Peter Hoskin

I do enjoy the email discussions that are posted over at Comment Central.  In their latest exchange, Danny Finkelstein and Philip Collins discuss the likelihood of a Cabinet reshuffle after the June elections.  And Collins - who was Tony Blair's speechwriter - makes an observation which belongs in the "Nice to have it confirmed" folder: "I remember more than one Tony Blair reshuffle which was expressly designed to fill the news pages with something other than the disaster that had just happened. So, that's the point." As Collins goes on to say, the problem Brown faces is that so few of his reshuffle options "grab the attention".

Well worth reading this article in the Times, which tunes into some of the radio chatter circulating 'round Labour at the moment.  Among the tidbits it contains is speculation that Brown might make Peter Mandelson Foreign Secretary in his June reshuffle, and word that ministers are concerned Labour won't be able to raise election funds unless they get closer to the Tories in the opinion polls.  This snippet jumped out at me, though: "Ministers will be expected to spend the summer preparing for an autumn relaunch intended to narrow the Tory lead. Departments are being encouraged to introduce public service reforms and switch spending from capital to resource accounts to soften the impact of the cuts needed.

Pity poor Michael Martin.  Or, rather, don't.  The Speaker's coming under increased attack today, and rightly so.  As the Daily Mail reports this morning, there are now several plots to oust him from the role: we've got Douglas Carswell's commons motion; a move to have him knifed by "a delegation from the Privy Counsel"; a plan by Labour backbenchers to circulate a letter calling for him to go; as well as ministers encouraging Gordon Brown to give Martin the push he needs.   And all this done in an atmosphere of greater public criticism of him by MPs and other political notables, including Betty Boothroyd.  I can't see Martin surviving the onslaught.

Given the very real prospect that the BNP will make some sort of mark on next month's elections, I'd recommend you read Martin Fletcher's article in the Times today.  He offers not only an effective portrait on a recesson-hit town - in this case, Barnsley - but an insight into how the disgusting nationalist group are going about their campaign.  The key point is that, despite the misleading "far-right" designation that's slapped on them, the BNP are targetting - and are capturing - traditional Labour voters: "Mr Griffin expresses sympathy for the 1984 miners strike, triggered by the closure of the Cortonwood colliery in Barnsley. He denounces the Government’s privatisation programme.

Today is one of the biggest days in David Cameron's time as Tory leader.  If yesterday's expenses revelations were bad - and they certainly were - then today's are probably even worse.  Despite a well stage-managed Tory response to the scandal so far, there's a clear sense that something more needs to be done.  The Tories are now slipping in the polls just as Labour are, and that's even before voters had heard about backbench extravagance. But more worrying for CCHQ than short-term poll slides is the potential for this to recontaminate the brand, especially by injecting some kind of "Tory toff" poison into the political bloodstream.  Sure, the charge hasn't stuck when Labour have deployed it.

Is Gordon Brown playing catch-up, or is his belated apology over the expenses scandal all part of some cynical plan?  Sure, Cameron dropped the S-word yesterday, so Brown may be scrambling to prevent the Tory leader taking an unassailable lead on the issue.  But it does strike me as odd that he's waited for the day when Tory expenses are in the spotlight, especially as it was so clearly obvious that some sort of apology was warranted before now.  Could he be slyly suggesting that only the Tory revelations require an apology "on behalf of politicians, on behalf of all parties"; that they're somehow worse than the Labour ones?  I wouldn't put it beyond this Prime Minster, who so loves to put dividing lines ahead of democracy.

If you thought your opinion of Parliament couldn't sink any lower, then think again.  This morning's papers contain a couple of grim revelations about how MPs are responding to the expenses scandal, and they certainly fit in with the sorry pattern of denial and evasion that we've witnessed so far.  Take the email sent out by the Parliamentary Labour Party to Labour MPs, and covered in the Independent.  It hardly strikes a contrite tone, as it tells them that: "It would be easy for the public to gain the impression from this [media] coverage that MPs are generally claiming excessively or outside the rules laid down by Parliament, which is not the case.