James Forsyth

Peter Hyman’s piece in The Times today is well worth reading if only for this anecdote about one of the Blair reshuffles. On another occasion an MP was sacked for doing nothing wrong. It was merely that when she was replaced in her current job, someone forgot to pencil her in for a new one. The mistake was only realised once the reshuffle had been completed. Mr Blair had to come out with the implausible sounding football manager's response, telling the shell-shocked MP that he “was playing a rotation system, and she would soon return to government”. Hyman’s serious point—that David Miliband should be made Chancellor—is revealing of the mindset in New Labour circles at the moment. Personally, I think Brown needs a more radical reshuffle than that.

David Ignatius has a great column in The Washington Post this morning looking at the international events that could shake up the presidential race. One of the things that he considers is the US bombing the facilities that the Iranians are using to train fighters before sending them into Iraq; there’s a significant chance that this will happen this summer. If President Bush were to order this it would be immensely controversial. His critics would accuse him of risking all out war with Iran and Obama would almost certainly condemn it. But it would also have huge ramifications for British politics: what would Gordon Brown say?  Brown would be walking a tightrope.

Labour appears split over whether or not it wants a referendum on Scottish independence, Wendy Alexander is in favour but Gordon appears to be against. But I actually think Gordon should want such a referendum as it provides him with an opportunity, albeit a risky one, to get back on track. Here’s my thinking: 1). The pro-Union forces would win: The latest poll shows that only one in four voters support independence and being associated with a winning side would be good for Brown right now. 2). It would allow Brown to show his passion: A large part of Brown’s problem at the moment is that he appears to stand for nothing. But as Matt has long argued, Brown has thought more about the meaning of Britishness than any other contemporary politician.

I’ve just got round to watching Gordon Brown’s interview with Adam Boulton and it makes his performance on Marr look good. He looked tired and sounded grumpy throughout. Perhaps the oddest thing was how Brown didn’t seem in command of the policy detail. When Bolton asked about helping the poor by just raising the personal allowance Brown seemed stumped. Interestingly, Brown seemed to rule out a reshuffle in the near future. Kremlinologists will note that he passed up an opportunity to defend David Miliband and instead pivoted to praise Alan Johnson’s work at Health. There was a sign of how Brown intends to try and respond to the rise of the Tories when he stressed that he--unlike the Tories--has always know what it is like for working families.

Charles Moore’s column in the Telegraph today rightly praises the Tories for their impressive election performance. But he also raises some issues which the party are going to have to think about. 1. How can a party that has "gone green" adjust to the fact that voters, increasingly short of money, hate green taxes - especially high imposts on cars - and long to put fortnightly refuse collections into what the Left, in other contexts, calls "the dustbin of history"? 2. How can a party that believes in the legitimacy of parliamentary government and the need to defend ourselves against terrorism put up with the ever-growing power of judges to strike down political decisions in the name of "human rights"? 3.