There's an interesting story lurking around the bottom of the political pages (see 'Phil Collins bows out' in The Standard, 'Labour put on the path to tragedy, says Blair ally' in The Guardian and  'A tragedy is unfolding under Gordon Brown, says Labour adviser' in The Telegraph). Phil Collins, a speechwriter for James Purnell, has been told his services will no longer be required following an article he wrote for this month's Prospect magazine called 'Liberalise or die'.

The article contained two elements that might have been cause for dismissal.  Firstly, it was a little rude about Brown and his most loyal acolyte, Ed Balls.  Secondly, and more interestingly, it said that Labour needed to become more liberal.

"For New Labour to survive, it must become new liberal. The key dividing line in politics is no longer between left and right, but, increasingly, between liberal and authoritarian. The Labour government too often finds itself on the wrong side of this divide. One of the lessons Labour ought to have learned from 11 years in charge of the state is to be humble about the limits of that power. Another lesson is that the demands of individuals for more say in how public services are provided and delivered are growing stronger."

The article is quite succinct and well worth reading in full. 

It also makes an interesting companion piece to CentreForum's 'Lib-Lab' paper from October last year, which looked at the prospects of coperation between the two parties.  That concluded:

"Should Gordon Brown succeed in drawing the poison of the Iraq war from the British political debate, relations between the parties would inevitably improve.  If, at the same time, he was to display real leadership on the environment and a genuine willingness to disperse and decentralise power, the prospect of meaningful Lib Lab co-operation would again become real."

If Collins was dismissed because he was a little rude - the story doesn't mean much (apart from the fact that Labour can't take a joke at the moment).  If, however, he was dismissed because the people in Number 10 fundamentally disagree with the argument for decentralisation that Collins makes, the prospects for Lib Lab co-operation seem more remote now than they did last October.

It is extraordinary how much the political mood has changed in recent weeks.

Until fairly recently the winner of the next General Election was a hotly debated issue.  Now people are treating a Conservative victory as a foregone conclusion.  People have forgotten how unclear things seemed just a few months ago.  In today's Guardian Peter Wilby's premise is not only that Labour will lose - but that they were always going to:

"a Conservative victory at an election in 2009 or 2010 was always likely as part of the cycle of democratic politics." (Peter Wilby - Labour has much more to lose than just the next election)

As the title suggests, he not only sees the next election as a loss for Labour - but has doubts whether they can win the one after that.

What are the Lib Dems to make of this this climate?

With a recent by-election in mind some will wonder whether Clegg will be subject to a Crewe-like squeeze across the country.

In 1997, on the back of a massive national swing to Labour, the Lib Dems gained nearly 30 seats from the Conservatives. But Labour's sweep was so strong that the Lib Dems lost some held held seats like Rochdale to Labour.  Blair was also able to win several seats from third, leapfrogging the Lib Dems in places like Conwy, Falmouth and Cambourne, Hastings and Rye and St Albans.

At the next election there's every reason to expect Lib Dem seats fighting Labour will benefit from a big Conservative swing.  But the Conservatives will also be challenging hard in Lib Dem held seats. The electoral arithmetic shows that there are a third fewer seats that the Lib Dems are in second place to Labour now (103) than they had against the Conservatives in 1997 (158).

The Crewe results don't mean that the Lib Dems can't make gains.  But the ability to defend held seats will be crucial in ensuring that gains from Labour won't be offset by losses to the Conservatives.

George Bridges has unfortunate timing.  The former Senior Conservative staffer writes in The Telegraph today criticising the Lib Dem leader for failing to make an impression on the press in his piece 'Nick Clegg is about to get squeezed out'.

Unfortunately, that piece has appeared on the same day that Clegg has managed to get a raft of stories across a range of papers.

Firstly, The Guardian, Telegraph and Sun cover his Afghanistan visit - mostly because of the rocket fire that came his way whilst there.

Secondly, there's a poll in The Guardian that puts the gap separating Labour and the Lib Dems at just 5% (Con 41% [+2], Lab 27% [-7], Lib Dem 22% [+3], Other 9%[+/-0]).

Thirdly, Clegg has a long article in The Independent about modernising the political system ('Democracy, what a great idea!')

