The verdicts are now in - even if not all the junior ministerial positions are.  So its time to play 'Guess the leader column'

Below are three extracts from the leader columns of today's Sun, Telegraph and Times .  You just have to match the quote to the publication -  Ready?  Here goes:

David Miliband is an undoubtedly able individual. But he has an innocent enthusiasm for the EU that might not make him the best man to play hard-ball with Britain’s partners in the deliberations to come over the final shape of a new treaty. Supposedly “Blairite”, he has a whiff of the old Left about him on the very subject that he is supposed to control, foreign policy.

Sun, Telegraph or Times?

In the mood now?  Lets have a look at number two:

This is a youthful, dynamic line-up.  But although we have our first female Home Secretary, there are fewer women than under Tony Blair — and far more ministers who want closer ties with Brussels. Worryingly that includes Foreign Secretary David Miliband who will be heading final negotiations talks on the new EU Constitution.

Feeling good?  Lets give the last one a go.

Yesterday's reshuffle was radical and bold. It was radical in the way it changed the departmental geography of Whitehall, in an attempt to deliver a semblance, at least, of joined-up government. And it was bold in its advancement of young talent while avoiding, for the most part, appointments that smacked of faction, cronyism or political correctness.

So its time to reveal the answers.

The first comes note of caution comes from The Times.  The second calling for more women comes from The Sun; The third , who's ecstatic tone continues throughout most of the piece, comes from The Telegraph.

With such a verdict from The Telegraph, the Conservatives are having a difficult time selling his "they're all the same" message (See "Brown's ministers are the past not the future" on the Conservative party website).  Indeed it looks pretty silly sat in pieces headlined "Radically reshuffled cabinet aims to restore public trust" (Independent) or "Gordon Brown welcomes outsiders" (another Telegraph offering)

Ming Campbell's line is more subtle.  There needs to be a "change of direction", not just of personnel.  However, its not sufficiently sexy to be picked up anywhere apart from the BBC ("Changes not enough, say Lib Dems")

So Gordon's honeymoon is set to continue longer than some of his detractors had predicted.  How much longer though we will have to wait and see.

Also in today's news

• Conservative MPs are still jittery about another defection according to The Telegraph ('Defection rumour fuel Tory MPs unease')

"If the relationship between the new and former Prime Minister were a Shakespearean play the drama would end with Mr Blair's resignation at the palace. Various blood-spattered bodies would lie across the stage. Instead Mr Brown appeared at the Palace minutes later and some of those bodies hope to be resurrected today. The play continues."

So says Steve Richard's in today's Independent and so it is ('Gordon Brown starts off stronger than anyone expected'). Unfortunately, as we have merely arrived at the interval, not the final curtain, the journalists are all petrified of making predictions that are too bold today, for fear that they will be eating their words tomorrow.

Yes, there are rumours about more defections ('More defections to come, brags top aide'); some Cabinet positions are known (see the BBC for announcements as they happen) but today is a day for instant reaction, not the dead-tree press.

Just a quick throwback to the Quentin Davies from The Telegraph then...

The paper did its best to ignore the story yesterday.  Perversely, by dedicating so much coverage in today's edition the paper is spinning out the 15 minutes of fame that yesterday it suggested he would get.  They have a je ne regret rien piece about Davies ('The Conservative Party has gone crazy, says unapologetic Davies') A leader which reprimands Cameron for not being more attentive to his backbenchers ('What Tories must do') And a collection of quotes from Quentin Davies' back catalogue about Gordon Brown ('Quentin on Gordon') 

We'll see what the pack make of today's announcements when they come through later today.

If you're the kind of person that is deeply suspicious of David Cameron, today's papers make entertaining reading. 

Three commentators in The Times argue very different viewpoints:

• Danny Finkelstein outlines a highly convoluted argument to prove that Quentin Davies' defection is nothing to worry about ('Advice from a chimp')
  
• More convincing is Alice Miles expresses her incredulity that, given his record, QD can find a home in the Labour party. However, she tries a little too hard and her suggestion that this is a spectacular own goal by Brown is over the top ('First day, first humiliation for Mr Brown')
• Peter Riddell hits the nail right on the head when he says:

"Quentin Davies will be lucky to have as much as 24 hours of fame. But what a 24 hours!"

