The Beat Goes On

Let's just go through how things have turned out so far, starting with a few key points from the English County elections:

Labour have called the shots in Lancashire for 32 years. Yesterday more than half of their Counciilors lost their seats. They have controlled Nottinghamshire for 32 years as well: a group of 35 Councillors is now just 12.

In Norfolk, Labour were the main opposition group. They are now in fourth place, behind the Greens.

The most devasting result, however, is Staffordshire: Labour have controlled the County Council since 1981, and had 32 Councillors elected in 2005. They now have just three, and are in fourth place behind UKIP.

In Doncaster, meanwhile, they lost the Mayoralty to the English Democrat candidate.

And to make matters worse, Ian Gibson is forcing a By-Election in Norwich North. Which is why Labour's fall to fourth place there should be viewed with alarm: fourth place was precidely what they got in the County wards which (either wholly or partly) comprise the seat. The Tories came first with 12,531 votes; the Greens 6,030; the LibDems 5,702 and Labour with just 5,561. If the various swings displayed this week were repeated in the upcoming By-Election, Labour would lose the seat, coming second (which is less humiliating than fourth arguably) to the Tories. The Greens would come third and the LibDems fourth. UKIP, meanwhile, would come fifth, but would save their deposit.

With the wave of Cabinet departures, Brown's reshuffle did not go as planned: Smith, Blears, Purnell, Hutton, Hoon, Paul Murphy have all gone from the Cabinet, and Caroline Flint's temper tantrum at not receiving a promotion overshadowed proceedings somewhat. Incidentally, her outburst makes Labour the first party to be accused of sexism by both genders. And in her case, it hardly sticks: Smith was fundamentally damaged by her expenses (including darling hubby's porno flick) and probably had to go; Blears too was causing more harm than good and her resignation (coupled with that "Rocking the boat" badge) was an attempt to destabilise Brown further. Yvette Cooper has been promoted and Flint's petulant strop highlighted why she was pretty much unfit for office anyway.

But even without that, eyebrows should be raised. A number of ministers chose the timing and manner of their departure (that's not a good thing) and others have apparently put their foot down and made it clear that they too would head for the exit door if asked to move departments. As a result, continued briefings that Alistair Darling would be leaving 11 Downing Street proved to be wide of the mark. Unfortunately, this wasn't idle speculation by commentators, this was fed to journalists by key sources, suggesting that circumstances forced Darling and David Miliband to remain in situ.

Then there's the role of Peers. Leaving Alan Sugar aside, the one portfolio (besides Leader of the House of Lords, which really has to be held by one of its members) that you'd expect to to be held by someone from the Lords is the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary. It's held by a Commoner, Jack Straw. However, the Attorney General continues to be a Peer, Baroness Scotland, while the new Europe Minister is Glenys Kinnock, who will gain a Peerage. The new Transport Secretary is a Peer, Lord Adonis. And the Business Secretary is still Lord Mandelson, whose department assimilates the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and who assumes the title of First Secretary of State - a de facto Deputy Prime Minister.

How strange it is that Peter Mandelson, a man trailed by what cartoonist Steve Bell described as a personal miasma of low-level sleaze should become the Willie Whitelaw of the Labour Party. But that is where we are.

But there's a wider point: as things stand, he has twenty slots to fill from the House of Commons not including those posts which attend Cabinet despite not having Cabinet rank, such as Europe Minister. He has 348 people to fill those slots. That has not proven possible.

Which, with European election results and the possible reaction to them, begs the question, is Brown not trying hard enough or are the failings that will probably lead Labour to defeat at the next election failings not exclusive to the Prime Minister but shared by the whole PLP?

Even the Peers aren't immune from criticism however: Labour has 214 members of the House of Lords, yet Brown has had to create a new peerage for his new Europe Minister. Barring the twenty two Cabinet appointments (including those posts that typically go to Peers), that makes a total of 540 possible candidates.

348 people to fill twenty Cabinet jobs. 540 potential candidates for Europe Minister. And Brown has to find a 349th person for a Cabinet post, and a 541st person for Europe.

Maybe, under those circumstances, getting rid of Gordon Brown won't solve anything for Labour.

Here Come The Drums

The polls have closed. And Gordon Brown has lost another member of the Cabinet: Jacqui Smith's intention to depart emerged two days ago; Hazel Blears quit yesterday in a departure timed to offer the most embarrassment to her now former gaffer; James Purnell has gone at a slightly less awkward time but with devastating effect.

