Second, Third, Fourth Job.

This Westminster saga might feel like the Big Brother series from hell, thankfully without Davina McCall, but the MPs' expenses scandal is still rumbling on. On July 1st 2009, MPs will be forced to reveal all their various other "interests", this means that any MP with a second (and in many cases third and fourth) job must openly publicize their incomes and hours worked away from Parliament.

Apparently this is to create an atmosphere of transparency and openness in Parliament. However the only logical consequence is the exposing of more revelations concerning MPs lack of dedication to their constituency.

For instance, sixteen of the twenty-two frontbench Conservative MPs have second jobs; these range from non executive directorships at big financial institutions, such as Oliver Letwin at NM Rothschild, to writing newspaper columns like William Hague. In total the Shadow Cabinet consists of twenty-six members who currently hold one hundred and fifteen directorships (yes that is right: 115) between them.

Obviously is not just confined to the Tory Frontbench, it is endemic across all parties, but as an example it illustrates the point perfectly.

How can this beneficial to the country and their constituency? As a shadow cabinet their main purpose is to scrutinize the policy and actions of the incumbent government, rather than feathering their own nests. There have been many occasions that the current Tory Frontbench have failed to hold the government to account recently, and it has fallen to the Lib Dems and the press to expose government policy.

This point is illustrated by a previous blog post; The Rise and Fall of the Career Politician.

Christopher Kelly is currently investigating all aspects of MPs' expenses and outside interests, as part of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Hopefully, this will draw the only logical conclusion possible; that it is a conflict of interests for a current Member of Parliament to hold any permanent position outside Westminster. Furthermore, if any MPs wish to continue working in the private sector, then they would be forced to step down as an MP.

There are some obvious comparisons between the House of Commons and Big Brother, but at least in Big Brother it is possible to vote out certain housemates. However, it is doubtful that many MPs would be shown their "best bits"...

PMQs and all that...

John Bercow, the new Speaker in the House of Commons, chaired his first Prime Minister's Questions earlier today with a quiet assertiveness that was almost refreshing to witness. With a mixture of casual authority and stern consistency, Mr Bercow seemed to resemble the new Headteacher of Grange Hill, rather than a traditional Speaker of the House of Commons.

As refreshing as Mr Bercow's performance was, the election of a new Speaker will only paper over the cracks in the Parliamentary system, as opposed to the reform of political structures needed. MPs now believe themselves to be secure in their position now that they have replaced the sacrificial lamb of Michael Martin, and lost some of the dead weight MPs, through the expenses scandal.

It is obvious that Parliament flinches at the mention of reform, therefore this window dressing allows MPs to carry on their normal routines almost unhindered. But this culture of the Westminster Village, which has developed from 1688, is irrelevant in the modern context of society. Outdated and outmoded, Parliament seems almost oblivious to lack of relevance to the electorate.

The traditions which MPs cling to, such as dragging the Speaker to his position, clearly alienate the majority of the population who do not understand the significance of these little "in jokes".

The new Speaker has promised a lot of minor reforms, tinkering around the edges if you will, but will all these minor changes result in any significant difference? It is doubtful.

Order, Order!

Today, the House of Commons elects its new Speaker. With a short list of ten candidates Parliament hopes that a new Speaker and a summer recess will placate the public's demand for true reform; or better still most people forget the expenses debacle.

Rather than this being an auspicious event, ushering in a new order and a new style of politics, this election signifies a victory for the status quo. The list of candidates offer little in the way of reformers and will be decided by party feuds or allegiances, an old style of politics that has cursed Westminster for a considerable time.

In the opening rounds the Conservative Party will vote to stop John Bercow assuming the role, probably by voting for the ex-Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. Conversely, the Labour Party will vote for John Bercow to stop Margaret Beckett winning. The person most likely to benefit from this playgroundesque voting will be Sir George Young.

In a time when Parliament is deemed to be out of touch with the disenfranchised electorate, a straight forward debate and election should be held; this needs to be transparent and above party bickering.