The Independent is in agreement ('A twist of the knife') whilst The Guardian pushes too far the other way ('A devastating defection')

The Telegraph does its best to ignore the story altogether - it's not mentioned on their websites home page (though it is bulleted on the front page of the print edition), nor is it a big enough story to warrant any mentions in its leaders.  However, like many other papers, it prints the correspondence between Davies and Cameron in full.  The comparisons with Douglas Howe are a little far fetched, but there are many good lines that one can imagine hitting the streets in Ealing, Sedgefield and other potential by-elections over the next few weeks (Hull East, Streatham, Hamilton North and any other by election rumours doing the rounds at the moment)

The Brown vs Cameron match has certainly started.

Also in today's news

• If the advance of celebrity politics worries you, you won't be pleased about yesterday's meeting of Tony Blair and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Both are feeding off the characteristics that one personifies and the other lacks.  Simon Hoggart identifies the important characteristics of the meeting ('Hasta la vista, Tony')
• Ming Campbell gives an interview to The Times ('My age is a benefit, not a problem')
  

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent a frenzy through the American media this week as he left the Republican party, a move seen to signal his intent to throw his hat into the presidential race. Both the New York Times and The New Yorker see Bloomberg as a potential candidate.

Bloomberg is no stranger to cross-party acrobatics — he has “[changed] his political registration as many times as Hillary Clinton has had a geographical makeover and Rudolph Giuliani has torn up his marriage license”.  However, talk of an independent run, potentially with respected Senator Chuck Hagel, has amplified the political implications of this change.

He certainly has strengths as a candidate – primarily the depth of his pockets.  He could outspend both republican and democratic nominees without holding a single fundraiser.  He is popular in New York (much more so than Giuliani), where he is seen as competent and pragmatic.

The New York Times deems Bloomberg an electoral heavyweight capable of earning a seat at the table.  By putting his money and time into a few key states, Bloomberg could force Democratic and Republican candidates to broker deals with him to reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes.  However, the conventional wisdom is that third party candidates don't win, and can at most hope to take votes from one other candidate - ensuring the victory of the other.  Whether Bloomberg thinks he can break this mould has yet to be seen, and he has apparently told friends he has no intention of running 'as a spoiler'

A Bloomberg candidacy, let along victory, is still a long way off.  It is hard to see republicans voting in large numbers for a pro-gay rights, pro-choice, liberal, divorced, jewish billionaire.  Equally, democrats will be disinclined to break away from their nominee in a political climate which heavily favours their candidate, knowing that it may give victory to the republican.  Bloomberg is a thoroughly mediocre public speaker, and not well known outside New York and political circles, which will make it difficult for him to sell his candidacy.  All the same, no-one is yet writing him off.

The Lib Dems started the week going down a point to 14% in a Sunday Times poll.  Since then they have dominated much of the political coverage.

The question dominating today's coverage is - was Gordon Brown opening 'a new era in British politics' or 'merely doing the dirty'?

The commentators today are split.

Michael White believes that Brown's overtures were genuine.  He is looking to the future and perceives a time when he might need Lib Dem parliamentary support. ('Dangling the keys to the cabinet')

Simon Heffer, in a far fetched but very readable article, says that it was all part of a Borwnite plot to get rid of Campbell, install Nick Clegg as Lib Dem leader, and keep the Tories in check in the south-west (convoluted maybe, but an entertaining enough proposition for the length of the article.  Read for yourself at  'Is Gordon Brown a Machiavellian genius?')

Lib Dem MP David Laws has no doubts about Brown's motives ('Open maw, not Big tent'). "He wants Liberal Democrat voters, not Liberal Democrat policies," he says.  But Laws also reminds us that the Tories have been trying similar tactics recently.  Most usefully he sets out some brief criteria which must be matched by anyone trying to woo the Lib Dems into Government:

[The Lib Dems need a] package of liberal policies underwritten by the guarantee of electoral reform. No Liberal Democrat leader now or in the future will do deals with any government that doesn't deliver liberal policies underpinned by a fairer voting system.

So this week's papers have made entertaining reading for liberals.  They have reminded us that both larger parties are concerned about Lib Dem voters and will expend great effort in order to woo them - despite slippage in the polls. 

Given the oxygen of this week's publicity the Lib Dems poll ratings will now no doubt bounce.  However, the third party won't sustain the bounce if it continues to rely on others to catapult it into the headlines.

There'smuch to choose from today to follow the ups and downs of today's Paddy Ashdown story.  (In case you missed it, he was offered a place in Gordon Brown's first cabinet - an offer Ashdown rejected.

