Peter Hoskin

A couple of weeks on holiday, and there's plenty to catch up on.  First, though, George Osborne's speech to Mansion House yesterday evening.  In terms of substance, it was fairly radical stuff.  And it's encouraging that so many of the Tories' solid plans for reforming the financial regulatory system have survived the coalition process.  But, really, it was one simple, little sentence which jumped out at me.  This: "Debt [is] set to still rise even at the end of this five year Parliament." "So what?" you may be thinking, "we knew that already."  Ah, yes, but we've rarely heard a politician be quite so upfront about our debt position before – at least not voluntarily.

Surprise, surprise – Menzies Campbell doesn't sound 100% taken with the coalition in interview with Andrew Neil on Straight Talk this weekend.  This is, don't forget, the man who encouraged the Lib Dems to seek a deal with Labour at the last minute.  And here he claims that he "would have found it very difficult to make the kind of arrangement with David Cameron that Nick Clegg has obviously found so easy."  He adds that: "...there is this determination to make [the coaltion] work and nowhere is that more obvious than in David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

One of the mildly diverting features of the Labour leadership contest so far is this nominations counter on the party website.  Ed Miliband was the first to pass the crucial 33 nominations barrier yesterday, while David Miliband managed it earlier today.  Ed Balls is still lagging behind on 14, Andy Burnham has 8, and poor John McDonnell and Diane Abbott both have none.  Yep, the excitement is reaching fever pitch. There's one curious feature to it all, though, highlighted by Danny Finkelstein earlier.  Why have some of the candidates – or their nominators – been holding back on their nominations?  David Miliband, for instance, has considerably more than 37 backers, and could surely have crossed the 33 nominations mark days ago.

So it turns out that John Redwood's uncertainty was well-placed. According to Jonathan Isaby over at ConservativeHome, the Tory chief whip has decreed that ministers won't be able to vote in 1922 Committee elections after all. They will only be able to attend meetings, which, as Jonathan says, "no-one ever really had a complaint about." All this comes on the back of confusion about what last week's ballot even meant, making a curious situation even curiouser.  But, whatever the reasons behind it, the outcome will be seen as a climbdown by David Cameron – and perhaps the first real dent to his authority since coming to power. Meanwhile, the 118 "rebels" will revel in how things have turned out.