³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Change and newness bring with them youth and inexperience.

On the day reality strikes Team Brown with a vengence, they may ponder that if this bomb plot had been identified three days ago they would have been led by a prime minister with 10 years experience of terrorist threats - not least the plots of 7/7 and 21/7 - and a ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Secretary who could draw on his experience of Northern Ireland, Defence and a year at the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Office. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith will be having to learn very fast.

A day after this reshuffle I am struck by the inappropriateness of the phrase "first amongst equals" for Gordon Brown. There are few equals round that Cabinet table. Not only does he not, like Tony Blair, have "a Gordon Brown" - he doesn't have a John Reid or even a Charles Clarke.

In recent years Mr Brown's always leant heavily on the two Eds (Balls and Miliband) and Douglas Alexander. Today's a reminder of the fact that though he has appointed no deputy prime minister he will be more and more dependant on the three "grey hairs" who walked into Cabinet together yesterday - Alastair Darling, Geoff Hoon and, most of all, Jack Straw. Straw's spells at the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and Foreign Office and his confidence in parliament will surely make him the deputy prime minister in all but name.

UPDATE, 1420: So the new home secretary is to be backed up by Falklands war hero and former head of the Navy, Admiral Sir Alan West, as her new deputy responsible for security. West was the man who insisted that Nelson be remembered properly and pushed for major celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.

Speaking of Nelson he said : "We love Nelson because, like real heroes, he was not perfect. He could be vain and he had his flaws - he even suffered from seasickness. But he was brave and inspired the deepest loyalty, and when it mattered he got it right." Let's hope this last bit applies to West himself.

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

Size: Old Cabinet 23, new Cabinet 22
Women: Old Cabinet 8, new Cabinet 5
Scots: Old Cabinet 5, new Cabinet 4
Number of ministers over 60: Old Cabinet 5, new Cabinet 1
Number of ministers under 40: Old Cabinet 2, new Cabinet 5
Average age: Old Cabinet 54, new Cabinet 49

Sacked, resigned or demoted: 10
cf. '' in 1962: 7

UPDATE, FRI 1350: Many of you have asked why I put up the number of Scots. I would have thought the answer was obvious. Gordon Brown is the first MP representing a Scottish seat (it's that which matters and not really where he was born) to become PM since devolution. Thus his critics will complain that his constituents will not be affected by and will not be able to hold him to account for many of his domestic policies. Agree or disagree, like it or loathe it, Brown's Scottishness will be a part of the political debate.

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

'Jacqui who?', many outside Westminster might say.

They don't say that in the House of Commons, that's for sure. She's been an incredibly effective chief whip making peace between the warring Blair and Brown factions. And the belief, in the Brown camp, that some of that skill, that common sense and strength of personality, is just what's required at the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Office, to deal with the issues of terrorism and immigration.

Remember, of course, that responsibility for prisons has gone elsewhere.

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

The first Cabinet has begun. Gordon Brown's opening words were "It's very strange to be sitting across from the chancellor" before saying that he looked forward to their encounters!

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

Gordon Brown has spoilt our fun this morning by abolishing the parade of ministers up and down Downing Street to cries of "Are you happy?". He has done this by the very simple expedient of seeing people in the PM's Commons office - away from the cameras and away from prying journalistic eyes.

This after Alastair Darling declared that ministers should not worry about being "dull and boring" and get on with their jobs.

The public may cheer this grown up attitude to politics but I have a warning for Team Brown - the "Association of Commentators, Speculators, Time Fillers and Allied Trades" will be in touch - and we're not happy.

PS: Ben Macintyre of the Times Gordon Brown's performance yesterday. "Mr Brown," he writes, "is inspiringly rubbish at the theatre of his new job, faultlessly uncomfortable."

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

Never mind Gordon Brown's school motto. His political motto is "time for a change" - four words which strike fear into any government unless they can embody the change.

Today's Cabinet reshuffle won't just be a dramatic change in the faces at the top of government - a once in a career opportunity to change the holders of the biggest jobs in politics. It will reveal a great deal about Gordon Brown's priorities:

Ed Balls: Brown's right hand man for a decade will get a new Department of - what Brown calls "my passion" - Education.

Alan Johnson: Labour's smoother of troubled waters gets "my priority" - Health. Johnson is renowned for his political skills not his reforming zeal. This is the clearest sign that Brown is taking Downing Street's foot off the pedal marked "reform"

David Miliband: He'll become the youngest foreign secretary since David Owen but what matters more is his anger at the war in Lebanon and scepticism about the war in Iraq. Together with Douglas Alexander - the new man at DFID - foreign policy is in the hands of men more sceptical about "intervention".

Finally, for now, let us not forget Alastair Darling - the soon to be new Chancellor. A man so decidedly low key and whose appointment is so predictable that it's easy to forget he is one of the biggest hitters in this government. Darling prides himself on taking the heat and the noise out of politics and just getting on with the job. Doesn't he realise that we journalists have jobs to do?!!!

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

It was a very emotional Gordon Brown we saw giving his first speech (watch it here) as prime minister standing outside Number 10. He was hesitant, he was nervy as he got out of the car, unsure where to stand even. We got used, over the years to Tony Blair, a man who loves the cameras. The media were shouting at Brown during the speech - they wanted the famous Number 10 in their shots. But that's not Gordon Brown's style.

