Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Jacqui Smith is now suffering from the triple whammy - sympathy, ridicule and outrage - which every politician fears.

The irony is that only last week she told friends that she expected to be cleared in the inquiry into the expense claims for her second home. The home secretary has been poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year.

She is confident that she has the proof that she's spent more nights in London than in her constituency and thus, under the Commons rules, could designate her family home as her "second home" and the flat she shares with her sister as her "main home". This, of course, allowed her to claim thousands of pounds from the ACA (Additional Costs Allowance) including that TV package with the "additional features".

Thus, she has gone from confidence that she would be cleared to what I imagine must be despair in the past day or two. She is not, after all, just a minister or an MP but the mother of two school age boys who may now come to hate the day their mum went into politics.

I've been arguing for weeks that it is the system of Commons expenses and the culture which surrounds it which has caused all the problems.

Allowances are treated as just that - allowances not expenses - which compensate MPs for the fact that governments of all colours routinely ignore independent recommendations to increase MPs' pay.

Commons officials have, until recently, encouraged MPs to claim the maximum and treated those that don't as if they're fools. The Speaker and the all-party committee which advises him vainly fought freedom of information requests at huge public expense without using the time that fight allowed them to clear up the system once and for all.

Nevertheless, someone always becomes the symbol of systems that have gone horribly wrong. It is unfortunate for Jacqui Smith that she is that someone.

To many MPs, she's a likeable working mum who didn't expect to be elected in '97; whose husband agreed to sacrifice his career to make hers possible; who works such long hours that she spends more days away from her family than with it and who knows that she's on course to lose her very marginal seat and thus, her job, income and allowances, at the next election.

To many voters she's a minister "on the take" who is not satisfied with a fat salary, a chauffeur and two homes but also claims more by employing her husband, calling her family home her second home and submitting bills for porn films.

The gap between the elected and those who elect them has rarely been wider. It is in all our interests that that gap is closed.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

VINA DEL MAR, CHILE: He's visited three continents in five days, he's met the leaders of three of the G20 countries and he's carried just one message - global problems need global solutions to be agreed at next week's global summit in London.

This week's trip has been a reminder of how different the countries and the outlooks are, that will be represented at that table. It's been a reminder that the G20 is not merely an extended G7.

It includes countries like Brazil - whose president this week attacked the "men with white skins and blue eyes" who created the crisis - alongside the old club of Western industrialised countries. It also includes Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, South Africa, Russia and China.

Chairing this summit will not, one wag suggested, be simply a matter of herding cats. It will be involve herding cats, dogs and mice.

Nevertheless the prime minister claims that he can see a new consensus developing - in favour of co-ordinated action to stimulate the global economy; in favour of free trade and not protectionism; and in favour of tougher financial regulation that covers not just banks but all financial institutions and which squeezes tax havens out of existence.

Certainly here at the Progressive Governance Conference of the world's centre-left leaders, such a consensus does appear to exist.

The question, of course, is even if those objectives can be agreed, what actions will follow?

Will Gordon Brown persuade the G20 to commit to another economic stimulus, and put a figure on it, in order to add pressure on countries with large surpluses like China to spend more?

Given there is no prospect of a world trade deal, will the G20 agree to Mr Brown's proposal for a $100bn fund to underwrite trade finance and for new powers for the World Trade Organisation to name and shame countries that say they oppose protectionism but implement protectionist measures?

A recent study showed that since the last G20 declaration, 17 out of the 20 countries had introduced a total of 47 protectionist measures.

Whilst there may be agreement on the principles of a tougher system of cross-border financial regulation, will a new system be forged?

The answer to all of the above would appear to be no - according to one leader who the Prime Minister did not meet this week.

Germany's Chancellor Merkl told the Finacial Times: "We are talking about building a new global financial market architecture and we will not be able to finish this in London.

"We will naturally not solve the economic crisis either, and we won't solve the issue of trade. We will definitely need to meet again."

No wonder the Prime Minister now says that the way to judge next week's summit is not the day after it is held, but in the year after. No wonder he claims that the very existence of the meeting in leaders' diaries has concentrated minds and produced results before anyone gets on a plane.

Will that, though, be enough to reassure those protesting on the streets of London today? I doubt it.

"Give us a chance" - that was Vice President Biden's plea to the protesters at the closing news conference. He and Gordon Brown said they understood the frustration of those who took to the streets.