The BBC broke the Ashdown story.  Nick Robinson gives a little of the background detail on his blog ('High Stakes') Nick Assinder stresses the problems such a Lib Dem cabinet member would create for Brown with his own backbenchers ('The fallout from Brown's job offer')

The Telegraph sneers in its leader ('Brown already considers minority government') and fumes in Boris Johnson's piece ('Brown's looking for a Scottish ally')

Peter Riddell in The Times considers Browns 'Government of all the talents' phrase in ''Big tent' approach shows limitations to tribal politics'

The Guardian leader ('Breaking the mould') is both stimulating and contradictory. It outlines both why it would be electorally damaging for the Lib Dems to go into a Brown government and why it thinks they should do so anyway.  Its reason being that it's bad form for a party to be committed to cooperation between parties to rule out working with Labour and the SNP in Scotland; Plaid and the Conservatives in Wales; David Cameron and Greg Dyke in London; and Gordon Brown in the Cabinet - all in the same month!

John Kampfner offers a more optimistic assessment ('If Brown means it, this could herald a new kind of politics' - also in The Guardian).

One of the most insightful pieces though comes from former Ashdown staffer, Sean O'Grady in The Independent ('The dream of power still keeps Ming running')  In it he quite rightly states:

if the Liberal Democrats become associated with Labour next time they will be crushed. David Cameron is even now peeling back those "soft Tory" voters who the Lib-Dems captured back in the 1990s. They are happy to vote Lib Dem as a sort of protest, but much less happy about voting for a Brown stooge. "Vote Campbell, Get Brown" is a powerful Tory slogan.

Labour will no doubt campaign on a similar "Vote Lib Dem, get Tory" line, which they repeated quite successfully last time.

The only realistic cause of action for the Lib Dems is to carve out their own identity.  An identity strong enough to stand clear and distinctive, no matter who they might be working with at the time.

The Guardian has quite a scoop today  - 'Revealed: secret talks over Lib Dems in cabinet'.

This blog has eagerly anticipated what Brown's Bank of England moment will be after (ie what will he surprise us all with when he finally assumes power).  It seems that The Guardian think that bringing Lib Dems into the Cabinet might be the answer.

Like many scoops, the story isn't quite as exciting as the headline.  What starts off as a 'plan for one or two senior Lib Dems to join Mr Brown's first cabinet' becomes, a few sentences later, 'an all party initiative on the future of the British Constitution'.

The story though has heavy overtones of Blair and Ashdown's Project from 1997. So is it a case of back to the same on same old?

Its difficult to argue yes.  The arguments that worked in The Projects favour then - work against it now.

Ten years ago you had a vigorous new Government and a tired, old and divided Tory party.  There was a much agreement between Labour and the Lib Dems about constitutional reform (largely thanks to the joint work of Robin Cook and Robert Maclennan).  There was also a Liberal Democrat party that was in the habit of campaigning against the Conservatives. 

A decade on, the prospect up propping up a saggy Labour regime is much less exciting, there is far less agreement on future directions for the constitution, and across the country there are as many Lib Dems fighting Labour as they are the Tories.

The sensible money is therefore very much stacked against seeing any surprise Lib Dem ministers when Brown announces his Cabinet next Wednesday.  However, the Ashdown diaries show that leaders can run far ahead of their party if they think they can get a good deal.

Also in today's news

Picking up on The Times' poll of MPs social attitudes that we mentioned on Monday, Alice Miles writes a provocative but finely tuned piece.  Its titled 'Why are the Tories like Bernard Manning'  and includes the rather amusing line:

'[there is] a certain type of older Tory MP who considers all this sensitivity about black people and gays to be mere “political correctness”, a silly distraction from cutting taxes.'

Soon-to-be Republican presidential candidate and actor Fred Thompson is in London today, seeking to buff up his foreign policy credentials with a major speech, and, apparently, to seek the support of Margaret Thatcher.

Thompson is causing a flurry of excitement among disillusioned Republican activists - he came top of a poll in South Carolina despite not having entered the race or even yet set up an exploratory committee.

Ultimately, the excitement about Thompson reflects his star power and a deep dissatisfaction with the rest of the field.  But he is far from the Reagan conservative many of his supporters might think - two of his most significant votes during his time in the United States Senate were to support John McCain's campaign finance reform - a law loathed by the religious and libertarian elements of the republican party - and to acquit Bill Clinton of perjury.  And he is far from the Washington outsider he likes to portray himself as - he spent from 1975-1992 and 2004-2007 working in DC as a lobbyist.