Frankly, Jacqui Smith's been on borrowed time for ages - no one would have noticed had she just gone.

Blears, on the other hand, did herself no favours. By leaving 24 hours before polling day and just a short while before Prime Minister's Questions, her departure was nothing short of a political suicide attack, and her pledge of support for Labour in the elections rang hollow. It certainly rang hollow in her constituency, whose residents were vox popped on North West Tonight last night. Every last one of those shown on film was hostile to her.

But Purnell? Well, firstly, he was direct: he has made it clear that he wants Brown out and will no longer serve in his Government. And, compounding his claim that he has done it for the Labour Party, has waited until 2201 hours before going public, showing a little more decency than Blears and casting himself as a knight in shining red armour. And Brown is reportedly stunned by the decision.

I think everyone was expecting a Macmillan-esque Night of the Long Knives to take place on Monday, with perhaps a third of the Cabinet being sacked following an embarrassing election result, just as in 1962. Instead, those same knives have been turned the other way: members of the Cabinet are planting them in Gordon Brown's back.

Now, before it has even begun, Brown has three vacancies to fill: he can anticipate Jacqui Smith's departure, while he now has Blears and Purnell's to respond to. Further, rumours tonight indicate that David Miliband could go tomorrow. That creates four slots, and it's not clear who would fill them.

And Brown faces conflicting pressures.

Firstly, think about who has already gone: Blears and Purnell, in charge of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Work and Pensions respectively. Now, we hear how the government is "getting on with the job" in this time of recession. Yet when dole queues are growing, and more people on benefits, when people are still in need of decent housing and in the wake of local government elections to higher-tier councils and new unitary bodies such as in Cornwall, some of the two key departments at this specific moment are rudderless. Therefore, one can argue that Brown has to fill the gaps immediately.

On the other hand, this reshuffle was inevitable and it was going to be triggered by the elections, the results of which are not yet known and won't be fully known and understood until Monday. Now we may have a broad idea of how things are going and we may well know that it's bad for the Government, but it will be around 84 hours before we really know just how bad bad has got for Gordon Brown. On that basis, Monday evening is when the reshuffle ought to happen, and junior ministers will just have to pick up the slack over the weekend.

So now, we wait and see. Will the reshuffle take place on Friday or on Monday? Will Miliband quit? Just how bad have the results been for Labour? Will anyone else emerge from the woodwork? Will Gordon Brown opt to shuffle out? Will circumstances force the General Election that the SNP and Plaid wish to see?

And with him being linked to everything else, will Roberto Martinez end up in the Cabinet?

Of course not: he'll head back where he belongs, to the warm, welcoming arms of Dave Whelan and the Latics.

Seriously, though

From the Sunday Mail, on the 19th of October:

Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray... said: "These are serious times for serious people like Gordon Brown."

From the BBC, today:

PM Gordon Brown has criticised Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross for their "inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour" on Brand's radio show.

Wonderful, isn't it? We're looking at worldwide financial losses of £1.8trillion, 500,000 householders in the UK in negative equity with a further 700,000 at risk, the value of workers' pensions falling by a third, a UK economy that is now shrinking, and a likely 45,000 repossessions across the UK (so much for those vaunted safeguards Labour are bragging about!) and in the middle of all of that, the Prime Minister, that serious man for serious times, is pratting about passing judgement on two overpaid wankers who, for some inexplicable reason, were let loose in the vicinity of a microphone.

Be serious. Or don't be serious. But choose one, and stick to it. And if you're going to get your allies talking about how serious you are, don't waste time prattling on about Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross.

PS For the record, although Brand isn't my favourite, ahem, "entertainer", I do enjoy the weekly column in the Guardian sports section, penned by his ghost-writer.

Brown sidesteps a By-Election

Call off the party folks, the Sunday Herald reports that the Motherwell & Wishaw By-Election is off.

It appears that Jack McConnell will no longer be the High Commissioner to Malawi, and will instead be envoy to Africa. So he'll now be handling UK diplomacy for an entire continent while remaining an MSP. I'm sure the people of Motherwell & Wishaw will be just tickled pink about that.

My Sunday Whip is going to have a new regular line as well: "Jack McConnell was absent" is clearly the new "Margo MacDonald abstained"...

