. He spoke then and no doubt will again of the need to "bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine." In that speech he mentioned Iran eight times and Syria five, declaring that, "we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice - come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us, or be confronted". Tonight I'm sure that message will be repeated.

He continues to believe that Syria and Iran are malign influences in Iraq, in Lebanon and beyond. Where he differs from George Bush is in his willingness to hold out the prospect of engagement with them instead of ostracising them as members of the "axis of evil". Britain - along with France & Germany - has negotiated with Iran over its nuclear programme. Last month, his foreign affairs adviser travelled to Syria.

Re-reading my blog about the LA speech I see that I was a little sceptical. I wrote...

"So where then was the reappraisal? Where the re-think? Not on the war on terror itself but on the need to have a 'hearts and minds' strategy to match the military one... He argued that only an alliance of moderation could take on what he has dubbed the "arc of extremism". And that alliance would only emerge IF moderate Muslims saw that America believed in the need to create a Palestinian state. Nothing else, he said, was more important to the success of our foreign policy. In truth this is not a re-think at all."

How time and context change your perspective. I still believe that that speech did not represent a re-think from Tony Blair. However, if - as seemed unthinkable then - George Bush adopted it, that would represent a massive re-think by the president. The chairman of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, shares the Blair view. As, we're told, does Bob Gates - the man nominated to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Defence Secretary.

Yesterday the White House chief-of-staff, Josh Bolton, was asked if he favoured the idea of including Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria, in discussions. He replied that all options would be considered. We'll see...

PS: reports that senior Israeli officials are kicking around the idea of opening a dialogue with Syria. "The idea" - writes Jackson Diehl - "is to flip Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; to induce him to drop his alliance with Iran and join the moderate Sunni alliance that is quietly lining up against Tehran." This fits with Shimon Peres' talk recently of President Assad coming to Jerusalem. Of course, Bush could always take the road to Damascus which would certainly be a match for Nixon going to China.

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

There are many people who dreamed that Alan Johnson would stand for the leadership of the Labour Party. They believed that he had the sort of popular, mainstream, and - let's be honest - English appeal that Gordon Brown simply couldn't match.

Well, he's thought about it, and he's told me that his decision is not to run for leader - but that he will be a candidate for deputy leader.

It is looking increasingly unlikely that anyone credible from the Cabinet will run against Gordon Brown for the leadership. John Reid has not ruled himself out, but he's certainly not ruling himself in. There may well be a candidate from the left of the Labour Party. One thing is certain though... there is now a very crowded field indeed for the position of deputy leader.

One thing going for Johnson is what the Americans call a good back story and a good sense of humour. He combined both today when I asked him - a former postman who once delivered post to Dorneywood (the Deputy PM's residence) - whether he'd dreamt then of living there. He answered, "there has been a little bit of me thinking wouldn't it be nice to actually not be going to the servants' quarters with the post and to be opening the front door and inviting the postman in for a cup of tea, yes. But you know, but a week would do." (You can hear his comments by clicking here.)

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

Today David Cameron has broken his year-long silence on the subject of immigration. As the issue has rocketed up the news agenda and the list of voters priorities, his silence was in danger of becoming deafening - and this week has illustrated all too clearly why it was tempting for the Tory leader to stay mum.

First a Conservative councillor . Her response - which was to blame her husband for using her e-mail account and the Lib Dems for daring to publicise the fact - was all too revealing. Then Bernard Jenkin, the Tory vice chairman responsible for persuading the party to select a broader range of candidates, throwing their toys out of the pram when not selected. Mr Jenkin was - happily for Mr Cameron - relieved of his duties before he made that remark.

You don't, of course, have to look back to this week to see how immigration has been a double-edged issue for the Conservatives. Ask William Hague and Michael Howard.

Looking at the policy though there is now remarkably little to choose between the Tories and Labour. Both say there should be limits on immigration, both say they would ask for independent advice, both say they'd take into account economic and social factors and both refuse to even make a stab at what an appropriate figure for immigration might be (you can watch my interview with the Tory leader by clicking here).

If you don't believe they're converging, just try this immigration test. Who said...?

1. "We have to get away from this daft so-called politically correct notion that anybody who wants to talk about immigration is somehow a racist. That isn't the case."

2. "Mainstream politicians must give it (immigration) serious attention... they need to do so in a calm and rational way... ill-judged language can cause genuine hurt and damage community relations."

3. "The first principle will be to control immigration with regard to the economic effects. The second principle will be to control it with regard to the wider effects on society."

4. "People recognise others from outside this country can bring great skills here... but they also want to be assured that our services will be preserved and immigration will be managed. I want to change that culture so we can have that mature discussion."

