James Forsyth

From Kevin Maguire’s blog: “I can't help thinking that if the Prime Minister was going to issue an apology, he should have done so in the "regret" letters to David Cameron et al a few days ago instead of during a visit in Scotland. Either the PM's reinforced the Government's problems, created a double-whammy, or it's a good day to bury bad news” The right thing for Brown to do, both politically and morally, was to apologise straight away to those who had been smeared. The fact that Brown didn’t—or wouldn’t—realise this shows his flaws as a politician. Indeed, I think his apology today was still too limited to enable the government to move on. P.S. From what I’m hearing, there are still a few more shoes to drop.

There are few things that Brown puts before political advantage but his pride is clearly one of them. How else to explain his refusal to apologise for Damian McBride’s behaviour? As Jonathan Isaby blogged the other day, a sorry from Brown is a pre-requisite for Labour being able to begin to move on from this whole affair. Bagehot puts it well on his blog: “the fixation with apologies is more than just a bit of puerile Brown-baiting. The game only works because Mr Brown never plays. He obviously thinks that an apology is an admission of weakness.

This story from Steve Richards’ column takes the breath away: ‘On one occasion shortly before a presenter was about to interview a cabinet minister McBride texted him with the message: “Ask him about his drinking problem.” Again even if the attempted assassination of a minister was clever politics – and it was not – for the fingerprints to be all over the source was dangerously inept.’ I’m sure this anecdote will have Coffee Housers screaming, understandably, about collusion between the media and the Brown machine. If the presenter had held the phone up to the camera, McBride would have been finished. But journalists have to protect their sources.

Another interesting post from Tony Blair’s spin man about what Gordon Brown should do about his cocking up so badly: “So, on doing the right thing, there is the question of Cameron's call for an apology. There may be politics attached to it, but it is worth asking the question - if a Tory spin doctor had been found to be planning smears against the families of Labour politicians, would we have asked for, and expected, an apology? I think the answer is yes. ... the public has to see that when GB says he condemns this type of politics, he really means it.” Also, note the implicit condemnation of the way the Brownites operate in Campbell’s description of the affair as an “unwanted if not entirely unexpected event.

It is immensely cheering news that the US ship’s captain who was being held by pirates off the coast of Somalia has been rescued by the US Navy. When one considers the resources and firepower the US was prepared to send to the area to free this citizen one can’t help but be reminded of the peroration of Palmerston’s speech during the Don Pacifico debate: “whether, as the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say Civis Romanus sum; so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England, will protect him against injustice and wrong.

On top of the whole McBride business, this story in the Mail On Sunday's diary suggests there is yet more damage to come on the expenses front for the government: The prospect of ministerial mayhem when full details of MPs’ expenses receipts are published in the summer may force Gordon Brown to delay the Cabinet reshuffle due after the June Euro elections. 'We are braced for a rash of ministerial resignations when they come out in July,’ said a Labour Whip. ‘There is no point having a reshuffle in June if we have to do it all over again a month later.’ Things just keep getting worse for Brown.