Leadership Saturday: It's not easy being Brown either

Gordon Brown has received another blow to his Leadership of the Labour Party, with a Government Whip, Siobhain McDonagh, has demanded that nomination papers for the Leadership be sent out. McDonagh has been sacked, and MPs have been on TV to rubbish her, saying she never supported Gordon Brown in the first place.

This begs the question, what was Brown thinking, giving her a ministerial post at all? He was supported by 313 MPs and McDonagh wasn't one of them. She'd been a loyal Blairite for ten years and hadn't got any meaningful post, so at a time when Brown didn't need to be generous. Blair clearly thought that her loyalty outstripped her ability, so passed her over: why did Brown go another way?

And indeed, the block of Brown supporters appears to have been divided into two groups: the first is comprised of genuine supporters; the second is the sycophants' block, who saw which way the wind was blowing and sucked up to Gordon. Doubtless they are regretting that decision now, but it's too late. But the point is this: McDonagh was never part of the first group and didn't have the political nous to join the second when Brown was on the up. Worse still, Brown was dumb enough to give her a job despite her lack of either loyalty or good judgment. Now, you could argue that it's better to have some people in the tent pissing out than out of the tent pissing in, but she's caused far more damge by attacking Brown from a Ministerial posiiton than she ever could have as a random backbencher.

Meanwhile, Brown's position has been made worse by similar calls for nomination papers from Party Vice-Chair Joan Ryan and George Howarth, an ex-Minister who's been in elected politics since 1971 and in Parliament since 1986. In short, people who you don't want to annoy.

But I have no sympathy for them. Why? They signed Brown's nomination form last year. If there really needed to be a challenge, and a discussion on the way forward, why didn't they have the guts to call for one when there was an actual vacancy? Why have they heaped more trouble on their Leader now, when he has enough on his plate? They're jumping ship, quite simply. They had their chance for an election, when an alternative candidate would have required the support of one eighth of the Parliamentary Labour Party, rather than the fifth required now.

They should have thought twice about Gordon Brown's leadership before they joined the Sycophants' Block last year.

That shiver is still looking for a spine to run up

Wasn't it Winnie Ewing who said that a shiver went across the Labour benches, looking for a spine to run up? Well, it's as true today as it was when she (or whoever) first uttered that line. Wendy Alexander has caved in to Gordon Brown, and gone off the boil as regards a referendum.

It turns out that they won't be supporting a referendum because the SNP want to hold one on their terms. Seeing as the SNP are the Government, this is quite natural. The fact that the SNP position is the same as it was right the way back at the start of the 2007 Election campaign - that there would be a referendum in 2010 - has not stopped Labour from accusing the SNP of breaking a manifesto promise, by planning for policies to take place in the future in accordance with, er, the SNP manifesto. Compare and contrast this with Labour, whose policy appears to have changed hourly.

This, incidentally, is why I disagree with Kez's comparison with events leading up to the SNP's support of the 1997 Devolution referendum. Was there a tactical element to the SNP's considerations? Of course! Just as there were tactics involved in Labour's decision to hold a referendum in the first place. But implicit in invoking points in history when the other side did something you're being accused of is an admission that you find the action distasteful, and that you're only doing it because the other side did it. If an action is wrong, they shouldn't do it, rather than carry it out then blame the other side for doing something similar in 1997. "Well, that lot did it!" is an argument deployed most often by seven year olds in the Primary School playground. I think it should be left to them.

Besides, tactics are always going to come into it: every announcement, every policy, is carefully weighed. How is it to be presented? When is it to be presented? How is it to be delivered? Those questions are big ones in politics, and we ignore them at our peril. Why? Because if you get the tactics wrong, you never get the chance to put a policy into practice - you don't get that support at the ballot box in the first place. So for my part, I don't have a problem with Wendy Alexander trying out new tactics - rather, I think that's her job: she's supposed to challenge the Government, she's supposed to look like a potential First Minister, and if doing one thing isn't working she absolutely has to try doing something else - but for me, the problem was that the tactics were, well, awful. And so it proved.

But in any case, the comparison with the SNP in 1997 is invalid. At the heart of the choice facing the SNP then - back or attack devolution - was a major ideological question: should the SNP accept it as some autonomy coming to Scotland, a marker of progress on a road to independence; or should it reject it as a lousy halfway house, an attempt to sate Scots and deny them full self-determination? It had to be considered, had to be discussed, had to be thought out, and it took a National Council meeting to confirm that yes, devolution is an acceptable stepping stone and the SNP would support it as welcome progress. The only tactic used was to leave the decision until there was a clear proposal from the new Government after the election, rather than annoy one wing of the Party just a couple of months before their help would be needed.