For the public to reconnect to Parliament and in particular the politicians that reside within
there must be an honest review of reforms required. Not a sham of a Speaker's election in which the new Speaker will be chosen through party loyalty and personality, rather than commitment to reform and real change.

It is disappointing that Parliament is wasting chance after chance to prove it can understand what the public is demanding.

A Tale of Two Inquests.

Last week Gordon Brown promised the Labour Party and the country a new candour in British governance, with the promises of openness and transparency, Mr Brown offered the keys of Parliament back to the electorate.

However, a week is apparently a long time in politics; with the lessons of last week having been quickly forgotten or ignored. Little more than ten days ago Gordon Brown promised the PLP a new start, in which he would consult, learn and listen with the Labour Party. Gone are the days, the PLP was told, of power politics, bullying and riding roughshod of MPs' concerns; this was a brave new world.

Instead, with the announcement of a private inquest into the war in Iraq and the two rail tragedies, the lessons seem little more than mythology. With Gordon Brown more secure in his position as Prime Minister, the veil of secrecy has been re-established and normal service has been resumed.

There is no requirement to have any of these inquests in private, in fact there is a requirement, no a necessity, that these are firmly under public scrutiny. All the private status allows is that the government can control the release of information and therefore control the news agenda to best suit there advantage. Without the luxury of owning or controlling the press, a private inquest is the next best thing; releasing or leaking information controls the news agenda.

It is almost as if Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell are in control of the Prime Minister's Press Office again...

The Daily Telegraph's Top Ten...

Now that the expenses scandal is drawing to a close, much to Parliament's relief, there has been an air of nostalgic reflection amongst some sections in the media. The Daily Telegraph, for instance, has drawn up a "Top Ten" list of MPs' excuses and reaction to the scandal:

1. "Do you know what it's about? Jealousy". No, Sir Anthony Steen, we're afraid, it isn't.

2. Maybe a decent moat to keep commoners out didn't seem such a bad idea to Douglas Hogg after he was chased down the street by a mob of reporters.

3. Sir John Butterfill simply didn't have time to dig out the figures on how much his servants' quarters cost the taxpayer before his big Newsnight interview.

4. Speaker Michael Martin berates the hapless Kate Hoey in front of the entire Commons, and of course, the nation...

5. ... which turned out to be less than wise when Mr Martin was forced to resign a few days later.

6. Salford's pocket rocket Hazel Blears brandishes THAT cheque in a desperate bid for survival.

7. In one of the expenses saga's most excruciating moments Andrew MacKay and one of his constituents have a difference of opinion in front of the cameras.

8. Justice minister Shahid Malik makes a strident defence of his claims for a home entertainment system just hours before announcing his resignation.

9. David Cameron names and shames the Tories who will be paying a visit to the fees office to hand back the thousands they claimed.

10. Presenters of Radio 4's Today Programme are expected to keep a straight face even in the face of the most ridiculous duck-related stories. Pity nobody told Evan Davis.

The Telegraph missed Kitty Ussher's misjudged resignation in the belief that the expenses released yesterday would reveal her "flipping" first homes to avoid Capital Gains Tax. Sadly, the "redacted" expenses claims showed no incriminating information.

Is it Tetris? No, it is an MP's Expense Form.

The MPs' expenses debate still rumbles on. Today the Parliament published the "full" list of expenses of all MPs in Parliament.

Notable by the vast swathes of blacked out information on the expenses claim form, the list reveals nothing that the public did not expect. Even the CIA would be embarrassed by the amount of content obscured from the public gaze.

This tactless editing will only infuriate the general public more, since all party leaders promised a more open and transparent system. The result is a perception that the MPs are still obscuring and blurring the lines of accountability for their own expenses. The declaration at the end of each of these expenses has now become obsolete:

"I confirm that the payments requested are in respect of costs incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of my parliamentary duties."

It is a shame that, at their lowest ebb, Parliament still attempts to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public and the media; instead it hides behind black squares and rectangles in the vain hope that it can collectively salvage some dignity.

