Labour party

The Kindly Pussycat has returned to the fray with a revised version of his memoirs. The FT's Jim Pickard has highlighted an arresting passage about Ed Miliband’s decision to execute New Labour. 'When Ed pronounced New Labour ‘dead’, he was not only being more categorical than was wise, but quite possibly more than he really intended. (xxi) …Even allowing for the tactical choices he had made in his bid to become leader, however, I was struck by the fact that he had given no strong clue during the campaign as to what alternative to New Labour he envisaged. He was quick to say what he was against: essentially, Tory policies and Tony’s policies.

"Now he and his leader know what it’s like to be people’s second choice," trilled George Osborne during his recent encounter with Ed Balls over the dispatch box. But might Balls actually have been Miliband's third choice for the shadow chancellorship? That's the implication of a delicious little story in today's Sun, which claims that Miliband first "tapped up" his brother, aka MiliD, when trying to replace Alan Johnson: "A Labour insider revealed: 'Ed's people were desperate not to give the job to Balls.' However, Ed stopped short of offering his brother the job when David made it clear he wanted to stay on the backbenches." If true, then it's revealing on two counts.

Aside from official – and provocative – proclamations from Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the news from Libya is still arriving piecemeal. The latest reports are that the protestors have prevailed in Zawia, in the west of the country, to add to their "liberation" of Benghazi last night. And there is some speculation that Gaddafi Senior has fled the country, which would certainly reinforce the sense that his power is being whittled down, potentially to naught. As for Britain, the questions about our prior relationship with Libya still hover awkwardly over proceedings, and over the heads of the last government in particular. There was the al-Megrahi deal, of course, as well as all those meetings in Gaddafi's tent.

Given that David Cameron will have a tougher fight than perhaps any postwar Prime Minister other than Thatcher, it’s a bit unfortunate that his team doesn’t like political combat. Losing to Rachel Johnson over forests last week exposed major weaknesses, and sent a message to the government’s enemies: that these guys have pretty poor political combat skills. Now word is out, the cuts protests in Liverpool today will be the first in a series of challenges. Cameron, too, is stung by the avoidable mistakes of the last few weeks – and is reshaping No.10 to account for them. Some changes are great, some less so, others downright worrying. Here's my overview: 1. The Big Society. Cameron has started from first principles.

It is odd to think that in just a few months we’ll be having only the second nationwide referendum in our history and no one is particularly excited about it. This is largely because the plebiscite is on AV, an unloved voting system that is a half-way house between first past the post and a proportional system. (Just imagine the level of conversation there would be if the vote was to do with Europe not electoral reform). At the moment, the yes side has a growing lead in the polls http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3115. But, given the vast number of undecideds, this could change very quickly. The No campaign, though, will have to come up with some clearer, crisper messages to turn the tide.

Ken Clarke’s political career has had the resilience of a cockroach, but even he now seems to be cracking. Tim Montgomerie has shot a vicious broadside at Clarke's dated politics in today’s Mail. And Clarke, for his part, has given an interview to the Telegraph, where he gives a convincing impression of a man completely out of touch. Clarke concedes (just) that the ECHR needs reform, but he defends its supreme jurisdiction: ‘Some people are very angry [about prisoner voting], but we should be able to resolve that. The jurisdiction of the [European] court remains the fraught issue. I don’t see how we can say that we don’t obey courts if we don’t want to.

Michael Gove has won on the substance in the judicial reviews of his decisions on Building Schools for the Future. The judge has rejected the claim that Gove acted irrationally and found that he has the authority to make the decisions he did. There will have to be reviews of six of the decisions because of a failure to consult fully and a full equalities assessment will have to be done - yet another example of one of the traps that Labour has left behind and that the coalition needs to scrap as soon as possible. But this is hardly the victory that it is being portrayed as by some. Crucially, the judge has ruled that “the final decision on any given school or project still rests with him [Gove].  He may save all, some, a few, or none.