By the way, there's an amusing photo of all the other leaders hanging around waiting for the PM who, how shall I put it, had to make another urgent call.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"There is nothing to discuss."

That - we're told - will be Gordon Brown's answer if and when Argentina's president raises the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands when the two meet later today.

It will be the first meeting between the leaders of the UK and Argentina for more than five years.

President Kirchner is due in London next week to attend the G20 summit, which coincides with the 27th anniversary of the invasion of the Falklands ordered by General Galtieri.

Though now a democracy, Argentina still claims sovereignty over the Falklands whilst Britain insists that the future of the islands is a matter for its residents alone.

The prime minister and the president have agreed to meet today - at a less sensitive time - in Chile - a less sensitive location - in the margins of a conference of centre-left leaders.

Whilst there is a stand-off on sovereignty, both sides are hoping to make progress on restoring flights between the Falklands and the mainland, allowing islanders to trade more easily and relatives to visit the graves of those Argentine soldiers who died in the war.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Chile's President Michelle Bachelet has told Gordon Brown that her country put aside money in the good times in order to spend in the bad.

It is a boast with uncanny echoes of exactly what David Cameron says Britain should have done but did not.

The President's words came at a joint news conference in Santiago after Gordon Brown became the first British prime minister ever to visit Chile.

I've no doubt she was unaware how unwelcome her words would be to her visitor. I've also no doubt that they will be seized on by the Tories to say "I told you so".

This is ironic since President Bachelet is a socialist and an admirer of Gordon Brown. Today she warmly welcomed his leadership of the G20 and his efforts to seek a global solution to global economic problems.

He is also an admirer of hers. She has spent much of this country's copper wealth on relieving poverty, investing in public services and improving education. .

At their news conference President Bachelet called on the G20 to agree to a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus next week.

I asked her whether, in fact, Chile could afford to spend more whereas Britain could not. In reply she said that that because of decisions her country had made in the good times the country was able to spend in the bad.

Ever since the fall of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1990 Chile has grown by an average of 5% a year (until the last few months, that is).

The country set up two sovereign wealth funds to save and later invest the proceeeds of that growth. The country has run a series of budget surpluses and wiped out its national debt. Fiscal responsibility is also enshrined in law.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Britain deplores torture, the prime minister has always insisted. Yet today .

I understand that ministers are concerned there could be more allegations that British agents have been complicit in torture and even for the possibility of more police investigations. That is why the prime minister recently set out Britain's approach to torture and promised to publish the guidelines given to the security services.

Recently the intelligence and security committee of the Commons handed Mr Brown a report on the matter.

I'm told that during their enquiries, they asked one senior security official which countries it would be safe for Britain to send prisoners to if we wanted to be sure that torture was not being used. He paused for a long time and then with a smile answered Switzerland.

This investigation is going to ask some very awkward questions and its conclusions may not be comfortable.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

BRASILIA: No discussion of world football would be complete without mention of Brazil. Gordon Brown has come here because he believes that no conversation about the global economy can take place without involving the world's ninth (or tenth, depending on how you measure it) largest economy.

Economists predict (a phrase that I write with some trepidation) that the developing economies - the so-called BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) - will soon be bigger economic players than the old countries of the G7.

However, Brazil's trade has collapsed in recent months as the credit which underwrites it has disappeared. That's why today Gordon Brown will stress the importance of getting credit moving again in order to restore trade in order to get the global economy growing again.

Luckily for Gordon Brown the G20 agenda is much broader than the debate about the fiscal stimulus which has so far dominated this trip.

Whether it's in response to the , the nerves of the market or the resistance of European leaders the prime minister has significantly downplayed expectations that next week's summit will produce any commitment on a further stimulus.

By emphasising the role of monetary policy - interest rate cuts and quantitative easing - the prime minister has also played down the possibility of another stimulus in next month's Budget.

Let's be clear, however, he has not ruled one out. Although Mervyn King warned that the government had reached the end of its capacity to spend and borrow he did concede that there was a role for targeted measures to tackle unemployment and to help businesses get credit.

To those who question the value of this tour; who query what can be achieved by a couple of dozen world leaders meeting for just a few hours; who wonder whether the words in their communique will mean anything, Gordon Brown's answer is that the very existence of a summit has focused minds, has forced people to talk and, in some cases, to act.