This was the perfect opportunity for MPs to show that they had learnt the lessons of the past few months, but the public perception of ivory towers and gentleman's clubs still remains.

It is now obvious why Parliament wished for this list to be published in its entirety in July 2009. With Parliament in recess and most of the top political journalists on holiday, July would have provided a perfect opportunity to brush the scandal firmly under the carpet.

They would have got away with it, if it had not been for those pesky kids at the Telegraph...

Why is Iran Important?

There has been much discussion in the British media since Thursday concerning the Presidential elections in Iran between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the increase in media coverage, there has also been an increase in the credence of the concept of a "Green Revolution", similar scope to the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia.

It is too easy to let imaginations run wild at times of civil unrest; with the most pleasing or extreme results being offered up as almost certain outcomes. However, in Iran there is a chance for significant change, not the change George W. Bush would want; a pro-western government that is willing to sell the world its cheap oil. But change that the Iranian people would want; more civil liberties, more freedoms and most importantly, economic development.

These changes could potential occur in one of the most pivotal countries in the world.

Therefore it is curious that there have been calls from certain sections of the British media that there has been too much coverage of a foreign election. This reaction is surprising considering the significance of Iran on a regional and global scale. There are many reasons why a change in the style of government, by Iranian people, is significant to everyone in the world and not just on a local humanitarian level. Here are just a few:

• Iran borders Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey. Any civil unrest that threatens the delicate balance in Iran could force a mass wave of refugees across any one of these borders which in turn could destabilise the whole region.
• Iran is the second largest oil producer in OPEC and has significant reserves of natural gas. Any 'shock' to global oil supply can have significant impact upon a very fragile world economy.
• The current Iranian regime has significant associations with a large variety of terrorist organizations across the Middle East region.
• Iran in the near future will have an online nuclear facility. Even though this would no produce weapons grade nuclear material, it is a significant step in a dangerous direction.

There are a plethora of reasons why Iranian stability is vital to Britain, but to ignore it shows an alarming level of insularity. Whether some sections of the British media agree with it or not, every country's future is deeply intertwined with global stability and peace.

Sorry seems to be the easiest word...

If only Hazel Blears was a little taller, she could have stab Gordon Brown properly in the back, rather than the backside.

Michael Portillo on 'This Week'

Michael Portillo appeared on the BBC programme 'This Week' last night and blamed the "daft electoral system" for the BNP gaining two seats at the EU Parliament; he then stated that this situation would never occur with the more sensible "first-past-the-post" system.

This is true, the BNP would never have won any seats in an election with the current Westminster system, but what he fails to understand is that it is this very same dismissive attitude concerning people's voting preferences that caused the situation in the first place. It seems that Mr Portillo does not wish to have a truly representative Parliament, rather a Parliament in which the working class concerns are ignored and marginalised.

The BNP should be revealed for what they really are, not a democratically elected party, but a fascist and racist grouping that only wish to return Britain to the dark ages in the name of ethnic purity. People like Mr Portillo, a politician of many years, should want to understand why nearly a million people voted for the BNP.

Maybe it is because these working class voters were never his core electorate, or it is easier to ignore them, but Mr Portillo is walking a fine line by ignoring the issues that surround this unprecedented event. Or maybe Mr Portillo would prefer a oligarchy, in which the power resides with the elite and the working classes do not have the vote, since he dislikes any form of representative Parliament.

Education and enfranchisement of these voters is needed, rather than the arrogance to ignore them.