He delivered his words with confidence, but his nervousness was very, very evident.

His message was an intriguing one: change. That was the signal he wanted to send. And a degree of humility as well, quoting his school motto at the end - that he would "Try my utmost."

He knew that his words would be dwelt on, repeated again and again, and that he'd be tested against them. When people see the ups and downs that any prime minister and any government has, they'll say, did he live up to what he promised. Which is why his choice of words was so intriguing. "I will try my utmost" - it's hard to be found failing or wanting against that.

And we wait to see what the signal of change will mean - not just on health, or education, affordable housing or even trust - but in terms of our sense of what it means to be British. My guess is that that will be one of the great surprises of this Brown administration.

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

Drama it turns out can both eerily predict reality and occasionally get things ever so slightly wrong.

Remember the Christmas special The Thick of It? When the Blair figure resigns, the Tory spin doctor is shown running round Central Office shouting "This is the line, right. For the next 24 hours you praise him, right? You praise him like he's your dead brother." Could David Cameron have been watching?

As for the kissing of hands, my latest info is that the movie of The Queen was right to show Tony Blair kneeling and kissing the Monarch's hand. However, this was not what happened today. Quite why this is the case I am still struggling to find out.

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

Extraordinary. Gob-smackingly spine-chillingly hair-raisingly extraordinary.

Tony Blair planned to say nothing as he left Downing Street for the last time, but his carefully laid plans were once again torn up by his wife. As Mrs Blair got into the Jaguar to leave Downing Street for the last time, she looked directly into the cameras just feet away from her and spoke - not whispered, not mouthed - the following: "Goodbye. I don't think we'll miss you" (watch for yourself here).

Now that's an end to suggestions that Tony Blair is leaving entirely at a time of his own choosing (though he did choose the day and wishing all well as he did so).

One more thing. Earlier when I bumped into Mrs Blair and three of her four children as they were waiting in Parliament's central lobby to be escorted to the public gallery to watch prime minister's questions, I said to one of her children: "I hope you enjoy the day." They smiled. She looked at me with daggers.

CLARIFICATION 1600 BST: When earlier I wrote that this was "an end to suggestions that Tony Blair is leaving entirely at a time of his own choosing", I seem to have provoked some consternation.

Let me explain what I meant. The attempted coup last autumn DID force Tony Blair to promise to leave office before he wanted although he was nevertheless able to choose the precise date on which he left. Cherie Blair is angry with Gordon Brown for those events and with the media for the way she perceives they attacked her and her husband.

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

There were quite extraordinary scenes at PMQs (watch for yourself here), but not in the way I'd expected.

The House of Commons goes 'hear, hear', remember, it doesn't clap. If it claps, it doesn't stand for an ovation. It did both of those things for Tony Blair.

On all sides, MPs of all colours got to their feet spontaneously and applauded him as he walked out of the chamber, ending a Question Time quite unlike the one I suspect he was prepared for, and quite unlike the one that his backbenchers desperately wanted to see. They wanted a Thatcher-style bashing of the opposition - but David Cameron () gave an extremely clever Parliamentary performance, sucking all the political heat out of the occasion.

It was more of a sentimental farewell than a long-awaited political bashing.

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

Clever. Very clever. David Cameron knew that today he'd been set up to be the jester at PMQs. Thus he designed questions to make sure that all the political heat was sucked out of the chamber - praise for the armed forces followed by questions about the floods then the Middle East and then praise for the PM's achievements and best wishes for his family.

It worked. As Labour MPs muttered and heckled all Tony Blair could do was thank him whilst his wife Cherie mouthed "thank you" from the public gallery.

Yesterday I surprised some viewers of the Six O'Clock News by saying that if Cameron were relaxed about the defection of an MP I was a "pineapple". (My six year old son's favourite affectionate insult these days which just popped in to my mind).

Today's performance proved that Cameron is more cucumber than pineapple.

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

Just a few minutes ago, just behind me in the central lobby, Cherie Blair with her children. Here today to watch, from the public gallery, their father perform for the last time in PMQs.

There's great expectation, and a great buzz, in the corridors here. I bumped into one Labour MP who jokingly had removed the (that's the way you book your seat in the House of Commons) belonging to Dennis Skinner - who of course always sits right at the front - and put the new convert, Quentin Davies, in his place. Somehow I don't think Mr Skinner will allow that to go on.

The same MP was telling me that he'd just had a call from Downing Street in the last few hours, asking what he was going to ask Mr Blair, as his position on the order paper was low enough to raise concerns - it could, possibly, be the last question. This MP said to me, "if they think I'm going to ask him a nice question now, after 10 years, they can think again".

I've no doubt Mr Blair will feel nervous. Any great performer - and whether you love him or loathe him he is one of the truly great political performers - gets nervous before an occasion like this. He knows this is the moment he bows out. He knows the clips from this will be shown not just on tonight's news, but endlessly as part of the archive of the Blair years. He'll want to enjoy it, and to get it right. And, of course, he'll seek to embarrass David Cameron the day after he lost an MP. and Mr Cameron will have to do his best to look straight back, and to look calm, even when he isn't.

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

Whether their departure is planned or unplanned, prime ministers always find leaving office a shock. Not only will the prime minister instantly become plain old Mr Blair, there will also be other indignities. I have another of Michael Cockerell's great TV political documentaries to thank for the following tales.

