Today the commentators are digesting George Osborne's 'heir to Blair' comments.

The Guardian leader says "Once, Tories were embarrassed to be told that their leader wanted to be the "heir to Blair". Now they boast about the fact." ("The Tories and Tony")

The Tories have never really got a handle on Blair.  In their undisciplined campaign of1997 they campaigned on the twin, incompatible themes that a) Blair was all spin and no substance, but that b) there was sufficient substance somewhere to justify the 'New Labour, New Danger' demon eyes.

Now with Tony (nearly) out of the way, they feel they can come clean on what they thought about Blair all along, he was on the right lines, but messed up the implementation.

As Peter Riddell writes:

'The Tories’ calculation is that, despite Iraq, the Blair brand was unbeatable, while the Brown brand is beatable. In claiming the Blairite mantle, the Tories want to portray Gordon Brown, let alone most deputy leadership contenders, as abandoning the centre ground on reform and reverting to the left.' ('While the Chief is away, the Tories try to claim his mantle')

The obvious danger of this tactic is that Brown wrongfoots it by pressing ahead with the same kind of agenda he has supported as Chancellor.  Peter Riddell adds:

'...nothing infuriates Mr Brown more than to be described as antireform.'

If Brown does outline new reforms, the Tories will have to support them or be charged with saying two new incompatible things: the reform is wrong, and Brown stands in the way of reform.

The Tories were on stronger grounds when pressing a devolution agenda.  But devolution does not fit with the image of any 'heir to Blair'.  If the Tories are now giving up on devolution, the Lib Dems have a golden opportunity to pick up that ball and really run with it.

Last week we sniggered as Janet Daley well and truly lost it over the Tories' grammar school debate.  I look forward to reading her next missive on the issue - but it seems she has lost the battle with her own paper.  The Telegraph today backs Cameron. ("Cameron must win grammar war")

The Independent link the row to their Communicate Research poll - Con 35 (-1) Lab 31 (+4) LD 19 (-3).  For the best analysis of the Independent's figures, though, turn to PoliticalBetting.com.

Three other articles that caught our interest this morning were:

• Following up on the French elections, Sarkozy is proving to be popular, helped mainly it seems by ditching many of his policies.  As suggested by the CentreForum seminar on the results of the French poll, The Times reports that Sarkozy is not acting as the iron man he presented himself as ("Tough guy melts into soft-show shuffler")
  

• If you're feeling more cerebral, Chris Dillow in The Times suggests four reasons why the structure of Government dooms most of its initiatives to failure ("We put up with terrible, inept government. Why?")
• Finally, and on a related vein, Jonathan Freedland writes about the impact of the internet on politics ("The internet will revolutionise the very meaning of politics") .
  

Technology is cool and fast, but it still tends to be about sending men to sit in wood-panelled parliaments and marble-floored senates. Does the internet really promise no greater change than that?

Eric Schmidt [Google CEO] says no; the old structures of representative democracy will endure. "They survived world war two and they will survive this." Besides, he says, no one wants mob rule, even if direct democracy was possible - say through regular electronic voting.'

Freedland disagrees.

'If Wikipedia can assemble nearly 6m entries in 100 languages with just five employees, why would it not be possible to draft "wikipolicy" through a similar process, one that would then be voted on by elected representatives?...  I wonder too about the very units in which we now participate. Currently, geography matters a lot: we vote in the areas we physically inhabit. But if millions of people are linked by MySpace, why is that not a political community?'

Wikipolicy is an intriguing prospect.  Wikipedia works pretty well in the main, even though people have to form consensus around facts.  Can people also form consensus around opinion?  It should be put to the test - and on FreeThink we have the apparatus to do this.  But what should the subject be?  Let us know if you have any suitable ideas and we can try it out next week.