True Reform

There has been much discussion concerning what reforms of Parliament and expenses will be introduced, if any at all. Here are a few ideas that could potentially spark a debate:-

Expenses

There is consensus that MPs must be adequately remunerated for the level of responsibility that is assumed. Here are a few thoughts on expenses reform:

• Every MP has a "grace and favour" 2 bedroom residence that is centrally located within easy distance of Westminster. This will be minimally furnished - no moats, no duck ponds and no mock Tudor beams. There will be no rent, but no expenses can be charged for accommodation. This would have the advantages that if maintenance needs to be carried out it can be done via a central contract and therefore, cheaper.
• The only expense that would be acceptable is travel to and from the constituency. The cost of this is paid at a standard class train or plane fare, if they wish to upgrade, then it is at their own expense.
• The MPs wage will increase to £75,000. Any future cost of living increase will be decided upon by an independent panel which will not be responsible to Parliament.
• No MP, whilst in office, can have any other form of employment that might compromise their role as a MP. Such examples can be found here. MPs are in Parliament to represent their constituents, not their interests.
• Staff (Parliamentary and constituency based) to be paid centrally.
• Tax-payers contributions to MPs' pension funds to be significantly reduced.

Parliamentary Reforms

Britain has probably the most archaic Parliamentary system in the western world, built on convention and precedence. Affectionately known as a elected dictatorship, the winning party in a general election commands the executive and the legislature, George W. Bush would have started Armageddon with this power. The second House is weak and ineffectual, filled with representatives of the current government. The situation demands reform:

• Reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons, and have them elected via a form of proportional representation.
• Make the House of Lords wholly elected. This could be done via a number of different routes, maybe a more representative federal system. Furthermore, rebuke the Parliament Act which allows the House of Commons to completely overrule the Lords, if it does not endorse a Bill.
• MPs must have substantial links to the constituency that they represent. This will reduce the MP becoming the spokesman for the party in the constituency, rather than representing the constituency at a national level.
• Devolve power away from Westminster to a local level within certain parameters.
• Reduce the power of the party whip. This is probably wishful of all the points.
  

By instigating these reforms, Britain would become a more democratic country, with more people enfranchised. This is a true bicameral system that would build solutions on consensus and avoid landslides that allowed Britain to slip into war with Iraq.

Conservatives Announce Policies...

There was a shocking revelation announced by the Conservative Health Spokesman Andrew Lansley on the Today programme, earlier today. Not that the Tories would plan to cut funding to "vital" areas in the NHS by 10%, even though this is quite shocking, but the revelation was that the Tories actually announced a concrete policy.

Sadly not, backtracking faster than Usain Bolt in a 100m sprint, the Conservatives said this was not a policy announcement, but a statement of Labour Party policy past 2011. It is approaching summer and the opening of the silly season, but this has to be one of the strangest exchanges of any Parliament.

• First Andrew Lansley claims it was Tory Party policy
• Then Gordon Brown attacks the Tories for destroying the NHS
• David Cameron retorts by claiming it is actually Labour Party policy
• Everyone starts pointing fingers claiming it is each others policy
• And Nick Clegg changes the subject completely

That is democracy in action...

However, it is easy for the public to believe that it could be both a Labour policy and a Tory policy; since neither party has clearly stated any official economic policies or public spending projections for the next five years. This policy could well be the policy of both parties, but with the public still reeling from the MPs' expenses scandal neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron wish to tell the public how bad things are going to be.

It is going to be a fun summer; playing policy hot potato...

Even Birds do not like Bankers.

In San Francisco a black bird has been "terrorizing" people in the Financial Distict, what can you say, the bird has got principles:

Carpe Diem, Mr Brown.

Today witnessed a wholly predictable speech by Gordon Brown on political reform, in which he stated:

"In the midst of all the rancour and recrimination, let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard."

This speech had more in common with Dead Poets Society than a serious attempt reform the electoral system in Britain. Although it will be a long time before his fellow Labour MPs will stand up in support of their "Captain! My Captain!"

Excuse the cynicism, but this has all been said before. It is a pantomime performance that every time a government is in danger of losing a forthcoming election, it changes its rhetoric to a populist tagline. How many times in the past eighteen years has a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition promised to "clean up" British politics. If they were true to their word perhaps now there would be a workable system in place.

However, amongst the predictable rhetoric from both sides of the House, there is potential for significant and actual change in the British political culture, which could usher in a new dawn of transparency and accountability. There also needs to an important discussion concerning the disenfranchisement of great swathes of the electorate.