• Harold Macmillan had a man from the Post Office round within two hours of resigning to rip out his taxpayer funded phone

• Ted Heath emerged from resigning at the palace to discover that he had no car. "His" car - in fact, of course, it was the prime minister's - was collecting Harold Wilson. A plaintive call had to be made to the government car pool for a car for Mr Heath. These days ex-PMs do get cars - largely for security reasons - but it won't be the one Mr Blair's used to

• Margaret Thatcher called her adviser Charles - now Lord - Powell soon after resigning to ask what she should do as she had a plumbing problem. Call a plumber was his advice. Easier said than done for a leader who'd spent the past decade simply picking up the phone and asking "Switch" - that's the name for the Downing Street switchboard - to get Mr X or Mrs Y on the line. Tony Blair may have to be told today of the "new" telephone dialling codes.

UPDATE 1128: The Palace have been on the blower. Hands will not actually be kissed today. New prime ministers did once do it and the expression "kissing of hands" remains. The movie is - shocking to relate - not 100% historically accurate.

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

For a few minutes this afternoon Britain will have no prime minister. The moment will come after Tony Blair informs Her Majesty the Queen of his resignation and before Gordon Brown kisses her hand to mark his acceptance of her invitation to form the next government.

By historical standards this is a mere blink of the eye. When Churchill stood down it was a full day before Eden took over, leading the newspapers at the time to complain that Britain was leaderless. When Lloyd George resigned, it was a full four days.

Technically, there will briefly be no ministers either, for when a prime minister resigns he tenders the resignations of all his colleagues at the same time. In practice, those who were ministers will remain in post until a new prime minister has been appointed and has formed a new government.

In an era when we've grown used to prime ministers being on call 24/7 it is intriguing - if admittedly trivial - to speculate how government would respond to attack during the gap.

I am told that two ministers are always designated to press the nuclear button if necessary so Britain could respond without a prime minister. Of course, Her Majesty would be likely to speed through the kissing of hands with Gordon Brown to allow the new man to take charge.

What, though, if Brown had an accident on the way to the palace? Would Tony Blair be asked to reconsider? Or would John Prescott step in as deputy prime minister or Harriet Harman as the new deputy leader of the Labour Party? Take your pick.

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

I have been speaking to Quentin Davies (watch the interview here) and what I've been told is that he and Gordon Brown have been talking frequently over a period of months. Remember that Mr Davies has long been at odds with the Tory leadership over Europe, and he was highly critical of David Cameron's decision to break with the EPP (the alliance of conservative parties in Europe), and he'd started to become more and more outspoken on that issue.

He knows Mr Brown because he has served on the Treasury Select Committee, so the two men already had some sort of relationship, and I'm told they bumped into each other a few months ago, got chatting, and that Mr Davies talked about how he admired one of Mr Brown's speeches... and Gordon Brown, ever with his eye on the political opportunity, invited Mr Davies in for a longer chat.

In recent weeks more of those chats have taken place, and finally, yesterday, Mr Davies decided to defect, and to write a to Mr Cameron - which reads, frankly, like it was written by Labour Party HQ, though we're assured it was written in its entirety by Mr Davies himself.

This is bad for David Cameron - not because Quentin is a household name (he's not) - but because it gives people the opportunity to hear from a Conservative (or at least, a former one) a list of all the reasons Mr Cameron isn't fit for office. It puts him, frankly, on the back foot.

But will the Conservatives miss Mr Davies as an individual MP? Probably not.

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

I'm racing to Gordon Brown's House of Commons office. Cameras have been summoned there to record interviews in relation to a mystery, but major, political annoucement expected any minute.

I wonder if it's a defection? Certainly Brownites are saying they intend to make the political weather from now on...

More later...

UPDATE 1448: It is a defection. But not one of the biggest. It's Quentin Davies - pro-European Tory MP. He's repeatedly with David Cameron about plans to leave the .

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

The place maketh the man. To understand Gordon Brown you just need to go to Kirkcaldy - the town which he represents in Parliament and in which he was brought up as the "son of the manse".

I recently spent a couple of days there with Mr Brown talking to him about his upbringing, his home, his schooling and the the rugby accident which cost him the sight in one eye. (You can watch the film I made about this by clicking here).

As we moved from place to place in the town he was stopped by people who'd been to school with him or played rugby with him or who had known him since he sat in the pews listening to his father's sermons. What it made me realise is that whilst on the national political stage he's been a private man, sometimes awkwardly so, he has always been on public display in Kirkcaldy.

The son of the minister, the boy so bright that he went to secondary school at 10 and University at 16, the sportsman who lost the sight in one eye and has feared blindness ever since has always felt watched and assessed as to whether he lives up to his father's values.

Brown is nervous of this story merely confirming suggestions that he is dour, thrawn (watch the film for an explanation), over academic and religious. So much so that again and again when I asked him to tell stories he would insert a reminder that he'd played tennis, football and rugby before his accident.

There were moments though when he could not control and calculate his answers. At one point - not as it happens in the edited film - I asked him whether he would finally feel he'd lived up to what his father expected of him. I couldn't help noticing that his eyes visibly moistened. Tomorrow Gordon Brown will care what the voters, his fellow politicians and what the media think of his arrival at Number ten. I suspect though that he will also be pondering whether the Rev Dr John Brown would approve of what he was saying and planning to do.