(Answers - number one and four were John Reid, number two was David Davis, number 3 was Damian Green)

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

You could forgive the prime minister for feeling a little down after a day like today. He's always known that two issues had the power to scar his last months in office - loans and Iraq. Tonight both loom large.

His friends say bitterly that he'll probably only learn what the police have in store for him from leaks to the media. After his aides and his Cabinet, Tony Blair surely knows that he'll be next to help the police with their enquiries.

Neither he nor his allies have been charged with anything - let alone found guilty. They are furious that he faces the court of public opinion without being able to make his defence. Yet they know that the merest hint of a prosecution would be politically deadly.

Some ministers hope that the police's spraying of letters around the Cabinet table suggests they're on a fishing trip for evidence they need and have yet to find. There is an alternative, less reassuring explanation. It is that Yates of the Yard - the policeman in charge of the investigation - is haunted by the failure of another high profile case he once led. The Burrell trial collapsed when the Palace changed its evidence at the last minute. Today's letters may be designed to ensure that no-one can spring a similar surprise on Yates again.

As for Iraq, the prime minister now finds himself having to second guess not just George Bush and his new defence secretary, not just the Baker Commission into Iraq but also a newly assertive Congress. It maybe that he will succeed in making Britain's voice heard in the re-shaping of strategy on Iraq. On the other hand he may struggle to be heard. In that case Britain could face the nightmare, one of his Cabinet colleagues suggested to me, of being the last left insisting that there's no need to change course in Iraq.

Meantime, some in the Labour Party will be wondering whether they could face the same fate as the Republicans in elections next May if their leader's still in Downing Street. Tony Blair has promised to leave soon after but for some that simply won't be soon enough.

A few weeks ago a close colleague of the prime minister's told me that 7 November would prove to be one of the the most important dates in the British political calender. I'm beginning to work out what he meant.

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

Not one letter, but many.

Having started the day refusing to comment on an ongoing police enquiry, ministers are beginning to confirm whether they have or have not had letters from the police. The signs are that all members of the Cabinet at the time of the last election received letters - though I have not been able yet to confirm every name.

Some members of the current Cabinet have not received letters.

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

Gordon Brown is not about to be interviewed by police investigating the cash-for-honours allegations. He has, though, received a letter which has been sent to a number of other senior Labour figures asking them to declare what they knew about loans made to party funds in the run-up to the campaign and the subsequent nomination of lenders for peerages. Gordon Brown's answer will be "nothing" and that's why he's unlikely to be interviewed by police.

I can reveal though that , who was Labour's election supremo, has already been interviewed by the police. This followed his interview with Andrew Marr in April who asked him "Did you know about any of these loans, I mean you were the man spending the money at the time. You were in charge at the time, weren't you?"

Milburn replied: "I was told in the middle of the campaign that the party had taken a lot out, I didn't know whether they were from my, my concern was more about spending money, frankly, than raising it." (Read .)

The officer in charge of the investigation, John Yates, has told MPs that "you go where the evidence takes you". Just like after a car crash the police interview everyone who might have seen what happened - whether, as one of those close to the investigation puts it, they are political leaders or billionaires.

It is for this reason that Gordon Brown and others are receiving letters. It is for this reason that the prime minister's friends expect him to be interviewed by police - possibly under caution - in the weeks to come.

Coming together with last night's election defeats for George Bush - which are bound to alter the course of the US's strategy on Iraq - it demonstrates how little control Tony Blair has over his current fate.

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

Well well. The attorney general will issue a statement soon clarifying how he'll handle the outcome of "the cash for honours" investigation. has come under pressure to stand aside from any decision about whether to proceed with prosecutions which may (or may not, it should be said from the outset) include people close to the prime minister.

Demands for clarity have increased following the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions - a former colleague of Cherie Blair - and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police - who has regular dealings with the prime minister - to stand aside from decisions related to the investigation.

I understand that Lord Goldsmith (pictured) will soon reply to a letter from his Shadow - Dominic Grieve - asking him to clarify his position. He will say that his formal consent for proceedings will not be required if charges are brought under the law forbidding the granting of honours in return for payment or, indeed, under the law relating to the declaration of political donations. In this case, the Crown Prosecution Service will take the decision as to whether any charges should be brought.

The law does, however, require the attorney to give his formal consent to a small number of possible offences including corruption. In these circumstances, it is his duty, he says, to exercise his independent constitutional duty and to determine whether it is "in the public interest" to proceed. Usually, he would seek independent legal advice from a leading lawyer outside the CPS on this. I am told that it is likely that he would accept that advice.