Soon it will be time to judge Gordon Brown on his actions, not just his words... Carpe Diem, indeed.

The Most Surprising Result.

David Cameron appeared in the Welsh National Assembly yesterday, with all the pomp and circumstance of Rocky Balboa standing aloft the steps of Philadelphia City Hall. Whether it was the Labour vote staying home or the electorate genuinely voting Conservative, the shock waves of this result will resonate for sometime.

This, more than the BNP winning two MEP seats in the North of England, was the most surprising result of Sunday's EU election. Wales has been a stronghold for the Labour Party for nearly a hundred years, even during the dark days of 1979 and 1983, there was always a light on in Wales for the Labour Party. If Gordon Brown and the Labour Party can lose to the Conservatives in Wales then no constituency and MP is safe.

According to Dante there are seven deadly sins; Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Pride, Lust and Labour losing Wales to the Conservative Party. It is probably a natural progression, the Labour Party had committed the six other deadly sins during the MPs' expenses scandal, so losing Wales was the complete set.

Same Old, Same Old.

Now that the dust is settling after a hectic 24 hours in Westminster, the shape of the new cabinet is clear. Rather than a brave new world in which the Prime Minister forges ahead as a strong leader, the country has been left wondering what has changed.

There are two obvious reasons for the new (old) look cabinet:

• Gordon Brown has either embraced the status quo, keeping most of the ministers in their original departments, for the sake of consistency.
• Or he has no choice left. The ministers have wrestled the power from the Prime Minister and are now calling the shots.

Furthermore, Mr Brown has attempted to gloss over is impudence by attempting to distract everyone with some left field appointments; Lord Sugar (Lord help us more like) and Glenys Kinnock (this appointment no one saw coming). These "celebrity" appointments have shown that the talent in the current PLP either do not want to work in Gordon Brown's Government or simply just does not exist.

Hopefully the Prime Minister avoided the temptation to call Susan Boyle and Davina McCall...

The New (Old?) Cabinet

Prime Minister: Gordon Brown

Leader of the Commons: Harriet Harman

First secretary of state: Lord Mandelson

Chancellor of the exchequer: Alistair Darling

Foreign secretary: David Miliband

Justice secretary: Jack Straw

Home secretary: Alan Johnson

Environment, food and rural affairs secretary: Hilary Benn

International development secretary: Douglas Alexander

Communities and local government secretary: John Denham

Children, schools and families secretary: Ed Balls

Energy and climate change secretary: Ed Miliband

Health secretary: Andy Burnham

Northern Ireland secretary: Shaun Woodward

Leader of the Lords: Lord Royall of Blaisdon

Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Olympics and paymaster general: Tessa Jowell

Scotland secretary: Jim Murphy

Work and pensions secretary: Yvette Cooper

Chief secretary to the Treasury: Liam Byrne

Wales secretary: Peter Hain

Defence secretary: Bob Ainsworth

Transport secretary: Lord Adonis

Culture, media and sport secretary: Ben Bradshaw

"Reform, Reform, Reform"

When Tony Blair posed the almost rhetorical question to himself of what his government's major priorities were, he answered himself with the clear mantra of "education, education, education." This soundbite was perfect for the time, it simply laid out the future government's plan that was accessible and easily understood by all. It quickly became a yardstick by which the New Labour government could be measured against and beaten by if they failed.

Thirteen years on, Gordon Brown needs a similar tactic, if he is to survive the dire local and EU election results. There is no yardstick currently available to most of the general public to measure his performance by; only the prophetic cries of "we are fixing the economy." The issue with this as a measuring instrument is twofold;

• If public are to believe Mr Brown, that the UK could not effect the recession since it was a global phenomenon, how is the general public supposed to know that the relief packages designed by the government are alleviating the problem. It could just be an upturn in world markets.
• Secondly, many people believe that Gordon Brown's policy of deregulation for the banks, in many ways exacerbated the issue in the first place.