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

After Gordon Brown comes "NOT Gordon Brown". The man who's occupied Number 11 for the past decade is engaged in a systematic effort to prove that he'll be different - not just from Tony Blair, but from his old self. Just watch today's ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ interview with him (which you can do by clicking here) and you'll see what I mean.

Confronted by suggestions that he's difficult to work with, Mr Brown said that he'd learnt and as prime minister would reach out and build consensus.

Asked about Treasury spin, he admitted - for the first time - that taxes HAD gone up.

Asked about the alleged problem of being a Scottish MP running Britain post-devolution, he pledged to be sensitive to the 85% of the population which is English.

For those of us who've been asking him questions for the past decade there's a noticeable change in style too - softer, shorter answers - that's right, answers to questions.

Gordon Brown knows that he has one brief opportunity and one alone to change people's impressions of him and the government he's about to lead. The past few days have shown he'll do anything he can to do just that.

PS: Mary Ann Sieghart made this very point in The Times today about Gordon Brown's behaviour. You can read her article .

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

Just been interviewing Gordon Brown along with my fellow ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ editors - John Simpson (world) and Evan Davis (economics) and World at One's Martha Kearney. Gordon Brown promises an EU referendum "if necessary" - which, of course, begs the question who decides what's necessary. The answer, naturally, is Gord himself.

There are also some interesting exchanges on Iraq, trust, cash for honours, the broken society, tax, control freakery and much besides. You can watch the whole thing at 1700 on News 24 and an edited version on tonight at 2230 on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ2.

UPDATE: Good news. The whole unedited interview will appear here soon after transmission.

FURTHER UPDATE: And you can see it in again at 2030 on Saturday 23 June on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News 24.

UPDATE: You can now watch the interview by clicking here, and read my post-interview thoughts .

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

A Lab Lib deal - not a pact, mind you, and not a coalition - but it would have been a step, perhaps, towards changing the face of British politics. Well, it is not to be and, inevitably perhaps, its failure has resulted in public recriminations. The gains to Gordon Brown of having Paddy Ashdown in his Cabinet are clear - he would be a living rebuke to those who say that Brown is tribal and embodies the old politics. The gains to the Lib Dems less so. Yes, they'd have a taste of power in Westminster. Yes, they'd be a step closer to the co-operative politics they advocate. But they'd have no control over the government's agenda and yet could so easily have been blamed for what the government did or didn't do. So, it is over - for now. But given the prospect of the closest election in a couple of decades expect someone to try to write a tale of two parties again

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

The chronology (so far) of the Lib Lab deal that never happened. I await extra details with interest.

• MONDAY LUNCHTIME:
Ming Campbell is invited to meet Gordon Brown. Brown makes a surprise offer of junior ministerial jobs for a handful of Lib Dem peers - thought to include Lord Ashdown, Lord Lester, Baroness Neuberger and Lord Carlile. Ming says that he needs to think about it. Another meeting is planned for the following day

• MONDAY AFTERNOON:
Ming discuses the offer with his Chief of Staff Ed Davey and his friend and fixer Lord (Archie) Kirkwood. They say that they decided to turn down the offer. They agree that Kirkwood will act as Lib Dem point man liaising with Gordon Brown's friend, and likely successor as Chancellor, Alastair Darling.

Later Paddy Ashdown finds a pink note in his House of Lords message box inviting him to call Gordon Brown's office to fix a meeting. This is fixed for Wednesday. Ashdown sees his party leader to discuss. They agree that Ashdown should not take a ministerial job but should go ahead and see Brown in case he has another offer to make

• TUESDAY:
The second Ming/Gordon meeting is cancelled due to diary pressures.

• WEDNESDAY MORNING:
The Guardian splash on a report that the Lib Dems will be offered Cabinet posts. The report is written mysteriously by a "staff reporter" thus hiding the identity of the journalist given the story and masking its possible source. All sides vehemently deny that they were behind it.

The paper speculates that two MPs - Nick Clegg and Vince Cable may be invited to join the Cabinet. Clegg and Cable are taken by complete surprise having known nothing about Brown's offer to their leader. Faced by a furious reaction from within his own party Ming Campbell tells the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ that no Lib Dem will serve in a Brown government.

• WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON:
Paddy Ashdown has his planned meeting with Gordon Brown at which he is offered the post of Northern Ireland Secretary. He tells Brown that as an old soldier he always follows the orders of his commanding officer. He adds that even if Ming Campbell had thought it a good idea, he did not.

• THURSDAY:
The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ reveal the offer of a Cabinet job to Ashdown. Recriminations begin. Any prospect of a deal is off.

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

When Gordon Brown declared that he wanted to lead a government of all the talents few guessed that he meant to include the former leader of a rival political party in his first Cabinet.

That though is precisely the offer which was made to Paddy - now Lord - Ashdown by the man who'll be prime minister in less than a week's time. The offer was made yesterday without the knowledge of Sir Menzies Campbell and after the Lib Dem leader had publicly declared that no member of his party would serve in a Brown government.

Lord Ashdown has told the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ that after a direct and personal approach by Mr Brown yesterday he made it clear that: "I could not conceivably consider such a position unless my leader told me that he thought it was a good idea." In any event Lord Ashdown adds that he didn't think it was a good idea.