Why the muddle until now ? The attorney is fiercely protective of his status not as a politician but as the government's senior and independent legal officer. He resents any suggestion of political motivation in consideration of this or any case and, incidentally, has the backing of attorneys past, whether Tory or Labour. He has struggled, however, to give the reassurance that some people are demanding that there will be no interference with this incredibly sensitive case. We will see whether this afternoon's statement silences the critics.

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

I went to today's prime ministerial news conference planning to ask about ID cards - the topic Tony Blair had himself chosen to highlight. That changed when the PM opened with not a single word about the conviction of Saddam Hussein yesterday. Not long ago he would have hailed the decision of an Iraqi court to convict the ex-Iraqi dictator as a turning point. His decision to say nothing about it until prompted was telling. Silence can be deafening.

Telling too was his hesitation when invited to condemn David Cameron's "tough love" speech. It was a phrase, he recalled, first used by Bill Clinton and amounted to pretty much the same thing as his call to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime". Though he did remember the line later when he said that if you had a drug dealer living on your street then you don't want to give them love, you want them evicted and prosecuted.

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

The biggest untold story of the past week has been the SUN setting on Dave Cameron. First they accused him of bring a traitor and for his decision to back the call for an inquiry into the Iraq war. Then "love a lout" speech (that, incidentally, not a phrase that passed his lips). Next Saturday's paper carried "David Cameron has stumbled from one disaster to another in his week of woe". His decision to challenge the Speaker's ruling was his last alleged error. Could it just have something to do with the fact that Rupert Murdoch's been in town?

I have never been one of those who thought it was "The Sun wot won it". No newspaper's editorials are that important. BUT if the nation's biggest selling daily and its sister paper - the News of the World - now start to deride David Cameron and what he stands for that will prove to be profoundly significant.

It will also be Cameron's first test. William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith were turned on by the once Tory press. In response, they turned. How will Dave react?

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

Just a few weeks ago Cabinet ministers and others who regard themselves as being part of Team Blair were pledging privately to do everything they could to stop Gordon Brown. The search was on for ABG - Anybody But Gordon. Not now. Now those same people are telling me 'it's almost certainly Gordon'. One Cabinet minister told me "There is nobody who is a plausible contender" to take on the Chancellor.

So, what has changed?

First, Gordon Brown himself. He has made an effort to reach out to those he once treated as enemies - Blairite ministers led by John & John (Reid and Hutton). Instead of resisting plans to debate future policy as he once did, he is now embracing the process.

Secondly, the search for "Anyone but Gordon" faltered when people realised that they might be the "anyone". No-one wants to run to get slaughtered. Alan Johnson will, I believe, signal soon that he's interested in being Deputy not leader. John Reid is saying nothing but his friends say he's not burning to run.

Thirdly, the Labour Party signalled their anger with both Brown-ites and Blair-ites who appeared to be putting themselves before their party or their country.

Does this mean Gordon Brown's certain to be PM? Of course not. Just as things have changed dramatically in recent weeks, they could change again. If Gordon Brown looks like a loser when the time comes to choose Tony Blair's successor his party will look for a winner. If his conversion to being a team player proves temporary one of his colleagues may yet stand against him (On tonight's Question Time Charles Clarke refuses to rule himself out of the running and says that Messrs Reid, Johnson and Milburn would all make good leaders too)

But - and it's a big but - those who were once irreconciliables are busily reconciling themselves to a Brown premiership. And, for those who think this is mere Westminster tittle tattle, there is an effect in the real world. Officials say that Whitehall began to grind to a halt in September as Blair & Brown fought. Now, the wheels of government are rolling again. Civil servants think they can see the future - and it's Brown.

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

The most intriguing story of the day is on . Tony Blair has sent his foreign affairs adviser Sir Nigel Sheinwold to have talks in Syria.

The prime minister is clearly ignoring the old motto "once bitten twice shy". You may recall his historic visit to Damascus to visit the then new President Assad shortly after 9/11. I do. I was there () and will never forget hearing the man who'd been hailed in advance as a potential ally in the war against terror condemning the bombing of Afghanistan and hailing Palestinian suicide bombers as resistance fighters in the traditition of General De Gaulle.

The key to this Syrian visit is the prime minister's determination to kick start talks about Middle East peace. Hopelessly optimistic some say. Even some on his own staff are bemused by his zeal for what they fear is a hopeless cause. Yet, he was greeted surprisingly warmly on his recent visit to both the Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He also believes that the logic of a two state solution is accepted on all sides. He will, no doubt, see today's news of as a portent that better times may lay ahead. He is determined to visit the region again soon.

It's just one reason, incidentally, why there's no sign at the moment of him wanting to leave office any earlier than he has been forced to already.

PS. If you didn't see my colleague John Simpson's interview with President Assad from a couple of weeks ago, it's worth watching - and you can see it here.

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