Nonetheless, he is an interesting and potentially powerful candidate.  Watching his next moves will be interesting.

PS I wrote last week that Mitt Romney's mormonism was far from his only problem in seeking the Republican nomination.  Here is more evidence of this - a significant article in Time magazine ranking his 'top ten gaffes' from the last few weeks...

Peter Riddell's piece today in the Times 'Tories still not won over by  liberal social attitudes', examines a recent Populus survey of 128 MPs (70 Lab, 30 Tory, 13 Lib Dem). The survey shows that Labour is surprisingly cohesive, whilst the Tories are split on social issues such gay rights, education and British ethnicity.

One key point is that, despite talk of a possible Lib Dem- Conservative coalition in a hung parliament, the Lib Dem responses were uniformly more in line with Labour than the (often diametrically opposed) Tories.

On the issue of gay rights, for example, 46% of Tories said that gay couples deserved the same rights as heterosexual couples, but 56% disagreed. However, the Lib Dems and Labour closely agreed on the subject, with support of 92% and 83% respectively.

More importantly on education thoughts seem equally split. Only 7% of Tory MPs agree that "it would be better..to send [privately educated children] to state schools instead" is a significant divergence from many Lib Dem MPs.  Immigration and ethnicity, where differences are equally sharp, is also certain to be a much more live issue over the next few years than the largely settled arena of gay rights.

Currently the Lib Dem and Conservative parties are finding significant common ground from which to attack Labour.  This poll suggests that this is based on little more than 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. However, if election results were to put the Lib Dem's and Tories in a position to form a coalition, the differences in the parties, seen by some as slight, look set to reawaken.

• Campbell attempts to relaunch Lib Dems as 'spiky party'
  
• The Daily Star Sunday's TV critic Gary Bushell, runs for London Mayor.
• Brown outpolls Cameron
  

The papers' World News sections make depressing reading today.  The Hamas 'victory' in Gaza is regarded as a terrifying omen for all.

The move is a blow to Fatah, Israel, the west's foreign policy and, not least, the men and (especially) women of Gaza. However, as The Guardian points out, the gloom spreads further still:

'The pro-western Arab states, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are devastated by the Hamas victory, which fuels their own fears of domestic Islamist opposition and strong dislike of Iran's role in Iraq and Lebanon.' Little to celebrate at the birth of 'Hamastan''

The FT ('Gaza falls to Hamas hardliners') and The Telegraph ('Fundamentalists threaten Israel from all sides') add their own sense of doom. But its the personal perspective of a Gaza resident in The Independent that reminds us of the impact on people's daily lives in Gaza ('Amid this chaos, suffering will get worse')

And to think that sorting out the Middle East was going to be part of Blair's legacy.

A bad week all round.

Also in today's news

If you read CentreForum's recent pamphlet on demographics ('From boom to bust? Fertility, ageing and demographic change', you will want to read 'Suddenly the old world looks younger' in this week's Economist.

The Telegraph thinks that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's only problem is the fact that he is a Mormon: 'If only Romney weren't such a mormon'

It is true that Americans are suspicious of Mormonism - a poll in March found that 46 % of American's have a negative opinion of the religion.  But Romney has so far been adept at handling questions about his faith.  His answer to a question during the recent republican debate articulately highlighted the similarities he shares with Christians: "The values that I have are the same values you will find in faiths across this country."

And being a Mormon certainly brings strengths to his campaign - his enormous fundraising capacity is driven by donations from Mormons, while the organisational strength it will give him will be crucial, especially in the Iowa caucuses.

The truth is that Romney's main problem, is that, like the other two leading candidates, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani - the republican base is sceptical of his conservatism.  Videos show him claiming he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than liberal icon Ted Kennedy during a 1994 Senate race, and vowing to protect abortion rights as recently as 2002.  His claim to have been a hunter all his life embarrassed him when it was revealed he had been hunting twice.  The 'flip flop mitt' tag is already being used, and John McCain has pointedly remarked that he doesn't change his views based on what office he's running for.

A joke among Republicans involves someone putting a gun to a republican activist's head and asking them which of Romney, McCain and Giuliani they will vote for.  'You're going to have to shoot me', responds the activist.  Mitt Romney's faith is certainly an issue for his campaign.  But it is far from the only, or even the most significant obstacle he will have to overcome.

Politicians love laying the blame for their troubles at the doors of the media.  The media love biting back at criticism from politicians.  And there are few things this blog likes more than tracking how such arguments play out.