This offer comes a day after the news emerged of a meeting Sir Menzies had with Mr Brown on Monday at which it was suggested that there could be junior - not Cabinet - posts for Lord Ashdown and a number of other Lib Dem peers - thought to include Baroness Neuberger and Lord Lester.

It is not known what Cabinet post Gordon Brown had in mind for Paddy Ashdown. What is clear though is that an audacious and high stake political gambit has, in the end, come to nothing.

UPDATE 0841BST The job was Northern Ireland secretary. Team Ming had been talking to Team Brown for some time with Archie Kirkwood and Alastair Darling in the lead. A Lib Dem source close to the negotiations says that many in his party now regard Brown's approach as either duplicitous or inept. This is met with the insistence that there was a serious attempt to break out of tribal politics

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

There have been talks about it but there will be no Lib Dem bottoms on the seats of ministerial cars - not in the near future at least. So says Ming Campbell (hear for yourself here) responding to .

The story came as a surprise to the two Lib Dem MPs - Vince Cable and Nick Clegg - who the paper speculated might join a Brown Cabinet. It will have come as a shock to many party activists who have always feared that Sir Menzies's principal aim is a coalition deal with Labour after the next election. After all he was one of the two names in the frame when Tony Blair flirted with the idea of having Lib Dems in his Cabinet.

Intriguingly, whilst he has ruled out "any" Lib Dem joining the government, Gordon Brown's spokesman will only rule out Lib Dem MPs. The implication is that the new prime minister might invite peers or non Parliamentarians to join his government. Fevered speculation and office gossip throws up two possible names for job offers - Lord Oakeshott, a Treasury spokesperson and, like many on Team Brown, a keen Arsenal fan and Lord Ashdown, the former party leader who's now chairing a Commission on the future of Iraq.

More fevered speculation is aroused by the byline on the Guardian's story. It reads "staff reporter" presumably because the identity of the journalist who wrote the story might give away the source.

It's always worth asking in whose interests this story was? The answer's clear, I think - Gordon Brown's. He wants to signal "a new politics" and what better way for this most tribal of Labour figures than to invite his political opponents into the Brown-ite version of the Big Tent.

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

Tony Blair's last few days in office will be dominated by the search for an EU deal which the rest of Europe will buy and which British voters can stomach without demanding a referendum. He, like so many prime ministers before him, risks angering both the pro-Europeans and the Eurosceptics at the same time.

Just look at what he or his ministers have said and done in the long long run up to this week's EU summit.

At first his ministers called the EU constitution merely "a tidying up" exercise - thus infuriating the Eurosceptics. Now, he insists that the constitution is dead even though he actually signed it - thus infuriating the pro-Europeans.

At first, his ministers said that the had no more legal status than - angering the Eurosceptics. Now, he says the charter is unacceptable to Britain as it would override British law - angering... ok, you're there now.

At first he said there was no need for a referendum. Then there was a need. Now there isn't, providing, of course, that it's not really a constitution in disguise.

Not perhaps the ideal communications strategy.

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

The idea of an independent NHS board is dead - under this government at least. The soon-to-be-ex health secretary killed it off in a speech today. Even though Pat Hewitt won't hold on to her job when Gordon Brown takes over, and she knows it, she did consult him before delivering her speech today.

Brown-ites first floated the idea of doing to the NHS what their man had done to the Bank of England last autumn. However, they were met with a fierce backlash. Blair-ites warned that they'd be creating the equivalent of a nationalised industry board which might resist reforms and budgetary control. Backbench MPs expressed their fears that they'd be unable to seek political redress for NHS problems in their constituencies.

The Department of Health has done work on creating an "NHS headquarters" or a separate "management executive" to separate strategy and policy from management and implementation. This would not be the same though, as entirely devolving the running of the NHS to a separate board. Even so, the Tories and the BMA remain wedded to the idea.

Health, Brown says, is his priority. No wonder given the fact the Tories are ahead in the polls on the NHS. He sees it though, as a political problem rather than a policy one blaming Tony Blair for constantly picking fights with the staff and in a way which has distracted from the huge sums of money poured in, the many new hospitals and shorter waiting lists.

So, what will he do?

I believe he's likely to

• change the ministerial team

• reassure most areas of the country that their hospitals do not face closure (or re-configuration in the jargon). Ministers complain that thousands of people have gone on marches to save hospitals that are not even under threat

• launch a grand consultation with staff and public over the NHS's values leading up to the NHS's 60th anniversary next spring and, perhaps, ending with a new constitution for the NHS

• focus on primary care and improving out-of-hours access to doctors

The last is a puzzle though. He can only get what patients want by having a fight with the doctors. It is the anger of doctors that have fed public feelings that the NHS is in trouble. Tony Blair came to the view that you could either be on the side of doctors or patients and not both. Can Brown prove him wrong?

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

Thanks for all .

I don't agree with those like who say that Tony Blair's view of the media is invalid simply because he invested so much energy initially wooing us. I'm glad he's kickstarted an important debate at an important time. I sense that and may speak for many in complaining about ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ journalists interviewing other ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ journalists. It is simply a way of trying to bring a more conversational tone to our journalism but I agree that it's overused.

Now my verdict .

I think it's hard to argue with the prime minister's description of a more and more fragmented and competitive media which places an ever higher value on "impact" and is wary of "missing out" on a breaking story. In this respect we are, as he says, "not the masters of this change but its victims".