When I heard Martin Shipton (Western Mail) speak last Turseday, at the UCL's Constitution Unit, he spoke of Welsh politics developing hour by hour rather than day by day, I didn't quite appreciate the accuracy of this at the time. It has only been since I've tuned in to the farcical soap opera that has been the so-called 'Rainbow Coalition' between the Lib Dem's, Conservatives and Plaid Cymru that this has appeared to be the case. A game of spot the difference illustrates this fact:

Look at Greg Hurst's (Times) pieces from Thurs 24th and Fri 25th. How is such a U-turn even possible? It certainly hasn't done any good for the Lib Dem's reputation, spurning the chance of ridding Wales of Labour leadership for the first time in more than 100 years.

So what now for the Welsh Lib Dem's? It has great rivalries with Labour at a local level in areas such as Cardiff, Bridgend, Wrexham and Swansea...so no coalition there. It has burned its bridges with the Conservatives and Plaid also. Perhaps the Lib Dem's are just tired of being the bridesmaid? Is it now time to stand by themselves, even if in opposition, to stay true to a liberal agenda and stop compromising for the sake of a place in the executive?

Also in the news:

In an attempt to deflect attention from the grammar schools debacle, the Tories returned to more traditional policy grounds, announcing new proposals to control immigration.

Fresh from last week's rubbishing of the Lib Dems, Simon Jenkins this week writes an article that, in many ways, could only be written by a Lib Dem.  The cause of his ire this week is the Planning White Paper:

Blair's dismantling of local planning under the 2004 act is clearly to be completed under Brown. His ambition is simply to de-democratise the future development of Britain. When he next makes a speech about wanting "empowered communities and enabling rather than centralising government", someone in the audience should blow a raspberry and shout "hypocrite". The Tesco Clauses betray big business's grip over Labour

The Times fills in more of the details about what is upsetting Jenkins so much ("Proposals give supermarkets an easy ride to out-of-town centres")

Also in today's news

• David Howarth gives an update to the Lib Dem position on nuclear power ("These nonsensical arguments for nuclear power") More of Howarth's reasoning can be found in CentreForum's Britain After Blair.
  
• If you've been following The Tories squabbles over grammar schools you will want to read "Cameron should look to his Right" by Conservative Home editor, Tim Montgomerie.  The message is that the Tory right are wanting to flex their muscles - but backed out from doing it this time.
  

There are two big policy debates raging at the moment in the newspapers: Grammar Schools and Housing.  By rights the former shouldn't be commanding the headlines it has as it is a re-statement of existing policy.  Margaret Hodge brings a genuinely new angle to the second with her remarks about "indigenous" people in her constituency who can't get a house.

The commentators are queuing up to guide you through the arguments.  You can read the main protagonists.  David Cameron in today's Times sets out his argument ("This sterile fixation with grammar schools is a dead end")  Janet Daley is so angry in her counterblast ("When did wanting the best for your children become a crime?") that it becomes rather entertaining.

Steve Richards, in The Independent, does a much better job at shedding light on the subject in "Cameron must learn the lessons of this pointless furore over grammar schools".  It seems that the newspaper's sub editor has done Richards a disservice by titling it so, as Richards actually concludes that Cameron has acted perfectly properly and that its the right wing press that are keeping the Conservative Party from achieving its greatest potential.

On the issue of housing there is "Ignore myths, stick to the facts" from Michael White in The Guardian and "Shame on you, Margaret Hodge" in the Telegraph (which is worth reading for the comments alone).

However, the best article of the day is in The Times, penned by David Aaronovitch.  "Come paddle with me in the soupy Middle Sea" draws the grammar schools and Housing strands together in a hymn of praise for the centreground in politics today. 

"[Parties moving to the centre] is only a difficulty if you think that, say, climate change is either not a threat or quite fun, or that Britain should become a very high-tax or very low-tax economy. If you don’t think those things it is positively capricious to blame politicians for not conjuring up imaginary storms just to keep you entertained.

