David Blackburn

David Miliband’s decision not to be a candidate for EU Foreign Minister has inspired an almost vociferous article from Daniel Finkelstein. He writes: ‘The Lisbon treaty is your work as much as anyone’s. You pushed it through and you told everyone that it really mattered. You’ve been making speeches on the importance of the new job as EU foreign minister. You’ve said it is an essential tool of influence. Yet now — now — you tell me that you don’t actually want to do it yourself.’ Clearly Miliband wants a crack at the leadership, and the thrust of Finkelstein’s argument is that Miliband isn’t up to leading the opposition. ‘One other thing you need to think about.

Despite his pronounced Europhile views, a Politics Home insider poll suggests that Clarke can remain in the Shadow Cabinet and join a prospective Euro-sceptic Cameron government. As Clarke is signed up to the Cameron plan, I doubt that Europe is necessarily the problem. Concern arises from Clarke's apparent unwillingness to fulfil the duties of his brief. One think tank supremo is quoted by Pol Home saying: “No. It isn’t just Europe, it’s his non-fondness to work hard, master a brief, do the hard slog. He likes being on television, but there’s more to being a Secretary of State than that, and plenty of current non-frontbenchers who would work.” This objection relates to Clarke’s age as well, but is age necessarily a problem?

Tim Montgomerie is right; Peter Oborne is at his best in the Mail today – a mix of relevant history and sharp analysis of current affairs. Like Callaghan and Major before him, Gordon Brown faces electoral defeat. Brown’s predicament is deep – consistently loathed by the electorate and the target of unhatched coups and constant intrigue. How does a prime minister defend a hopeless position? Does he govern in the best interests of the country, his party, or himself? Oborne remarks about the magnanimity of Callaghan and Major and notes that Brown has not followed their example. ‘The truth is that Gordon Brown is now governing Britain purely for partisan or even personal advantage rather than in the national interest.

This week’s interviewee on the BBC’s Straight Talk with Andrew Neil is Peter Hain. One of the topics for discussion is Labour’s disengagement with its core vote and the rise of the BNP. Hain admits that this can be ascribed to Labour’s failings and Westminster’s disengagement with voters. Certainly, Labour’s failure on housing and migration has been a major factor in Griffin’s rise. But there is nothing to suggest that Labour has the political strength to re-engage. Even after the recent furore, there have been no new initiatives on housing or migration, just pitiful contrition in the place of action. Hain’s outright refusal to share a platform with the BNP and engage with its arguments is a case in point.

It’s worth flagging up the minutes of a regional Labour Party meeting, dated 2 November, that have been leaked to Iain Dale. The first stand out passage shows the Labour Party’s reliance on Barack Obama as a source of inspiration: ‘Claude[Moraes MEP] has been to Washington DC where Obama administration key players made it clear they don’t want to have to deal with a Eurosceptic Tory Government here as they want to be able to deal with the EU as a whole.’ Iain argues that the claim has no basis in fact. But, as Daniel Korski pointed out recently, it is clear that the US administration would prefer to work with an assertive and united EU, not one embroiled in internal squabbles.