Wendy Alexander, on the other hand, had an inconclusive phone call with Gordon Brown, obviously had someone leak it to the Sunday Mail what she was thining about, and then blurted it out on BBC Scotland.

And now, after a week of discussing it, of the position shifting so rapidly, we now have the Labour position, which can be summed up as "the SNP don't want to play our way, so we're not playing at all".

But here's the thing: for all its risks, for all the chaos that surrounded it, support for the referendum was the right thing. I've been saying all this time that if Labour (and the others) really believe that Scots support the Union, then they should take the issue directly to the people and settle it for a generation. Wendy Alexander looked like she agreed with that, and I can't knock her for it now: the tactics may be poor but the principle is entirely correct. The problem is that she's met the Clunking Fist that was supposed to beat David Cameron... it's beaten her instead.

As soon as Gordon Brown made it clear that he was less than enthralled with the idea, it was never going to get off the ground. The notion that he has 'lost control' of Scottish Labour is a nonsense: what has changed is that he has other matters to distract him, so he has taken to slackening the leash. But he can still yank it back at any time and this is what happened this week. Alexander's plan was doomed from Wednesday lunchtime - that was predictable. It was also predictable that they'd try and blame the SNP, whose response has been to say nothing other than, "We're glad you want a referendum, we promised one in 2010 and we'll stick to our promise!" It's the right thing - the only thing - to say.

I'm sad - but not surprised - that Wendy Alexander has been beaten. I'll be even sadder - but still not surprised - if she ends up having to quit over this. She probably has to go, even though she doesn't desrve to: she's been slapped down in a rather humiliating fashion, she's found herself unable to hold down a specific policy for longer than an afternnon, and she's allowed what could have been the most radical plan to come out of Scottish Labour for years turn into a self-destructive squabble. But for everything that has gone wrong, the idea was entirely the right one. It's just a shame that the rest of the Labour hierarchy didn't agree with her.

Bear with me on this one

Once upon a time, I had a cheap, crappy joystick attached to one of my previous computers, the one (obviously) with the game port that came with my soundcard. The joystick was a bit rubbish, quite frankly, but it did the job. It was plugged in, the computer recognised it and it worked on all the games I wanted to use it on.

One of those games was FIFA 97, and I duly instructed it to use the joystick. Until I got bored with the game - as, sadly, is my way; I am a fickle thing when it comes to computer games - and decided to play Transport Tycoon or something.

Then, of course, I went to Uni, and took the computer with me. Though I decided that the joystick was taking up box space that could be used for RF signal booster and 5,000 SCART cables that I took up to Edinburgh with me. I have to be honest: I did not initially miss the joystick.

But one day, I was going through the Start Menu, and remembered that I still had FIFA 97. So I decided to run it, to pass the time.

Disaster! I could load the menus, and start a game, but for some reason, I simply couldn't control the virtual players. They were running around like digitised headless chickens, bumping into one another, unable to respond to any instruction I issued, from either the keyboard or mouse.

Then I realised. The game was still working on the basis that I was using a joystick. The joystick wasn't there. It was seeking commands from a controller whose absence it wasn't prepared for.

In the past few days, Gordon Brown has been too busy with Labour's embrassment in the local polls - and I maintain that it's not the meltdown it's perceived to be - the 10% tax row and detention without trial (to name just three things in his in tray) to get down and dirty with the complexities of Scottish Labour. This weekend, the joystick was, in effect, disconnected from the party.

Then someone decided to load Wendy Alexander and click "Run"...

I think I've got the details of how things have progressed since Sunday, but I fear I may have lost track. From what I can tell, she said she wanted a referendum to spook the SNP on Sunday morning, as I blogged before she went on the Politics Show. Then, I thought it was the stupidest thing she could do.

Then she said she wanted the SNP to get their arses in gear and publish their proposals ASAP. This was the dangerous bit: goading the SNP, daring them. And, perhaps, saying something that some SNP supporters might agree with, albeit for different reasons. Could she have cottoned on to something?

Then momentum gathered, and Wendy was going to put forward her own proposals for law. And yes, she absolutely had Brown's backing.

Then a Downing Street press spokesman started distancing Numer 10 from her idea.