Outrageous policy pronouncements like those by Margaret Hodge and Janet Daley sell more newspapers than prosaic arguments of the centreground.  However, that doesn't make grammar schools right. It just means that politicians of the centre need to work harder on presentation.

Tim Hames in today's Times bemoans our celebrity obsessed world in a rather entertaining article "I don't give a damn about what the PM has on his iPod"

Rather conveniently this fits well with FreeThink's new debate on celebrity politics.  The trend for successful people from business and entertainment to move into politics has long been practised in the US.  However, where Michael Bloomberg succeeded in the US, UK businessmen with good track records, like Conservative Archie Norman, have struggled.  Similarly, Sebastian Coe's olympic gold medals didn't save him from the Tory wipeout in 1997.

That hasn't stopped many politicians trying to make the move in reverse ie attempting to become 'slebs' through their political career.  However, the likes of Lembit Opik, Boris Johnson and
George Galloway suggests that the Brits might struggle with this too.  The Americans again seem to do this better; Bill Clinton has used his political career to become a global brand in his own right.  Last year Al Gore started to look like he could begin to do the same thing.

As Tim Hames' article demonstrates, the personality topic is often dismissed as fluff, the media culture through which politics is conducted cannot be ignored.

If you think there are lessons that can be learned, go to our discussion board to compare the successful and unsuccessful celebrity politicians.

This morning CentreForum enjoyed a French breakfast in the company of Christian Lequesne, a professor from the College of Europe and Eric Albert, a journalist from La Croix newspaper.  They discussed the implications of Nicholas Sarkozy's victory last weekend - you can see more of the details at the CentreForum website ("L'etat, c'est moi!")

Today has had some reflection from the papers and news magazines too.  Con Coughlin in The Telegraph draw's on Tony Blair's trip to Paris to comment on both Blair and Sarkozy ("Yesterday's man is still centre stage"), while The Economist panted breathlessly for long awaited reform of the French economy with their portrait of "The Gaullist Revolutionary".

Both articles, like most the British coverage, emphasise how big a break Sarkozy will be from the past.  And both speakers at this morning's event agreed that he has an ambitious programme that will focus on Industrial relations, immigration, youth crime and Europe. 

However, coming away from the breakfast you were left with the distinct impression that The Economist and Telegraph should prepare for disappointment:

• Yes, there will be trade union reform, but it won't demand majority member support for strikes, and if agreement can be made with the unions before the summer there might be no need for legislation at all; 
  
• Sarkozy will be open minded about CAP reform - but not to the extent that most outside France would like;
  
• He wants to see a more dynamic work force, but those expecting France to drop its protectionist frontiers, especially from the man who bailed out Alstom, should be more realistic when considering the future of companies like Aerospace.

The picture from our speakers this morning was certainly nuanced. 

France might have a new leader, but the French body politic might not be in for as rude a shock as either the Telegraph or the Economist would expect or hope for.

Now the dust from the elections is settling there are questions being asked of all parties.

Simon Jenkins starts things rolling for the Lib Dems with "Nice but hopeless, the Lib Dems should call it a day" in yesterday's Guardian.  In it he makes several points about PR - but he starts by saying:

"What are Liberal Democrats for? They are the flotsam of 20th-century politics drifting on into the 21st, coagulated from ancient clubs, cabals, splits and defections from other parties. Not since the 19th century have they cohered round any great interest. They represent no mass movement, no breaking of the political mould. Ask a Liberal Democrat what he or she is for and you get only a susurration of platitudes." The Guardian

However unfair/misguided you might feel Jenkins is, it is nonetheless interesting that a serious commentator can say it.  The Liberal Democrats are perhaps unique in having the charge leveled against them that they fill no gap in the political market.  Parties far smaller than the Lib Dems aren't challenged in the same way be it Green, SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein, Scottish Socialist or even Scottish Pensioners.  Their gameplans are all clearer - but much, much narrower.

Most journalists are most happy in a bi-polar world of Conservative and Labour.  However unhealthy it may be, it is far easier to act as a guide through a political narrative of two competing views of the world.