Therefore, Gordon Brown needs to hang his hat on another policy, one which the public can see genuine results on in the short term. The expenses scandal that might of nearly ended his tenure as Prime Minister, has surprisingly presented him with a golden opportunity to show strong leadership.

By setting out a clear bill of reforms for the House of Commons, MPs' expenses and the House of Lords, Gordon Brown will then be able to be judged on a definable set of criteria.

However, it is doubtful that he will use the mantra of "reform, reform, reform."

Where was Gordon's Mandate?

According to Paul Flynn:

"There is now a wide coalition of MPs from all wings of the Labour Party who are sadly convinced that a change of leadership in now unavoidable. It is hoped that Gordon will accept the will of the PLP and agree to a swift orderly exit."

But Mr Flynn thinks that Gordon Brown has been unfairly maligned by the Press and the public for the expenses scandal. However, what Paul Flynn fails to recognise or completely ignores is that Gordon Brown is perceived to have no mandate from the general electorate. In the public eyes Gordon Brown usurped the democratically elected Prime Minister with no legitimacy; it was a succession rather than a justification of the democratic process.

If Gordon Brown had gone to the public in October 2007 and called for a general election, he would currently be in a better situation with a justifiable mandate to govern. However, there is no mandate from the public, many people are feeling disenfranchised by the whole process. The Government have pursued policies that detach themselves from the electorate; ID cards etc. This is the main reason the public and press have turned on Gordon Brown, in a Parliament where there seems little in the way of accountability the expenses scandal was the straw that broke the camels back.

If the Labour Party choose to follow a path of electing another leader without the promise of a general election shortly afterwards, the feelings of disenfranchisement amongst the public will continually increase.

Something that would even cheer Gordon Brown up.

A Defining Speech by a Remarkable Man.

With all the eloquence of a Lloyd George or a Woodrow Wilson; Barack Obama addressed the Great Hall of Cairo University in an attempt to forge a 'new beginning' for American-Muslim relations. In a speech reminiscent of another great American President, John F. Kennedy's captivating speech to the American University in 1963, President Obama broke with his predecessors naive assumptions of 'us' and 'them' to create a potential glimmer of hope.

However, considering President Obama's nuanced approach during his speech, many media outlets have dubbed the speech as 'America and the Muslim world'. During the speech Barack Obama was at pains to differentiate the different Muslim groups from one another, and talked at great length about respecting and treating each group differently. But the main news rooms, CNN, Fox and BBC, have ignored this important nuance.

Whether the speech has been truncated in to digestible soundbites for the perceived ease of their audience or the journalists are still trapped in the language of the previous administration, this has yet to be seen. But to ignore the finer points has done the speech and Barack Obama a great disservice.

Sadly Jeremy Bowen urged caution; stating that by giving hope for a peaceful resolution for many of the conflicts around the world, Barack Obama has set himself up to disappoint many people. But surely by stating that he recognises that a more nuanced approach is necessary, President Obama is developing good will and political capital that can potentially be used to reach compromises in certain conflicts. Something that his predecessor certainly lacked.

The Political Whodunnit...

Which one of these mild manner senior Labour party officials (and John Cruddas) will stab Gordon Brown in the back first?

Clue: It is not John Cruddas.

Rebel's Timetable

The Guardian has released a potential timetable for the Labour Party to replace Gordon Brown as Prime Minister:

"Here's how events could pan out, according to the rebels:

4 June: Local and European election polling day.

5 June: Results from local elections; pressure mounts on Brown.

7 June: European election results expose the full scale of the electoral defeat suffered by Brown.

9 June: The prime minister is forced from office.

10 June: Labour's ruling national executive committee would meet and a new timetable would be announced.

The rebels have told the Guardian they think, and some senior trade union officials have even suggested to them, that the trade union involvement could be cut out altogether.

The advice of the three officials has assured the rebels that their shortened schedule would be "waterproofed" against legal challenge by the prime minister.