Next week we may be able to judge whether he's right.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

NEW YORK: The Masters of the Universe today welcomed the man who wants to save the world.

Gordon Brown breakfasted with the bankers of Wall Street. His message to the men and women he's blamed for causing the global economic crisis - it's now up to governments to sort out the mess.

What - he was asked - about the warning from the Governor of the Bank that his government simply can't afford to spend and borrow more? The prime minister chose his words very carefully.

"What the issue is, actually now, is whether we are prepared, given what happens over the next few months to do what is necessary to resume growth in the economy and I think if you put that question to Mervyn King, he will say as he said when he signed the G20 communique - that we have got to be ready to take the action that is necessary to restore growth".

The prime minister does not regard that phrase as a statement of the obvious. By agreeing to it he believes that the Governor and other world leaders have not ruled out further spending and borrowing if they prove necessary.

However, he went on to downplay talk of another stimulus by stressing that cuts in interests rates and so called monetary easing could achieve the same goals.

The debate about whether his economic cure could be worse than the disease has not just followed him to America. It is mirrored here in warnings from Republicans that President Obama risks burdening this country with debts worthy of a third world country.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

NEW YORK: It's Wednesday so it must be Wall Street.

The prime minister goes to Wall Street this morning on the latest leg of his tour to build what he calls a "global consensus for global change".

It's a consensus which, after , appears to elude him at home.

At a breakfast hosted by the , Gordon Brown will hope to persuade bankers - not to mention the paper's new owner Rupert Murdoch - to for increased financial regulation, an end to tax havens and further action to stimulate the economy.

It is a package that now appears to have President Obama's whole hearted public support. In published around the world, the president says that he wants to see "bold action" to "kickstart the global economy" including what he calls a "robust and sustained" fiscal stimulus.

Mr Brown may prefer to listen to the advice of Barack Obama than that of Mervyn King.

However, the prime minister will do his best today to look unruffled by Mr King's warning that he cannot afford another significant stimulus.

Downing Street officials are stressing that more spending and borrowing is only one of the ways to get the economy moving again.

What are the other ways? Monetary policy - in the form of lower interest rates and .

The political problem with those measures for Gordon Brown is that the Tories support them too, so he cannot presently use them to create his much favoured "dividing lines" with the opposition.

Next stop, (a country which, incidentally, has a $200bn reserve).

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

STRASBOURG: Here in Strasbourg today - as in New York, Brasilia, Sao Paulo and Santiago in the days to come - Gordon Brown's message has been that the world should act together to stimulate the economy.

, though, has been this: if stimulating the economy means more spending and more borrowing, it will be without the support of the Bank of England.

To stimulate or not to stimulate is a question with an impact not just on economics, not just on international relations, but also on domestic politics.

The argument about whether to burden the country with debt () or to do nothing () is central to the argument which will run all the way to the next election.

It is an argument which will be given new force by the decisions the chancellor announces in his budget in a few weeks' time and it is one that the governor of the Bank of England just brought alive.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

And we're off. Welcome to the latest and the last leg of Gordon Brown's Save the World tour.

The stops on this leg - Strasbourg, New York, Brasilia, Sao Paulo and Santiago. It's all part of the prime minister's efforts to hammer out an international consensus ahead of next week's .

There are in truth three competing agendas for the G20. The first is the desire of Brown and President Obama for a further stimulus to get the economy moving again and, even more importantly, to give them domestic political cover for and wish to expand.

Europe of course doesn't want to play this particular game.

The second agenda is regulation. The Europeans see this as an "I told you so" moment. They always believed that the Anglo-Saxon economies were growing too fast.

There is a long gap between their ideas for trans-European regulation and Gordon Brown's talk of co-ordinated responses by different national regulators.

The third part of the agenda is other bits and bobs, with the ideal of regulating tax havens top of the list. This is popular with all, and maybe significant in the long term, but of little immediate consequence for the prospects of the economy.

Some ministers grumble that Gordon Brown has had little time for anything else. They fear that the summit will mean little down the Dog and Duck.

These are fears that in an article for Prospect Progress, in which he says "the difficulty that is now emerging in relation to the G20 is that it's simply too ambitious. An exhaustive agenda is being put forward but tries to do too much."

Interestingly, City folk that I've spoken to think that what really matters is the appearance of agreements other than the substance of what is agreed.