I can and do argue, though, with his assertion that ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ journalists have traded accuracy for impact and policy insights for allegations of misconduct. As I said in we must try harder to focus on policies not just personalities, to resist a constant diet of sleaze allegations and to give context.

Whilst Tony Blair did acknowledge the role of "spin" in increasing cynicism about politics, he would have wrongfooted those journalists who want to avoid self examination if he'd also reflected on the impact of his promise to be "purer than pure" - and of those missing weapons of mass destruction. These surely go some way to explain why the welcome changes he initiated - for example, monthly news conferences and cross examination by select committee chairmen - didn't do more to improve the atmosphere.

I think he may reflect in future on his assertion that governments are overwhelmed by the constant need to respond to the media. We may be about to see this put to the test. We've grown used to a prime minister who reacts to major news stories with a comment or a summit or a visit. Gordon Brown has long adopted a policy of silence interrupted by carefully planned high profile announcements. It is, I believe, an approach he hopes to maintain. It will be fascinating to see if he can do it.

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

, I've not yet had the chance to fully read his speech on the "feral media" - though, having discussed this with him, I'm familiar with the argument. When I have I'll add my tuppence worth.

UPDATE: Actually, I have a better idea. Why don't you tell me what you think of the PM's speech and I'll then respond to you and him.

Here's , and , if you prefer it pre-digested. And , if you're really a glutton for punishment, is a blog relating to a lecture I gave on the same theme some months ago.

But this is, I think, the key extract from his speech.

"The media are facing a hugely more intense form of competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not the masters of this change but its victims. The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by "impact". Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact.

"It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.

"Broadsheets today face the same pressures as tabloids; broadcasters increasingly the same pressures as broadsheets. The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked.

"The consequences of this are acute.

"First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.

"Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. Watergate was a great piece of journalism but there is a PhD thesis all on its own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one conspiracy up. What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact.

"Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out.

"Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself. So - for example - there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little or no relation to what was intended.

"In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary.Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is routine."

UPDATE 2: Just to kickstart the debate, that agrees with Blair (and has a little dig at me). And taking the opposite view.

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

Well, he did say he'd have a government of all the talents. Gordon Brown has just given a major new job to someone who he tried to prevent from working for Tony Blair and who was the prime minister's point man in some of the fiercest Blair/Brown clashes.

Jeremy Heywood is to take up a new and vital role as head of domestic policy and strategy in the Cabinet Office. Translated this means he'll be the new PM's main domestic policy adviser and progress chaser.

Heywood was principal private secretary to the Prime Minister from 1999 to 2003 - a job that (according to Derek Scott's book) Brown tried to stop him taking. Once in post he had to handle many other Blair/Brown spats - most notably on whether Britain should join the Euro.

He left Downing Street for the City where he is currently managing director and co-head of the UK investment banking division at Morgan Stanley.

Lest you think that Gordon Brown has changed the habits of a lifetime, it's worth pointing out that Heywood hailed originally - don't they all - from the Treasury, where he worked with Gordon Brown and, before that, Tory Chancellors Clarke and Lamont.

Strictly speaking Heywood's been appointed by the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell (another ex-Treasury man) and not by Brown. This distinction matters because what Sir Gus and Gordon Brown are trying to do is to signal that in the post-Blair years that will be a restoration of proper constitutional processes with government managed by civil servants instead of Tony's chums on the sofa.

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

BAGHDAD: It's Gordon Brown's first visit to Baghdad. He's been to Iraq before, visiting British troops in Basra but this is his first sight of the Iraqi capital, his first meeting with the political and military leaders here, as well as diplomats.

What is intriguing is that, as is often is the case, these trips are unannounced and we've known for some days but in this particular case we've been asked to keep this secret for many hours. Indeed, it wasn't meant to be until Gordon Brown had left what's known as the Green Zone - the relatively safe international area which is heavily protected in Baghdad - that we could give details of where we are.

But because Iraqi television has now broken the news that the next prime minister is on his first visit here, to the Iraqi capital, we've been given the authority to report the news that he is indeed here now.

During his visit, it's likely that Prime Minister Maliki will want to know whether Gordon Brown will repeat the words of Tony Blair, that it would be wrong to cut and run from this country, and that he's determined to make the same stand as the current prime minister has made and believes that victory in Iraq is crucial.

In briefings that we've had whilst travelling with Gordon Brown he's insisted that today is not the day for him to make any announcements of troop movements or timetables, or indeed into what did go right or go wrong in the past. He said it will be inappropriate while he's meeting and praising British troops here - the few that are in the capital.

Of course, that won't do for Iraqi politicians. They will spot the slightest hesitation and they will angst about that. Only recently, a leading Iraqi politician did express publicly his concern that Gordon Brown might be tempted to withdraw British troops rather earlier than Tony Blair had planned.

If he is not successful in stilling those fears I've no doubt we'll hear about that very quickly from the Iraqi politicians. Though tellingly, there is no joint news conference. There almost always is. There isn't today so we won't get the chance to put that question directly to either Prime Minister Maliki or indeed the two vice presidents from the two Sunni and Shia communities here.

UPDATE: There has been a mortar attack in the international zone in Baghdad. Nine mortars landed in the international zone. Gordon Brown had not yet left the international zone at the time. British journalists travelling with the chancellor heard the attack. Now I know why they were so nervy abut revealing Gordon Brown's visit.