11 June: The parliamentary Labour party would meet and nominate their chosen new leader on the Thursday

12 June: Nominations for leader close.

16 June: Leadership ballot papers are distributed.

29 June: Selection of the new leader at a special conference held by the Labour party

2 July: Brown would formally resign and the new prime minister would be installed.

8 July: First prime minister's questions for the new leader

21 July Parliament breaks for the summer recess."

It seems fanciful that this timetable could be stuck to. It also conveniently forgets the political pressure from the general public, being rightly annoyed by having another unelected Prime Minister.

Who is the Next Geoffery Howe?

With the pressure mounting on Gordon Brown, it is inevitable that there will be a concerted attack on the Prime Minister after the Local and European elections. So the question remains, who will be the first senior Labour MP that attempts to stick the knife in?

More that likely it will be Hazel Blears, there is an almost personal feud between the PM and the poisoned chipmunk. But the attack might not be that vicious, by now she is almost considered damaged goods.

However, if Gordon Brown plays a bad hand with his cabinet reshuffle it could be even worse. If he does not handle the position of Chancellor well, he could create a monster in Alistair Darling. Even today Gordon Brown talked about Mr Darling and his achievements in the past tense. This certainly does not bode well for the badgered-eyebrow one.

Geoffrey Howe damned Margaret Thatcher by claiming "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."

But by sacking Mr Darling, it is more like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their opening bowler is your captain.

MIA - Purnell, Miliband and Johnson

With the creeping certainty that Gordon Brown will not survive the year, his main rivals for the leadership of the Labour Party have been notable by their absence. Messages from Geoff Hoon, Jacqui Smith and Andy Burnham have been ringing in the ears of any reporter willing to listen. But where is Alan Johnson's, James Purnell's and David Miliband's support for the ailing PM.

Unsurprisingly their voices are not to be heard, they are waiting in the wings, waiting for the opportunity to begin a contentious leadership battle. With the BBC reporting that the Gordon Brown 'must go letter' has received the support of 80 Labour MPs, it is now inevitable that there will be a leadership challenge.

Either that, or Gordon Brown has undertaken a Stalinist Purge to eliminate all his rivals. But I suppose that would be too decisive. His rivals would have a chance to pack, have a leaving do and exchange their money before fleeing the country.

Breaking News - No Confidence Letter

According to John Pienaar on BBC Five Live, there is a letter that is circulating around all Labour Party MPs calling for a vote of No confidence in Gordon Brown's Premiership. This was supposed to remain private at least until after the polls close in tomorrow's elections.

This is further to the news that many media sources that Gordon Brown will not be Prime Minister at the end of next week...

Whether it is a vote of No confidence or a straight leadership challenge, it seems hard to believe that just a cabinet reshuffle will placate the growing calls for immediate change.

Hazel Blears' quick resignation seems to be going to plan. But who will the MP be that falls on their own sword and challenges Mr Brown for party leadership? History teaches us that the challenger never ultimately wins... Et tu Brute?

The Second of Many - Hazel Blears Resigns

Hazel Blears has made her move, she has resigned at the point to gain as much exposure for herself whilst attempting to damage Gordon Brown as much as possible.

Here is her resignation statement:

"Today I have told the prime minister that I am resigning from the Government.

"My politics has always been rooted in the belief that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things, given the right support and encouragement.

"The role of a progressive Government should be to pass power to the people. I've never sought high office for the sake of it, or for what I can gain, but for what I can achieve for the people I represent and serve.

"In this next phase of my political life I am redoubling my efforts to speak up for the people of Salford as their Member of Parliament. I am returning to the grassroots (where I began), to political activism, to the cut and thrust of political debate.

"Most of all I want to help the Labour Party to reconnect with the British people, to remind them that our values are their values, that their hopes and dreams are ours too.

"I am glad to be going home to the people who matter the most to me: the people of Salford.

"Finally, there's an important set of elections tomorrow. My message is simple: get out and vote Labour."

Touching, isn't it? I wonder if she will get her knife from Gordon Brown's back as well.

