David cameron

At the height of the internal Labour Party coup against Gordon Brown just before the last Labour Party conference even the Prime Minister's greatest detratctors agreed that he did the international economic stuff rather well. I remember one senior Blairite heavyweight suggesting that after his removal, Brown should be allowed to occupy a new role as a roving economic ambassador. Since then, his reputation for economic competence has undergone an assault from which few would recover. But, whatever his opponents might say (and Fraser is right to say that it was largely done with smoke and mirrors), the G20 summit ended up as something of a triumph or Gordon Brown.

A lot of us have been wondering what Westminster might be like under the Tories. What, for instance, would the parliamentary press lobby look like under a Cameron government? A return to deference, perhaps. Would the gentlemen and the ladies of the press take their information dutifully from the PM's spokesman or woman (who would presumably be called a spokesman) and put it straight in the paper? We now have an indication from the behaviour at Eric Pickles's bash (quite literally) last night that we may see a different kind of throwback to the days of boozing and brawling that seemed a distant memory.

I had the pleasure of guesting on Jon Pienaar's political podcast yesterday. Inevitably we ended up talking about the death of Ivan Cameron and found ourselves lost for words. But Jon made a very interesting point. He noted that the story showed how little we really know about the lives of our prominent politicians, however much we might think they are public property. We talked about whether this tragedy will change the way we do politics in this country and decided that it probably won't. Jon raised the example of the death of Labour leader John Smith, when everyone thought everything would change and nothing did. But I think something has changed in the public perception of David Cameron.

The Conservative Party's reliance on Michael Ashcroft has always mystified me. How a once great political party has allowed itself to become quite so dependent on one man, I will never know? The conventional wisdom is that his money rescued the Tories from the abyss. It is certainly true that Ashcroft's pamphlet, Smell the Coffee, was a cogent analysis of the reasons behind the Tories' defeat in the 2005 election. But his continued position at the heart of the Conservative Party machine can only really be explained by a nagging feeling of insecurity within an organisation that has grown used to defeat. Now the Electoral Commission has finally decided that donations made by Bearwood Corporate Services to the Conservative Party deserve serious scrutiny.

From the response to the last post on this subject I get the impression that people around here don't much care if the government can did itself out or not. Some readers of The Bright Stuff have asked how I can justify wanting Labour to win the next election? But more of that later. First I want to examine the horror of the situation a little. I have finally read the Independent on Sunday's interview with HBOS whistleblower Paul Moore. Jaw-dropping or what! It's always wrong to leave the Sindy till last in the weekend reading pile because so often it punches above its weight. It would be one of the saddest victims of the recession if it is forced to close.