Fourthly, The Telegraph picked up a story yesterday about the Lib Dems being prepared to see a minority Conservative Government if that's what the electoral arithmetic produces ('Nick Clegg will back Tories in hung parliament').

Finally, a speech Clegg is due to make later today is already attracting attention. Not least notable praise from The Guardian leader:

"Both opposition parties would rightly scrap ID cards, but unlike the Conservatives - who would squander the savings on building more jails - the Lib Dems would distribute the money through carefully targeted tax cuts. Other Clegg economies are more controversial, such as cuts to tax credits for those on middling incomes and the scrapping of Labour's popular baby bonds scheme, which gives every child a nest egg. But delivering tax cuts inevitably involves making tough choices. Mr Clegg is showing commendable courage in making plain where the axe would fall."

That piece is certainly worth reading in full. It notes that Clegg's current call for tax cuts on low and middle income earners mirrors the message of the Lib Dems in the 1990s for more spending on public services.  In both cases the Lib Dems out-flanked the main opposition parties: and in both cases the opposition leaders were happy to be out-flanked.

That's not to say that that George Bridges can be ignored. His central point still holds:

"With every poll that shows the Conservatives heading for a possible working majority, the Lib Dems risk becoming irrelevant. Mr Clegg, praying for a hung parliament, is still trying to play footsie with Mr Cameron, saying at the weekend that he would support a minority Conservative administration so long as he could "vet" the Queen's Speech. He can expect to be ignored."

Lots of Londoners liked Brian Paddick and were prepared to support his with their second vote - but in a tight race that was perceived to be a clash of two titans, they wanted to express their view on that clash with their first.

Many people have said that Labour will be looking at its performance in Crewe this week to see if their "Tory Toff" message will play to a wider audience. But surely the Lib Dems will also be looking to see how their Crewe messages have helped them resist the squeeze to put them ahead of Labour.

Anatole Kaletsky does a good job summing up the Government's current difficulties in his piece in The Times today ("It all looks like Enron Government")

In it he not only gives reasons why Gordon Brown is in the position that he is - but also suggests that things are likely to get worse rather than better:

"...if Mr Brown's fiscal rules could be ignored so easily this year to accommodate a £2.7 billion tax cut... why shouldn't they also be ignored to satisfy fuel-tax protesters and pensioners and underpaid public sector workers and bankers demanding bailouts and homeowners struggling with their mortgages and multinational companies threatening to pull out of Britain and farmers complaining about the weather and indeed you and me, since we would all prefer to pay less tax and get more out of government? In short, this week's U-turn could presage a summer of discontent in which every possible claimant and lobby demands its extra share of taxpayer funds."

He also gives a useful summation on what other commentators have been saying about the Draft Queen's Speech and addresses why, having been a good Chancellor, he's having so many problems as PM.

Also in today's news

For our take on John Edwards backing Barak Obama - see our today's other blog entry.

My bold prediction that Hillary Clinton would be gone by the weekend proved sadly incorrect. She continues to fight on despite the impossible odds she now faces - at least until Kentucky and Oregon next tuesday.

Despite Hillary's overwhelming and entirely predictable win in West Virginia, John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama is dominating the current news cycle. And rightly so - although the impact and leverage of an Edwards endorsement has been reduced by holding out for so long, it is still important in a few key ways.

1) It moves the news away from West Virginia and gives Obama a solid news cycle of positive coverage which would otherwise have been spent discussing his failure to win white votes in West Virginia.

2) Edwards has somewhere in the region of 20 delegates, in virtue of his 2nd and 3rd placings in the early contests before he dropped out. Those delegates are allowed to vote for whoever they want - most will likely now go to Barack Obama - with some already announcing that they will do so.

3) Edwards will be very helpful to Obama in Kentucky, and with white working class voters in general - among whom he has credibility. Bear in mind that Edwards got 7% of the vote in West Virginia despite having dropped out of the race 4 months ago. Obama is expected to lose in Kentucky by a West Virginia-esque margin, and Edwards campaigning there with him could help him narrow the gap.