Home Secretary latest odds...

The initial odds for the Home Secretary position are

Alan Johnson 3/1	David Miliband 12/1	Hilary Benn 20/1
Alistair Darling 7/2	Ed Miliband 12/1	Jack Straw 20/1
Shaun Woodward 11/2	John Hutton 14/1	Harriet Harman 20/1
John Denham 6/1	David Blunkett 14/1	John Reid 33/1
Ed Balls 7/1	John Cruddas 18/1	Andy Burnham 33/1
James Purnell 8/1

The best odds are probably David Miliband at 12/1 or James Purnell at 8/1. It would make a lot of sense for Gordon Brown to place his closest rivals for the leadership of the Labour Party in the one department where the Sword of Damocles hangs over all its residents and falls eventually.

Jacqui Smith Has Gone... Hoorah...

It has been reported by various media outlets that Jacqui Smith asked to be relinquished of her duties as Home Secretary over two months ago. Combined with the news that three further Labour MPs are stepping down at the next general election, this is indeed a dark day for the Government.

It was not so much a straw that broke the camel's back, more of an avalanche. Let's have a quick review:

• The pre-charge detention limits for terrorism suspects
• The arrest of Damian Green
• The loss of crucial data from most of her sub departments
• Rejecting scientific evidence in favour of political motives
• Supporting the National ID card
  
• The pay row between the police and government
• Ignoring the European Court of Human Rights' decision concerning DNA and fingerprints of people with no criminal record
  
• The expenses claim that her main residence was her sisters house, not her constituency home
• Claiming for porn films on expenses (claiming she believes herself to be vindicated)
  

There is probably a lot more, but memory is against me... Something tells me history will not be too kind to Mrs Smith, if it remembers her at all.

Revolutionary Leader

David Cameron has recently been championing himself as the revolutionary leader that will have the will and stomach to undertake the radical reforms that the public are demanding for at Westminster. There are two observations that can be made from this claim:

• Never trust a leader who wants power, but then is willing to relinquish it almost immediately. Tony Blair made similar fanciful claims when he was Opposition Leader.
  
• The tactic being employed by the Conservatives is a simple one, 'what ever the public wants'. This is a very dangerous strategy, without any defining ideology to guide their hand the Conservatives will potentially get backed into a corner of conflicting public opinion. Just do not mention the EU.

Hannah Arendt was correct when noting “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.” We will see after the General Election.

The Night of the Long Knives

With a humiliating defeat in the European and Council elections on the cards for the Labour party, pressure is going to increase exponentially on Gordon Brown to call a General Election. The calls will almost be deafening. How will Gordon Brown survive?

He will stave off press speculation and public opinion like many of his predecessors by a cabinet reshuffle. Thus almost blaming the cabinet for the failures of the current government. That's wonderfully called 'collective responsibility'.

Gordon Brown's enemies are surrounding him, slowly but surely in the dark corners of the PLP, Labour is still crucially split along old divisions. Not divisions such as Old and New Labour, that one has been laid to rest long ago, but the Brownites and Blairites. Mr Brown will want all his allies close, in important positions, this is not the time for heeding the Godfather's advice about keeping you enemies closer, in this current climate the PM will form a 'Kitchen Cabinet' with his closest political allies.

It is obvious that Gordon Brown will purge his Cabinet of ministers that could threaten his leadership, with the exception of the poison chalices of the Home Office and Justice Ministry which it is possible to expect James Purnell and David Miliband to fall on their swords at. Also a possibility is that Mr Brown could use the re-shuffle to follow the populist route and exercise the ghost of the Bliarite era; Hazel Blears, Alan Johnson and John Hutton.

With Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper being promoted to senior positions in Mr Brown's 'Kitchen Cabinet' the purge will be complete and Gordon Brown might survive until next year, but a week is a long time in politics, let alone a year.

It will be interesting which story the Daily Telegraph chooses to publish on Thursday morning, it could provide an intriguing insight into the paper's motives and agenda. But it should be easy to guess.