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

Tony Blair has just got onto Blairforce One - he came here by helicopter following what he describes as 'very frank' talks with Vladimir Putin. He said that the atmosphere in the room, on a personal level, was (and I quote) "perfectly cordial" - not exactly the warmest language he could have used. The PM went on to say that the issues that had been raised had "not been resolved" - the issues discussed being energy, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, and of course, the missile defence system.

The PM will be, I suspect, pleased with what has gone on at this summit, but his concern over Russia is absolutely palpable - you can almost feel it. He told us that the Russian president had set out his belief to him that his country wasn't properly treated by the West, and Blair in return had said to him that Russia was a real cause of concern. Mr Blair added, almost wistfully, that he had been "perfectly frank" with Mr Putin - but said that what follows now would be another matter.

It's striking how the tone of the rhetoric has changed in just a couple of days. Earlier in the week we had this extraordinary Cold War rhetoric, where the Russian president kept referring directly to the conflict, to the sight of Mr Putin and George W Bush grinning at each other, gripping each other's hands in front of the camera, with Putin offering what he described as a compromise. In truth what is probably happening is that he's playing to two audiences - an audience at home that wants to see him stand up for Russia, and an international audience which wants to be reassured that Russia can be a predictable partner in international negotiations.

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

ROSTOCK AIRPORT: I am aboard Blairforce One for one last time. The coach taking us right to the end of the airfield took us past Airforce One which, you guessed it, had pride of place in front of the airport building.

We are waiting for the PM to return from his "frank conversation" with President Putin. It would not, Downing Street insisted in advance, be a "lecture" or a "stand-up row". Deary me, no. My guess is that rather like an exasperated parent Tony Blair will try to advise the man he befriended - even before he became president - to change his behaviour for his own and his country's sake.

Vladimir Putin, like a son who believes he's heard enough advice for one lifetime, may choose not to listen. After all, he made himself the story ahead of the G8, gaining plaudits at home and attention at the summit.

At his meeting with George Bush yesterday peace and harmony broke out. The two men even clasped hands after their talks. The media are full of bad taste gags suggesting a link between that and the President's . As a serious political commentator I, naturally, dismiss this entirely.

PS: A Downing Street adviser has asked me to correct my suggestion that the PM never comes to chat to the hacks on his plane any more. Apparently he did on his recent trip to Africa. The media pack used to compose songs to sing to Mrs Thatcher at the end of trips. Perhaps Gordon Brown might like to revive this?!!

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

A climate change deal has been done. Tony Blair has hailed it as "a major, major step forward". Green campaigners will be rather less enthusiastic.

The case for this deal is:
• It's the first time that the Americans have agreed to participate in a post-Kyoto process.
• They've agreed to go via the UN and not to bypass it.
• President Bush has signed up to the need to make substantial cuts in emissions.
• The Kyoto deal was never ratified by the US Congress. If anyone can deliver a post-Kyoto deal it's George Bush.

The case against it is:
• The US has still held out against setting a specific goal for cuts in greenhouse gases. Only they and Russia did so.
• This is, in the end, only an agreement to try to seek an agreement.
• President Bush has made clear that he won't make cuts if the Chinese and the Indians don't do it. They may refuse.

You decide.

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

Tony Blair and George Bush have just strolled out onto the lawn of the Kempinsky hotel for their last ever joint appearance.

The president talked of his regret that this would be their last meeting and his nostalgia. He also uttered at least some of the words which the prime minister has waited to hear. It is important, he said, to set an international goal for global gas emissions though he wouldn't, even when pressed, say what that goal should be or when it should come. Tony Blair says he hopes to get Bush's signature to a agreement to get a new treaty by 2009 involving all the big polluters which will commit to a substantial cut in emissions "of the order" of the EU target of a 50% cut by 2050.

It was perhaps fitting, though, that their last appearance involved a question about British kickbacks to a Saudi prince who's a friend of the president. When I asked Tony Blair whether he'd known about it, he paused and the president joked that he was glad that he didn't have to answer. That gave the PM the chance to decide that he would refuse to answer the question and simply point out again that an investigation would have wrecked a vital relationship and cost thousands of British jobs.

The PM said he wasn't nostalgic for these gigs. I am.

UPDATE: The tape of the PM and the president's words is stuck along with me on Molli - that's the name of the steam train which takes we hacks the couple of kilometres from Media-land to Leader-land at the G8.

It will have taken us six hours to get six minutes of comment.

UPDATE 2: Why, I wondered, was the G8 train called Molli. Well, I was told, many years ago a woman passenger objected to a fellow passenger smoking by throwing his cigar out of the window. Unimpressed he threw out Molli - her pet dog. Tragic, but true.

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

G8 SUMMIT, HEILIGENDAMM, GERMANY: I am waiting for the last public words together of the West's best friends - Tony and George. A few weeks ago at their last summit in Washington the President admitted that that the Prime Minister's consistent backing for him has caused lasting damage. Now - though he would never say so - Tony Blair wants George Bush to back him on climate change.

Mr Blair is determined to use his last visit to the world's most exclusive club not as a photo opportunity but an opportunity to get a meaningful agreement. He - and his ally, Angela Merkel who is hosting this summit - have already had one setback. They hoped to persuade the Americans to back a target for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. "No way" was the US reply, even before this summit began. It is not the job, they insist, of the G8 to set targets for individual countries.