Yesterday, Tony Blair gave a speech denouncing the "feral" press in this country.

• The Telegraph leads the charge:

[Blair] forecast his speech would be rubbished. We do not do that: but, given his record on liberties of the subject, we do find his argument deeply disturbing, founded on false premises and worthy of the strongest refutation.  ('Blair's last enemy: freedom of speech')

• The FT treads similar ground:

'responsibility for spin, cronyism, sofa government and the fatal misjudgment over Iraq lies with Mr Blair and his government' ('Blair's take on a decade of spin')

• The Guardian is more supportive, though concludes that Blair is not best placed to attack the press for sidelining the role of Parliament.  And, though supportive of his general tennor, rejects absolutely statutory regulation of the media ('Good sermon, wrong preacher'). 
  

• The Independent was singled out for criticism in the speech for blurring the boundary between news and views.  That paper's editor doesn't think much of Blair's attack and wears his scars as a badge of pride (sound familiar, anyone?):

As the only representative of the multifarious British media mentioned by name, it's hard not to be flattered... But that misses the point. We are unabashed about the way in which The Independent has evolved... this newspaper was not established as an antidote to the idea of journalism as views, but as an antidote to proprietorial influence and narrow political allegiance.

• However, most interestingly, it is The Times that is most supportive of Blair.  Whilst dodging the issue of regulation entirely it backs most of what Blair had to say:

Mr Blair’s wider critique... has much to commend it... The press should be more willing to admit that most politicians enter public life out of a sincere desire to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and that they often have to make decisions with less time and less information than they would wish. ('The medium is the message')

However, it is the attack on The Independent that The Times most wholeheartedly endorses:

The tendency of some so-called serious newspapers to act as viewspapers would have profoundly negative effects if universally followed...  if the traditional media exist as a separate, self-serving universe, then the distance from readers will grow and the size of the audience will shrink. ('The medium is the message')

Blair has always been adept at courting the support of the News Corporation papers.  By attacking the weakest of the dailies, he has again secured a fair hearing in at least one of the Murdoch-owned papers with a much higher readerships.

Also in today's news

Simon Heffer in The Telegraph thinks that David Cameron's advisors have been reading too much subversive material ('Are Tories cowering before Brown terror?'):

...On a good day, the [Tory] party's alleged thinkers seem to take their cue from the Orange Book so beloved of Liberal Democrats, and on a bad one from Tony Blair's wastepaper basket.

Though delighted by the plug, this probably doesn't count as an endorsement from Mr Heffer for the Orange Book.

It's always gratifying when ones work is appreciated.  Mary Riddell in yesterday's Observer used a CentreForum pamphlet by Alasdair Murray ('From boom to bust?') as her starting point ('But not everyone can grow old gracefully').

The pamphlet argues that the demographic doom-mongers are wrong.  There are great shifts in the UK's demographics, but the nation can adapt and cope (as indeed, it has done so in the past).  Riddell accepts this and joins Alasdair in lauding the advances that have made the average 79 year old today as healthy as an average 65 year old in 1936. 

However, she remains uneasy. The pamphlet deliberately sets out the parameters that public policy must be aware of over the next 50 years.  Riddell picks up our challenge and starts to ask how we need to adapt.  In particular, she is concerned about care for frail, elerly people who don't enjoy a good quality of life, concluding bleakly:

[I wonder] why a society that opened up a wonderful new frontier of human existence has contrived to make it such a barren place.

Also in today's news

Ming Campbell has been trying to find a voice over the weekend with limited success:

• His letter to Gordon Brown about reform of the Prime Minister's powers of Royal Prerogative was picked up in today's Independent ('MPs should be awarded Queen's historic powers, says Campbell').

• His interview yesterday with BBC's AM programme sounds rather unenlightening from the write up on the BBC website ('Sir Menzies fends off critisicm')  The emphasis on the importance of housing is interesting though.  Does this mean that Ming is being told by his pollsters that housing is concerning the voters enough to make it a top priority?  And do the Lib Dems have enough of an identity on that issue to make it a key feature of any future election?
  

Today’s press is unimpressed by the deal reached by the G8 on global warming. 'Deal or Raw Deal?', screeches the Independent, proclaiming that George Bush had ‘refused to commit’. 'Too much grandstanding, too little progress', argues the Telegraph.  Most blame the US president.