Lastly comes the question of what job Edwards could take in an Obama administration. VP ought to be a non-starter - he failed to fulfil the 'attack dog' duty of a VP candidate in 2004 and failed to bring a single southern state (or even his home state) with him. But his endorsement makes him the current favourite to take up the position of Attorney General in an Obama cabinet - which would fit with his legal background, his desire to help the poorest, and allow him to follow in the footsteps of his hero Robert Kennedy.

Lots of liberals don't like their politics being placed on the traditional left-right axis. Most Liberal Democrat front-bench spokesperson reject the terms when asked where they are by journalists.  How refreshing therefore to see a similar line being used by Ken Livingstone in today's Guardian:

"Following May 1 some people are posing the choice as between moving "to the left" or "to the right". This is not the right question. Labour must place itself at the centre of a progressive alliance that can solve the problems facing the country." Yes, I lost.  But still Labour must learn from London

His argument is quite interesting - not least as it comes from the man that used to be synonymous with trying to drag Labour leftwards.

There have been scores of articles this week seeking to give a steer to the Government.  Now that Labour have reached historical lows in the polls (See The Sun or Political Betting) there will no doubt continue to be much more where that came from.

CentreForum's latest publication on special educational needs is published today (read it here): arguing that parental empowerment and choice should drive SEN provision - rather than the opinions of bureaucrats or the artificial 'inclusion' debate. It gets trailed in today's Guardian ('Minister seeks more help for dyslexic pupils'); keep an eye out for more press coverage coming soon...

On to the US, where the democrats can now definitively be said to have a nominee. Hillary Clinton went into the night needing a big  win in Indiana and a narrow loss in North Carolina to solidify the doubts about Obama's electability in the minds of undecided superdelegates. It didn't happen. She got pummelled by 14 points in North Carolina and won Indiana by just 2. Obama won more delegates, more votes, and the larger state (and the one which is more likely to be competitive in November). The night's events blew a massive hole in Clinton's claim to be the more electable candidate.

Crucially, the media is also beginning to conclude that this race is over. Tim Russert declared on MSNBC that Obama has won the nomination. The opinion forming Drudge Report headlined with a photo of Obama and the words 'the nominee', while Obama's victory speech moved him firmly into general election mode. Rumours are circulating that Wes Clark - an important Clinton surrogate and long-time member of the inner circle - called her to tell her to withdraw. Fundraising is likely to dry up, and advisors are conceding that the campaign is effectively broke. If she wants to continue, she will likely have to put more of her own money into the race.

She needs to ask whether such an investment is likely to reap dividends. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that she will have withdrawn from the race by the weekend.

As the fallout from last week's elections continues to be assessed, attention turning to the role of policy in the results.

First off is Anthony Browne, director of Policy Exchange, who writes in today's Telegraph - 'Time to examine Conservative policies'. He sees policy as being crucial to David Cameron's continued pitch forward momentum:

"Cameron and his team need to "seal the deal" with the voters, not just relying on discontent with the Government, but setting out positive reasons to vote for them. That means concentrating on core themes - mending Britain's broken society, delivering real public-service reform, less Government interference in people's lives and more social responsibility."

Rather bleakly, Peter Riddell feels that policy will have little to do with recovery Labour's potential recovery ('Gordon Brown is a leader left with very few options'):

"I doubt whether the publication of the draft legislative programme for 2008-09 – with its proposals on housing, health, education and constitutional renewal – will reverse Labour’s unpopularity."

Labour's recovery, Riddell beleives, hinges entirely on the economy.

Polly Toynbee in The Guardian has an interesting variation on this theme ('Labour has nothing to say and no territory of its own').  She thinks Labour are boxed in on policy and will have difficulty attacking the Conservatives:

"[Labour] can hardly castigate Tory "reforms" out-sourcing more of education and the NHS. Labour did that too. Or rebut Tory promises to be even tougher on crime, sentencing and filling up more prisons, because Labour did that too. Favouring business and the hyper-rich? Labour did it too. Ungenerous to the poor? Labour will trip over its 10p tax debacle... That is where triangulation has led: Labour has nothing to say and no territory to call its own."

She is putting her hope in the ideas being espoused in a speech by James Purnell today.  CentreForum will be going along to hear what is being said - so more about this in the future.