Simon Jenkins suggests that a Lib Dem vision is based merely on PR.  He should know better - but that might be a fair reflection of the ordinary punter's view of the party.

This means the Lib Dem's leadership of the third party needs to evangelise a coherent Lib Dem vision - hammering home a liberal vision of 21st century Britain.

More interesting reactions to this from Lib Dem blogs A liberal goes a long way and Cicero's Songs.

Also in the news

• Interestingly the other parties are also being asked similar questions of themselves.  Oliver Letwin started talking about "a new Tory philosophy based on the importance of improving people's lives rather than concentrating on economics." Coverage in The Telegraph. ("Cameron puts society back on the agenda").

• In today's papers its obvious you can't move for Blair retrospectives - but as we've already said - we recommend our own comprehensive (if a little longer) audit of the Blair years (Blair: the record, the legacy").  With all the concentration on the past there is little about the future.  Even John McDonnell and Michael Meacher have delayed saying which, if either, will throw their hat into the Labour leadership ring ("Brown rivals delay bid decision").  The best offering therefore is Michael White's look at what Blair did and what Brown might do when merging, demerging and splitting ministerial departments ("Is Brown planning new break ups")
  

The papers report on last night's Sarko-Sego TV debate - but the value of such debates is in viewing them yourself and making up your own mind - as a reputed 20 million french men and women did yesterday.  The news channel France24 (one of Chirac's legacies) has a nice package about the debate available under the title "Royal and Sarkozy go head-to-head in fraught TV debate".

Elsewhere the journos were clearly getting an early night in preparation for tonight's flurry of late-night news as the results roll in. 

There was an interesting story from the Press Association this morning that Blair was going to resign as an MP at the same time as standing down as PM.  However, this has now been firmly denied ("Blair will not quit yet as MP")

Turn instead to the best of the Blair retrospectives that are abounding at the moment.  For our money there are only two worth serious contemplation.  The Guardian has assembled 11 Steve Bell cartoons which is like a trip down memory lane. Meanwhile, CentreForum have just published a fully revised and updated audit of the Blair years in 'Blair: the record, the legacy' which comes highly recommended.

Also in the news today

• The most pointless waste of ink and paper award goes to The Telegraph for its leader column today.  You could have forgiven them if they had acknowledged what a parody of themselves they have become.  Never mind - read "The Tories and the Union deserve your vote" to enjoy The Telegraph at its predictable best.

Just a few days ago the papers were predicting meltdown for Labour.  Indeed the Guardian ran "Labour in dissary as SNP takes eight-point poll lead" on 29th April.  However we're treated to two polls today in three papers (The ICM poll was shared by The Guardian and The Scotsman - though The Scotsman neglects to mention this fact!)

For easy comparison here is a handy FreeThink table:

You can read the full reports for ICM in The Guardian ("Labour surge threatens SNP") or The Scotsman ("Too close to call").  You can read the report about the Populous poll in The Times ("Scots Nationalists cling on as Labour narrows the gap")

Beware the very low numbers for Others here.  They will be squeezed by a strong SNP. After all Salmond is promising to do a lot more with protest votes than the divided socialists can hope to do.  The Greens will crash and burn if they get anything less than 6 per cent.  Polling below this will wipe out 6 of their 7 seats.  However, when the numbers are so low its very difficult for pollsters to accurately reflect their support.  In 2003 the 17 seats the Others won were divided between 7 different organisations.  We will all know tomorrow night anyway!

Also in today's news

• The FT continues to keep its eye on the ball with the French elections previewing tonight's Sarko/Sego TV debate ("Royal works to win votes in TV clash")
• And in non-election news Matthew Parris gives his own insight into the Lord Brown affair ("There is no public interest in the juicy bit of tittle-tattle")  However, one thinks back to Parris' own outing of Peter Mandleson and wonders a little at double standards.