It is correct that George Bush did not agree to committing the US to cutting emissions by 50%.  But this misses a key point – George Bush has no greater power to commit the US to cutting greenhouse emissions than he does to sequester carbon from the atmosphere with his toes.  To see why, read the US constitution: 

(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

The successor to Kyoto, as indeed will any multilateral effort to combat climate change, will come in the form of a treaty.  And the idea that Bush has two thirds of the US Senate behind him, ready to commit to a 50% cut in emissions is laughable.  The Senate is probably the toughest parliament in the world in which to pass legislation, as last night’s failure of a bipartisan immigration bill clearly shows.  In addition, the states have their own prerogatives on this issue – California has some of the toughest emissions targets of anywhere in the world.  The US political system is more decentralised than most realise, and the president is weaker than most suspect.

Bush could command a reduction in emissions by executive order, or make executive agreements with other countries on this issue.  However, this would likely provoke a political firestorm and would not survive beyond the time he leaves office.  All of which means that much of today's press coverage today is misguided. George Bush simply does not have the capacity to commit the US to cutting its emissions by 50%.

The piece in today's papers that attracted most discussion in the office this morning was Johann Hari's piece in the Independent, Now we know where Cameron really stands.

In it, he says that the Cameron's handling of the grammar schools debacle demonstrates that he doesn't have the strength or will to resist the right-wingers in his party.

He concludes:

The Tory leader... has given in to his right-wing instincts and the foaming fringes of his party. David Cameron half-heartedly picked his symbolic Clause Four fight this fortnight, and lost. His liberal language is now exposed as the tinsel and baubles on a big Redwood tree.

The piece is entertaining enough.  Many liberals are suspicious of the depth of Cameron's Liberal Conservatism and he has certainly fluffed the grammar schools issue. 

However, I doubt that this moment will long be regarded as the seminal moment in Cameron's conversion to the dark side, that Hari implies.  His piece is entertaining and appeals to those already hostile to Cameron - but there will need to be another two or three major fumbles before the general public share Hari's analysis.

Ruth Kelly and Liam Byrne think we should have a national bank holiday.

Britain's bank holiday's are curiously lifeless affairs.  Most other countries have a national holiday - many also add additional days to recognise achievements of great men (and sometimes women) of the past.  Britain merely notes that the Bank of England is closed for the day - and concludes that we should therefore all have a day off.

Deborah Orr in The Independent goes some way in explaining the unease many liberals naturally feel about promoting Britishness:

I'm just too British to stand around saying: "The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth." ('Now they seek to micro-manage our lives in the name of patriotism and freedom')

The Telegraph Leader ('Britons can't be fussed') puts it more simply:

Being British means not worrying too much about what it means to be British.

Kelly and Byrne's ideas, of course, went much further than proposals for a bank-holiday - and its Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian who gives the most considered analysis ('OK, lets have a Britishness test.  But it must be for everyone, migrant or not')

Rather than quote from it, I suggest you read the whole thing. 

My only observation is that common to all commentators today there are hints of Woody Allen - ie that you have to wonder about the eligibility of anyone to the Britishness Club of anyone who really wants it.

The 'Heirs to Blair' theme of current Conservative thinking is further reinforced today.  Former News of the World editor, Andy Coulson is going to try to do for the Conservatives what Alastair Campbell did for New Labour.

Michael Howard is well known to be angry at Cameron's grammar schools policy.  What will he think therefore of this move? In case you didn't catch it, the Newsnight confrontation between Howard and Alastair Campbell is still available for viewing on the BBC2 website (click forward 57 minutes for the good stuff).

The most interesting take on all this in today's papers comes from former Number 10 Spin Doctor, Lance Price in The Telegraph ('Cameron needs a media strategy')  In it Price explains that Cameron is doing well on the presentation front already, but the vision and strategy are lacking.

He isn't wholly persuasive in his arguments.  He claims New Labour prior to 1997 put forward coherent messages about what they were for, not just what they were against.

By doing that, New Labour kept all but a tiny minority of their traditional supporters on board and built a coalition of support that proved unstoppable.

My recollection of 1997 probably differs from Lance Prices in a number of ways.  But I seem to recall New Labour doing a very good job at bashing John Major's government and not such a great job at proposing an alternative vision any greater than the 5 pledges on the back of a credit card.

Also in today's news

There was considerable interest in the movements of the British housing market earlier this week with the Daily Express and Daily Mail leading with diametrically opposing front pages ('House prices still soaring' in the Express and 'Is the house price boom over' in the Mail) For an authoritative view have a look at The Economist ('Fighting over their castles')  Nothing particularly new, but a typically robust overview that you would expect from that magazine.