Welcome on board the G20 express. It should be quite a ride.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Tony McNulty is a canny enough politician to know that he has probably already been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

After all, he's stopped claiming thousands of pounds a year for what are - by his own admission - rare overnight visits to his parents' house. What's more he's called for the system of allowances to be scrapped.

The rules that allow MPs - including those who live just a few miles from Westminster - to claim expenses for a second home are far from precise. They are vague enough for Mr McNulty to hope that he cannot be proven to have broken them.

What this case exposes once again is a widespread culture at Westminster that treats allowances as just that - an allowance to be claimed with the help and encouragement of Commons officials to supplement a salary that has been held down by governments of both parties for fear of antagonising the electorate.

That's why the Tories' shadow leader of the Commons Alan Duncan today floated the idea of scrapping the allowances and increasing salaries whilst insisting that this was not party policy.

With years of MPs' detailed expense claims to be published this summer thanks to freedom of information - these allegations won't be the last.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Ken Clarke was, as ever, .

He was saying, in effect: "Look, unlike most of you, I know what it's like to be chancellor staring into a massive budgetary black hole. The only debates you have about tax are which to raise and the only ones on spending are what to cut. Back then - the early 90s - borrowing was 8% of GDP. Now it's predicted to rise to a staggering 11%. Therefore, any promise to spend any money at all can only be an aspiration."

He was reflecting a view held by a number of senior figures in the Tory leadership who also worry about sticking with a pledge to cut tax for the wealthy at a time when the party's trying to re-assure voters that the poor will not face an undue burden when taxes have to be raised and spending has to be cut.

David Cameron's answer to all this is simple. He's told his colleagues that "a promise is a promise" and that this is one of the few specific Tory pledges the public are aware of. To drop it, he fears, would reinforce public scepticism about the value of any political promise.

This is a classic lesson in the perils for an Opposition party of announcing specific tax and spending policies. New Labour types know this only too well - they remember John Smith's shadow Budget in 1992.

What sounds good at the time can look very very different when times change. You are then faced with the stark choice of eating your words and looking shifty or sticking with them and facing allegations that given a billion quid you'd rather spent it on the rich than on... (insert a worthy cause here).

PS. It looks like Tony McNulty could be in hot water since he seems to be saying that and not as somewhere to sleep which is what the is meant to pay for.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

You may have thought that Gordon Brown was too busy to have much time for anything else. Think again.

Today, the prime minister is offering to cut the number of warheads on our Trident submarines as part of an effort to kick-start the latest round of nuclear non-proliferation talks.

The number of warheads on Trident has halved since Labour came to power and the prime minister says he's ready to look at further cuts.

The numbers involved are likely to be limited. The real prize, for those sceptical about Trident, is to cancel the thing altogether or to reduce the number of submarines from four to a lower number. That would involve co-operation with the old enemy. No, not Russia. I'm talking about France.

There is no sign of that - but, in days when people are looking for more money to be saved for the public coffers, when there is a new atmosphere in the world thanks to the arrival of President Obama and when the Russian bear shows some signs of being tamed, perhaps this will be a moment when the debate about Trident reopens once again.

UPDATE, 14:18: There is little new in today's offer of a "grand global bargain" except the context and, as someone once said, context is all.

The [pdf] in which the government said they would renew Trident said:

"In this White Paper we are announcing a further 20% cut in our operationally available warheads. This leaves the deterrent fully functioning, with fewer than 160 warheads, but it means Britain continues to set an example for others to follow in our commitment to work towards a peaceful, fairer and safer world without nuclear weapons."

However, the arrival of Obama and the softening of Russia means that there is a new optimism about the possibility of renewing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

One other bit of context. The fight is on for soft liberal votes. David Cameron pitches for them by protesting about torture whilst Gordon Brown does it by outlining a more progressive foreign policy.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

David Cameron's is significant. Not for its impact on ordinary people - which would be rather small - but for the signal it sends.

Firstly, to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, which is being told: your days of expansion are at an end, and you won't be able to use the downturn to expand further.

Secondly, he's telling the rest of the media industry: we know that you're suffering and that you're angry at what you see as unfair competition from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.

But thirdly and most importantly, it is a signal to the public sector that nothing should be taken for granted and that he, David Cameron, is willing to say no. If he's ready to freeze the licence fee, this question is raised: what is his intention for government spending for which he is directly responsible?

