Peter Hoskin

What's my take on the return of Ken Clarke? Hm. I guess it's summed up by four-and-a-bit words: let's wait and see. A wishy-washy response, I know, but so much depends on whether Cameron's got himself Clarke the Angel or Clarke the Devil that it's hard to talk about success or failure in advance. Apparently, Clarke's assured the Dave they he'll be angelic - that he won't stir up a storm over Europe, that he won't deal out economic prescriptions that contradict the party line - but will the most rebellious Tory MP in the Commons be able to change his spots? Possibly. But it's going to require some delicate man-management from Cameron. Given the way in which Clarke's been unveiled to the press, it seems that the delicate management is in full swing already.

Just to point out an important post by Sam Coates over at Red Box.  Turns out the House has chosen today, when the airwaves are dominated by the Heathrow announcement, to publish an audit of MPs' expenses (pdf here).  I'll leave you to check out the details in Sam's post, but it's now looking less likely that we'll see a full publication of expenses or, indeed, any proper restrictions introduced.  All in all, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Government's quite pleased that John McDonnell has been suspended from the Commons for protesting the Heathrow expansion.  There'll be even less room in the papers for these dispiriting cover-ups to be exposed.

What to make of Peter Mandelson's latest idea to prop up the car industry, as splashed by today's Times?  Basically, the plan is that the Bank of England will use taxpayers' cash to back the loans offered by finance companies to potential car buyers.  And the hope is that this will free up credit and stimulate demand for all those cars sitting unsold on garage forecourts across the nation.  There's much room for initial mischief from the Opposition - "Gordon Brown: buying someone else's car with your money," that kind of thing - but greater damage will come if the plan simply doesn't work.  And there's certainly potential for that.

There's plenty of hoo-haa about David Miliband's "'War on Terror' was wrong" article in the Guardian today.  But, truth be told, it's probably less significant than it first appears.  You see, Miliband the Elder is talking rhetoric - he's simply saying that the phrase 'War on Terror' was the wrong one to use because of what it implies; because it panders to unnuanced "us and them" thinking; because it suggests that the only solution is a military one.  In a week that George Bush admitted some of his rhetoric "has been a mistake", that sounds fairly uncontroversial to me. Fact is, whatever name it's given, Western strategy is increasingly premised on recognising the nuances of the situation and the opportunities for non-military action.