Isabel Hardman

The Conservative Party appears rather burnt-out at the moment. At its conference - even before Theresa May’s disastrous speech - it seemed to be the Knackered Party rather than the Nasty Party that the Prime Minister herself had warned about so many years ago. But it is still in government, and desperately needs to find new ideas and reasons to exist while also negotiating Brexit and dealing with unexpected scandals, such as the allegations swirling around Westminster at the moment of impropriety from Cabinet ministers. When parties are knackered, they often find a period of opposition to be a comfort, a chance to have the sort of debate about policy that you just don’t have time for in government.

Westminster is agog with whispers about who the Tory MPs are on a list of men and women alleged to be guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour, sexual harassment and worse. Some names have been circulating for years, with many women across the Parliamentary Estate saying they have their own story about this MP or that minister. So why is it only now that there’s a threat to make the list public? The Harvey Weinstein allegations have prompted women - and men - in every industry to realise that they don’t have to just grin and bear bad behaviour as though it’s just an unfortunate side-effect to having your dream job.

How did Jared O’Mara end up in Parliament, and will he remain there for much longer? Today he was suspended from the Labour whip, and an investigation was launched into the allegations about his online posts and conversations, including an allegation that he used misogynistic and transphobic language to a constituent this year. The suspension happened just before Prime Minister’s Questions, and after the session, Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman said the party had acted today because the latest claims, which O’Mara disputes, related to more recent behaviour.

If ministers are going to offer any concessions in the row over Universal Credit, they’ve decided to keep them back for a little while longer. This afternoon MPs have been holding an emergency debate on the reform, with Employment Minister Damian Hinds defending the reform and the roll-out, rather than suggesting that the government is going to accept the suggestions of Tory and Labour MPs on delayed payments. The emergency debate was called after Conservative MPs were whipped to abstain on Labour’s Opposition Day debate on the benefit reform last week.

This post is from tonight's Evening Blend email, a free round-up and analysis of the day's politics. Sign up here. Is the government really changing its policy on planning for a no deal? That question isn’t simple to answer, not least because it’s not entirely clear what the government’s policy is on this matter: Philip Hammond has said the government won’t spend the necessary money until it needs to, while Theresa May says whatever money needs to be spent will be spent. But the pressure has been rising from Brexiteers for ministers to make real plans and produce real money to ensure that those plans are implemented.

The talk of the Commons tearoom today is last night’s Opposition Day vote on Universal Credit. This is unusual: Opposition Day votes are non-binding and have recently been used largely for Labour to bang on about pet projects rather than hold the government’s feet to the fire. But the Opposition has sharpened up its act, and used growing Conservative concerns about the roll-out of the new benefit to good effect in yesterday’s debate.

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions wasn’t exactly comfortable for Theresa May, but neither was it catastrophic. The session has been running along the same lines since the snap election result: Jeremy Corbyn has plenty of material to play with in terms of a government in disarray that isn’t confronting some of the most important domestic issues, but he never really manages to leave May looking less authoritative than when the session started. Today he focused on the problems with the roll-out of Universal Credit, which is spreading from being the concern of welfare policy specialists in parliament to being a political row.

Theresa May had planned to move the political focus this autumn from Brexit to domestic priorities. That was always a tall order when the next round of negotiations and this month’s EU council are looming, but it’s particularly difficult given the Prime Minister managed to lose, not gain, authority with her conference speech. It's also made harder given that her statement in the Commons yesterday seems to have enraged Brexiteer MPs, who were willing her on before the conference speech fiasco. One senior eurosceptic MP told Coffee House after the admission that the European Court of Justice would still have a role during the Brexit transition that he and colleagues were ‘extremely surprised as this was quite the opposite of what we had been led to believe’.

Theresa May is threatening a reshuffle - and would be wise to threaten it for as long as possible as the only thing more problematic than naughty ministers you need to move is angry ex-ministers who didn’t want to be moved. Katy looks at who the Prime Minister could move in this post here, and points to a desire for new talent in the government. Promoting the next generation would achieve two things. Firstly it would energise a rather grey government (impressive, given the grey government is opposed by a party led by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell).

Grant Shapps isn’t the most popular man in the Tory party at the moment, but at least he has a friend to keep him company this evening. By sheer coincidence, Andrew Mitchell has long been booked to speak at the Welwyn Hatfield MP’s Conservative Association annual dinner tonight. But Mitchell is very keen not to appear to be a fellow plotter, having given a speech at the Cambridge Union last night in which he praised the Prime Minister’s ‘courage of high order’ for completing ‘what was an important and interesting speech in impossible circumstances, and I think all of us in politics should recognise that’.

Is Theresa May now doomed after her conference speech went so badly wrong? Tory MPs were yesterday so shocked by all the mishaps that it took them a few hours to realise that underneath all the things that weren't May's fault – such as the P45 stunt and the set falling apart – were a lot of things that the Prime Minister really was responsible for. The speech was not the bold, re-energising address that May needed to give. It contained pale policies which seemed pale red, not true blue. There are ministers who see this as an opportunity to move against their leader. There are Boris allies who have recovered their bewilderment at what their man was up to this week sufficiently to start calling privately for a leadership election before Christmas.

Theresa May is not the first political leader to try to pitch the idea of a 'British Dream' when most British people aren't even sure if it exists in our culture. Michael Howard spoke about it in 2004, while Ed Miliband adopted the 'Promise of Britain' temporarily while he was trying to find his feet as Labour leader. So it's not just the first time that a party leader has tried to talk about the British Dream, it's also not the first time a leader whose authority is shaky has tried to talk about it. As Miliband and Howard showed, the British Dream doesn't seem to stick as a political idea. It certainly didn't work as a theme in May's speech, which turned into one of the unluckiest political nightmares in recent history.