Look again at Friday's speech, and you'll see that the Tory leader's main apology was for basing his spending plans on government growth projections.

He's clearly intending to change that; the only question is when he'll tell us what exactly he means.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Last night, as I took another gulp of red, I began to wonder if I'd had one too many when I heard ministers and those who hope to be ministers lining up to say that the law-abiding tippling majority should not be forced to pay for the binge-drinking minority. Surely, I thought, they're planning to slap more tax on booze anyway?

This, I can confirm, was not the product of an alcohol-induced haze.

The increased the duty on alcohol by 8%. This, the chancellor said, was to offset the cut in VAT from 17.5% to 15%. However, when VAT goes back up at the end of this year there is no plan to cut alcohol duty again.

Even if there were, hiked the price of beer up by 4p a pint, wine by 14p a bottle and spirits by 55p a bottle - that's 6% above the rate of inflation.

What's more, Alistair Darling announced a booze duty escalator when he announced that duties on alcohol will go up by 2% above inflation in each of the next four years.

The Tories' Social Justice Commission recommended that tax on alcohol should rise by as much as 10% to combat the binge-drinking culture producing headlines about 7p on a pint of beer.

Its author Iain Duncan Smith said there was almost an "epidemic" of binge drinking among children adding that "it is time for us to look at readjusting the price to bring it back in line with pricing that existed on alcohol before". The Tory leadership shied away from that but promised to hike the duty on alcopops and strong cider.

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol.

So, picture the scene. We're in the chancellor's office in the run-up to the first Budget after the election. Whoever's living at No 11 knows that money - lots of money - has to be raised in tax.

Do you think, just possibly, that a rise in the tax on alcohol might make it into the Budget speech given that it can be presented as a measure with all-party support designed to improve health and combat anti-social behaviour and not merely a tax rise?

Of course, the - to stop shops selling booze at a loss - is rather different from that for a tax rise. However it's done though, the price of alcohol is on the way up.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"I'll say sorry. Now will you Gordon?" That is clearly the thinking behind for Tory mistakes on the economy tonight.

On a visit to Birmingham this afternoon the Tory leader said:

"I am sorry that we got some things wrong, we were right to call time on government debt but should we have said more about banking debt, corporate debt...Actually saying sorry is the easy bit. The difficult bit is for politicians to look back and say right where did I go wrong. It's that, that needs to take place in order to build trust with the public so that we can get this economy out of recession and into recovery."

In the text of a speech he's due to give tonight the word sorry is not actually used. He does, however, warm to his theme:

"Do I believe we did enough to warn about the rising levels of corporate debt, banking debt and borrowing from abroad? No. And there are other areas of economic policy where I look back now and think we would have done it differently if we had the time again. For example, while we warned that it was wrong and complacent to claim that boom and bust had been abolished...we based our plans on the hope that economic growth would continue.

"All parties signed up to a cosy economic consensus."

So, let's be clear what David Cameron is and is not saying sorry for. He's pleading guilty to not seeing the risks posed by the debt bubble and assuming that the growth it produced would just carry on whilst claiming that it's a mistake all parties made.

However, he's been careful not to mention let alone say sorry for any specific Tory policies - on, for example, the regulation of the banks or mortgages - whether when they were in government or in opposition.

More interesting for the future of the country is his insistence that there should no further stimulus to revive the economy and his analysis about the future. He suggests re-balancing the economy - presumably away from financial services - and regulating it properly - so that small businesses aren't "strangled" or banks given "a free rein".

In truth, of course, the re-balancing and the regulating are likely to happen before he has any chance of being prime minister.

PS This is what ministers have and have not said sorry for so far:

Alistair Darling: "If there is a fault, it is our collective responsibility. All of us have to have the humility to accept that over the last few years, things got out of alignment."

Ed Balls: "The prime minister, the chancellor, the chief secretary, Peter Mandelson and myself. We've all said that we wanted risk based regulation. We underestimated the risks. We weren't tough enough."

Gordon Brown (in my interview with him in Washingtn DC): "...it's very important to recognise that where mistakes have been made you've got to say you know this is a mistake... On 10p tax rates I made a mistake. As far as the regulatory system which is really what people are worried about. I'm not sure that any regulatory system could have really picked up some of the things that were going wrong because they were coming out of so many different countries and we don't have the sort international regulatory system we're going to have to have in the future. But we know now that British regulation has got to be stronger. So it's got to be tougher. It's got to be stronger.... We should have been tougher in some areas... There are some regulatory issues where we could have and should have been tougher."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Spending cuts are coming, whoever wins the next election, however deep this recession is, whenever it comes to end. It does not suit politicians, however, to tell that stark truth.