So, the negotiations now focus on persuading Bush to agree to the principle of setting targets and to a form of words - "substantial cut" perhaps - which limit his wriggle room. In addition, Blair and Merkel want wording that makes clear that the climate change talks the US plans to host feed into rather than become an alternative to the UN's post-Kyoto process.

PS Lest you think this time by the seaside is impossibly glamorous, I was forced out of bed four hours ago i.e. before 5am to go through security in the hope of asking one question.

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

Germany: We've just landed with the PM. He headed directly to the G8 summit talks by chopper. We are winding our way through the countryside by coach to a media centre. (Bitter? Me?)

It's been quite a while since the prime minister has taken the opportunity to chat to the media on one of these flights and this flight was no exception. His mind is, I think, on spending time with leaders rather than spending time with journalists.

The PM's Official Spokesman has made it clear to us that he is determined that the return of cold war rhetoric does not overshadow the search for a deal on climate change.

Despite this, it has been reinforced to us on the journey here that the PM is going have a pretty frank conversation with Vladimir Putin - so much so that he won't take the chance to say what he wants to say when they bump into each other at dinner tonight. It's the kind of conversation, we're told, that he'll want to have on a one-on-one basis.

The language being used is all the more striking when you consider the personal investment Blair has placed in Vladimir Putin, even before he became leader. Back then, they talked about how much they admired each other and how they believed they could do business together. What is clear, however, is that that relationship has become increasing frosty - and not just as a result of the Litvinenko case.

UPDATE: Mid air we were told that the time for the Blair/Putin "frank conversation" was Thursday evening. Now the Russians say it's at Friday lunchtime just before this summit ends. Vladimir couldn't just be making a point could he?

UPDATE 2 (2100 UK time): President Putin's spokesman has just briefed the media on the meetings he's having with other G8 leaders. He listed Canada, America, France, China and "some others". Not Britain. Interesting.

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

We were in the Cabinet Room. The desk calendar showed that there were just 21 full days left for Tony Blair in Downing Street. Appropriately enough a military band could be heard through the windows playing "Beat the Retreat" as Nick Danziger took pictures for a magazine feature on the Blair Years. The PM insisted he was working harder than ever - his mind focused on today's G8 summit and the EU summit at the end of the month. He impatiently waved away a question about how he felt knowing that he'd watch the next G8 on the telly.

His mind is on securing the goals he pursued at the G8 he chaired at Gleneagles - a deal on climate change and the fulfilment of promises made to Africa. That and issuing a public warning to the man he befriended, lauded and supported in the past - Vladimir Putin. The G8 was an "opportunity for people to have a frank conversation about Russia, with Russia, because people want a good relationship with Russia but it is a relationship that can only prosper if it is clear that we share certain values and principles". Russia, he said, had a choice. He didn't spell out what he meant but the implication was clear - be trusted as an international partner or be regarded as an erratic, unreliable player on the world stage.

On climate change he was, once again, the optimist, the man who regards the glass as half full not half empty. Critics of President Bush's recent speech didn't realise when they were winning, he said. The Americans would not bypass the UN process. They would agree to a long term goal for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Would they do this at the G8 I asked. Of that he could not be certain. This is not one of those summits where the "sherpas" - the officials who do the negotiating before their leaders get involved - have done a deal. There is much work to be done.

PS: You can watch the interview in full here, or read a complete transcript by clicking .

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

For the record, this is a complete transcript of my interview with Tony Blair (more on that ).

---

NR Prime Minister, there is one topic that not on the G8's agenda - shouldn't it be - and that is Russia's increasingly erratic behaviour?

TB I think behind the scenes at the G8 there will be the opportunity for people to have a frank conversation about Russia, with Russia, because people want a good relationship with Russia but it is a relationship that can only prosper if it is clear that we share certain values and principles that certainly for all of us in our part of the world we think are important as principles by which we guide the policy of our country.

NR And in that frank conversation will you be saying that you want the person accused of Litvinenko's murder to be extradited here to Britain?

TB We have got to try and resolve it. We know what issues the Russians have there but we can't have someone murdered on British soil in that way and nothing happen, so it is a discussion we will have to have.

NR And do you worry about what looks like a Cold War climate re-emerging and perhaps overshadowing these talks?

Read the rest of this entry

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

I've just been speaking to David Cameron about the (you can watch the interview in full here). Publicly the Tory leader says he won't flinch. Privately he's licking his wounds.

Ironically, his first serious setback didn't result from some bold plan to change Conservative education policy but from a simple failure to consult and to understand his own party. Not surprising perhaps given the relative ease with which he persuaded the Blues to say that they were really the Greens, to love the NHS rather than condemn it, and even to applaud gay marriage.

Only a handful of Tories were offended by David Cameron's insistence that he wouldn't create more grammar schools. After all, he was only highlighting existing party policy. Many though objected violently to the assertion (by his Education Spokesman David Willets) that grammar schools were bad for social mobility which they feared could be used as an argument to close those grammars which still exist.

Hence their demand that Cameron make clear that he might indeed open a handful of new selective schools in areas that already have them.

This was not, in fact, a policy U-turn, even though it looked like one and was a presentational disaster. It was though evidence, as one senior Tory put it to me, that the Cameron honeymoon is well and truly over.

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