The Tories have come the closest - George Osborne has warned that the cupboard is bare. However he and the Conservatives don't want to fall into a trap which they can see Gordon Brown setting.

The prime minister always says that he wants the election to be a choice and not merely a referendum on his government. The Tories sense that what he really wants is a referendum on them and their spending plans. In other words, another election campaign could be dominated by debate about Tory cuts. Thus team Cameron is determined not to give them the ammunition by spelling out which cuts to public spending might be necessary.

Labour, in the meantime, behave as if cuts are avoidable but their own public spending figures make clear that they are not. The Treasury's plans for the next three years show spending rises at a third of the rate since they came to power and less than the average in the Thatcher years. "Ah, but," you may say, "they are still planning rises albeit small ones." However, the figures were produced before the depth of the current crisis became clear.

What's more, if schools and hospitals are to be shielded, other departments will have to suffer. The Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates the total departmental expenditure will be frozen for the next three years in real terms. Since costs and demands in those departments will not be cut, they will have to be cut elsewhere.

Just one example: the Treasury has already announced that the capital budget of the English NHS will be reduced by £1.4bn next year.

All this is not to deny that there is, and will be, an important debate between the parties about when to cut spending and by how much. The government will no doubt unveil another stimulus in its next budget. The Tories will no doubt oppose it. There will also have to be a debate on how and when to increase taxes. In other words, voters will still have to choose. It is, however, important for everyone to be clear just what we're choosing between.

Tonight on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio 4 at 8pm, you can hear a program called Decision Time that I've chaired in which senior civil servants, former ministers and experts in public finances discuss just how this tricky decision will actually be taken. Or you can listen again on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iPlayer.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Step into Vince Cable's office and you will see a whiteboard complete with plotting the interaction of party interests and negotiating strategies in the event of a hung parliament. So tells us this morning.

The Lib Dems are, we learn, "war gaming" to prepare for the "auction for power" they will stage in the after the next election. The negotiating team is to be Cable, Chris Huhne and - oh, I almost forgot - their leader Nick Clegg, who let it be known at his that he had turned down a dinner invitation chez Cameron.

What do we learn from this?

(1) The Lib Dem leadership is contemplating a deal with the Tories if the electorate rejects Labour.
(2) They know that many in their party don't and won't like the idea of their leaders trying to get "their bums" on the leather of a ministerial Rover (as Paddy Ashdown once referred to it).
(3) What's more, they know that many of their members still regard the Tories as the bitter enemy.
(4) And even trickier, some Lib Dems are suspicious that Nick Clegg is, as some have claimed, "Cameron Lite".

Thus, the reassurance to the party that:

(1) This is being approached professionally and scientifically, using and advanced mathematics.
(2) Clegg's so anti-Cameron that he even turned down the chance of roast polenta and chianti at his Notting Hill home.
(3) Don't worry, Clegg won't be in charge anyway: it's Vince and Chris... and you know they're not Tories.

Now, what price Lib Dem support for a Cameron minority government?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Apologise for what? That is the question that Gordon Brown asks every time someone suggests that he ought to say sorry.

It is the right question to ask. Just think back to the bankers facing the select committee. When the word "sorry" is said insincerely, or when it means only sympathy to those who suffered - when it is not an apology for mistakes made - it has little value, or none at all.

Today, has delivered a speech suggesting what Gordon Brown ought to say sorry for. It is, argues Osborne, an economy built on debt: personal debt (in the form of mortgages that people couldn't afford); corporate debt (in the sense that companies were built on borrowing rather than on equity investment) and public debt (in the form of excessive public spending and borrowing).

What's more, he argues, the regulatory system has failed, with the Bank of England setting an inflation target that ignored the housing bubble, and the so-called tripartite regulating system failing to keep control of the banks, let alone what we must now get used to calling "the shadow banks": the hedge funds and other financial institutions.

Recently, ministers have been suggesting that they regret not being tough enough on the banks. Ed Balls has said it; Peter Mandelson has too, and so has Alistair Darling.

In this curious public debate between ministers about whether to say sorry and what to say sorry for, Gordon Brown seems to be answering his ministerial colleagues by insisting that national regulation alone could not have prevented the current crisis.

After all, RBS bought a Dutch bank that had been cleared by the Dutch authorities. That's why, at the G20, he will argue in favour of a council of regulators - of co-operation between regulators but not a single global regulator. The problem one instinctively sees is: if individual national regulators failed, why should they succeed when they are merely linked up?

This debate about what to apologise for, if anything, goes to the heart of learning the lessons from the crisis that we are now facing.

This is what matters - not some media storm over whether saying the word "sorry" would transform Labour's polling position or not.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"We should seize the moment." That is Gordon Brown's message to the United States of America, delivered in his speech to both houses of Congress today.

He is telling Americans that "never before have the benefits of co-operation been so far-reaching," and telling them that they can now work with the most popular American leadership in Europe in living memory.

He urges the United States to "protect and preserve planet Earth". In other words to tackle climate change, to end the dependence on oil and to create millions of jobs.

He also urges them to resist protectionism that, he says, history has told us that in the end protects no-one.

Gordon Brown adopts the tone of Franklin D Roosevelt in the depression of the 1930s, not repeating his pledge that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself", but saying that we can conquer our fear of the future through our faith in the future.

As for the economy, not surprisingly the prime minister does not come to Congress and tell them that the global recession is all their fault. Neither of course does he come and say that it is partly his fault - despite the argument that is going on behind the scenes between him, his advisors and members of the cabinet about how much responsibility he needs to accept if the public are to listen to his proposals for the future.

This was a speech which began with flattery and gratitude but ended with a challenge. It was delivered with passion and received with warmth. There were no fewer than 19 standing ovations.

What the prime minister will have noticed is the contrast between the reception for his tribute to America and for her sacrifices both sides leapt to their feet and that for his calls for action on climate change and for the government to act as people's last line of defence - it was the Democrats who led the applause then, with the Republicans rising to their feet openly reluctantly. As for his subtle warnings against protectionism, no-one rose to applaud.

Gordon Brown's hope is that what he calls an America renewed, under a new president will at last see the benefits of global co-operation. His fear, is that in troubled times, this nation may turn inward, not out, may demand that America comes first and may see saving the planet as an uncomfortable luxury to be postponed until better times.

Gordon Brown's first trip to the United States as prime minister was memorable for his awkward attempts to distance himself from George Bush and for the contrast he struck from Tony Blair, who remains hugely popular here and was, coincidentally, also in Washington this week.

However, on this trip, the prime minister looked much more comfortable, confident that in Barack Obama he's found an ally and that in these times his politics will get a hearing here. He must wait, however, to see if this country responds as he hopes or whether it was merely being polite to the leader of a nation regarded with respect and affection.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The prime minister will tell both Houses of the United States Congress today that now more than ever the rest of the world wants to work with America. Now that Barack Obama appears to be on side, Gordon Brown will seek to woo the men and women whose support the new president needs if he is to live up to his promise to make globalisation work for ordinary men and women.

Mr Brown is only the fifth British prime minister to be granted the honour of speaking to both Houses of Congress. His message to them is that never before have the benefits of international cooperation been so far-reaching. He will tell the assembled senators and congressmen that they have the chance to work with the most pro-American European leadership in living memory.

The prime minister is unlikely to repeat his oft repeated insistence that the economic crisis began in America. In an interview with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú he insisted that he'd not been wrong footed by the chancellor's public call for a show of 'humility' and the acceptance of what he called 'collective responsibility' for what went wrong in the financial system. When pressed he said:

"I think there's always a need for humility and there's always a need to accept collective responsibility and I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens. I'm just trying to explain to you what actually happened round the world."

Mr Brown will leave the United States rather envious of the room for manoeuvre his host enjoys as a new leader compared with the pressure he feels as someone who's been at the economic helm for more than a decade.

You can see Gordon Brown's speech addressing both Houses of Congress at 4pm (1600 GMT) live on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news channel.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

. No repeat, in other words, of a prime minister desperate to please and a new president delighted to have a loyal British ally.

Make no mistake Gordon Brown yearns for President Obama's endorsement, not just for his so called "global new deal" but his whole approach to the economic crisis. However in place of the folksy chumminess of the Bush/Blair era there was more formality, more awkwardness and more use of titles than first names.

Although goaded a little by reporters, the president did say that they shared spectacular wives and families and the prime minister joked that he might beat the president at tennis - if not at basketball.

More importantly, Gordon Brown heard the words he came to hear - both on the "special relationship" and on the economy. In other words that America and Britain share the same world view; that they agree on the need for an economic stimulus, for better regulation and for avoiding protectionism.

What was lacking, though, was any detail: not surprising perhaps after just a half-hour meeting and when the president is under huge pressure here in Washington to demonstrate that his focus is not abroad but at home.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"I'm just doing my job."

That's the prime minister's response to those who suggest he's come to Washington to get a sprinkling of the magic dust that surrounds the new president.

Gordon Brown is naturally delighted to be the though Japan's Prime Minister won the race to be first into the Oval Office.

His policy objective is to secure President Obama's engagement in developing what he's dubbed "a global new deal" to combat the threat of depression. So far, his officials say, the new team at the White House has been too busy developing domestic policy to worry much about British ideas for an international economic plan to be unveiled at the London meeting of world leaders in April.

The Brown plan involves cross border co-operation on financial regulation, the closing of tax havens and the reform of financial institutions like the IMF. In short, they'll involve America ceding more power to the developing economies and allowing others to raise questions about the behaviour of Wall Street institutions. It's not yet clear if the Obama administration is ready for that.

Today's meeting is brief - just half an hour followed by a working lunch with officials. On landing in Washington we learnt that there is to be no formal news conference. Questions will be taken by the leaders in the Oval Office - perhaps, rather oddly, at the beginning of it.

What, if anything, does that tell us?

Old Washington hands say that the new administration is still bedding in. When you ask what the administration's policy is on the world trade talks you discover that they have yet to have their trade negotiator approved by Congress. So far, the president has only had one news conference since taking office.

Obama's focus is still on the domestic. Tomorrow's presidential schedule includes visits to the Departments of the Interior and Transportation. Oh, and the Boy Scouts of America are visiting the Oval Office.

"Finally it tells us that today's meeting cannot be the equivalent of the Camp David "Colgate moment" at which Bush & Blair bonded. It is just a first step, albeit a significant one, in establishing what the White House now likes to call the 'special partnership' between Britain and America.

PS By a happy coincidence today's talks at the White House coincides with the broadcast of my Radio 4 programme on the Prime Minister who lost America - Lord North. The message telling him that he'd lost the battle of Yorktown and, with it, a continent took 5 weeks to reach Downing Street.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Once again, the spirit of Churchill has been summoned up by a British prime minister on the eve of his first visit to see a new American president.

Gordon Brown's message to President Obama at the White House tomorrow will be that Britain and America have stood together in war and that they should now stand together in the face of a threat which is economic.

First meetings between prime ministers and presidents are never easy. Who can forget Tony Blair in crotch-hugging chinos bonding with George Bush at Camp David?

Or Gordon Brown failing to bond with the president after insisting on suits and ties and being taken for a ride he didn't much enjoy in the Camp David golf buggy?

When Brown met Obama at Downing Street last summer, it was the Brit who was world leader whilst his visitor was a mere candidate.

Now, the prime minister craves not just a photo opportunity with the world's biggest celebrity but also a presidential endorsement for what he calls a global new deal.

Downing Street are doing their best to hide their delight that their man is the first European leader to visit the Obama White House.

What may worry them is the fact that when Mr Brown enters the Oval Office, he'll see that the gift from Britain which used to have pride of place there has been sent back. It's a bust of Churchill.

Update 1720: What, you may wonder, could possibly replace the bust of Churchill in the Oval Office? The answer is, apparently, a pen holder.

This, though, is not any ordinary desk ornament. The pen holder that Gordon Brown is bringing to Washington is made from the wood of HMS Gannet. The Gannet was the sister ship to the Resolute, the wood of which was used to make the presidential desk in the Oval Office - a gift from Queen Victoria.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I'll be blogging later about my trip to the States with the PM; in the meantime, here's something about his predecessors.

At the weekend, I chatted with Clive Anderson on Loose Ends about my Prime Ministers series (see the box on the right or last week's post) - you can hear this by clicking below (the piece is at approx 36.30).

• Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio 4 Programmes - Loose Ends, 28/02/2009

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?