And Brown appeared to believe that "We want an independence referendum" means "We want to hang around and wait for the Calman Commission to report back, then we'll have a think". Which is actually a completely different sentiment though probably the most sensible one for Labour, who, through Wendy, have now severely pissed on their chips in terms of Tory and LibDem support.

Thn someone checked the Parliamentary rule book, and found that if the Government intends to legislate on an issue, there ain't no Member's Bill. And if an MSP can't get at least one other party for support on an issue, then there ain't no Member's Bill. And seeing as 1) the Government do intend to propose legislation, and 2) a Wendy Alexander Member's Bill on the matter wouldn't secure support from any party except her own, her plans were pretty much dead.

Now they are appearing to claim that it was all just a wheeze to throw eggs at the SNP. Which is probably the truth, but it's confused a lot of people - not least a certain Mr. J. G. Brown of Downing Street, London.

So where do we all stand? For one brief period, the SNP had won the support of the main opposition party for its main policy: an independence referendum. Then the Labour approach seemed to turn from a concrete policy proposal into political blancmange. The Tories can accuse Gordon Brown of not knowing what Wendy Alexander is doing (how can he, when she clearly hasn't exactly got an A1 grasp of that herself?) and judging on his apparent unawareness of precisely what she said, they have a point. Meanwhile, the SNP can point to Wendy Alexander being slapped down by Gordon Brown, citing her return to the old mantra: "The prime minister and I are agreed". They clearly are not, and Brown has said and done nothing to support a referendum - he could arrange one through Westminster if he wanted to - even in the past 48 hours. Therefore, if the two are agreed, Alexander has been forced to backtrack. So to English anti-Labour audiences, Brown looks even more like a blundering oaf who can't even work out what's going on in his own backyard. To Scottish anti-Labour audiences, Alexander looks like a puppet whose strings have got tangled, forcing the PM to take control again.

And all because Scottish Labour's joystick wasn't plugged in.

It's getting worse for Wendy

Barring the fact that Charlie Gordon put Paul Green's name forward for an honour of some description - have they learned nothing from Cash for Honours? - things have got worse for Wendy Alexander. We learn that Moir Lockhead, Chief Executive of First Group, was approached for a £995 donation, but declined to provide it. We also learn that it was to be channelled through John Lyons, the former MP for Strathkelvin & Bearsden, falling foul of the law barring donations through a third party. And to make matters worse, the man behind this donation was one David Whitton, MSP for Strathkelvin & Bearsden, now Wendy Alexander's PPS.

Meanwhile, "Tom" (McCabe, undoubtedly, now Labour's member of the Corporate Body, and Wendy's campaign manager) got Neil Davidson and Willie Haughey on side. "Jackie" (Baillie, Shadow Parliament Minister) arranged donations, as did "Pauline" (McNeill, now Shadow Education Secretary). Another donor was approached by "Jim": the Sunday Herald does not join any dots here, but this could well be Jim Sheridan, MP for Paisley & Renfrewshire North. One wonders how many others helped secure donations, and whether or not this explains why Alexander's Shadow Cabinet is so large.

Anyway, the bell would seem to be tolling for the Leader of the Opposition, but one figure supports her: Gordon Brown wants her to stay on according to the Sunday Mail, but his motives are less than pure. If Wendy goes, Harriet Harman has to go. And she has attached herself to him, so if she goes down, Brown goes down with her.

Scottish Labour is now languishing, tearing itself apart with a weak leader at Holyrood, now unable to land a blow on the SNP Government. And Brown is willing to let his party wither on the vine so that he can stay in Downing Street a little while longer. To paraphrase Jeremy Thorpe, greater love hath no man, that he should lay down his party for his office.

Brighton finally gets a rest

...but Bournemouth cops it, as Labour drops in this week.

And the big question is, will Brown use his speech to announce the date of the next General Election?

On the one hand, the polls look good. On the other hand, the polls can be (and have been) wrong, and even if things stay exactly as they are, it's believed that boundary changes in England and Wales cost Labour twelve seats. A swing of 1% to Labour would restore the Labour tally, but are swings to governments all that common. And a swing of 2% away from Labour and we say goodbye to Brown's majority.

On one hand, Brown might want his own mandate, as a status symbol. But if he loses, he goes down as the shortest serving PM since Canning, who had the excuse of death in office. If I recall, the last PM not to see a Hogmanay in office was Ramsay MAcDonald in 1924. Brown might want to avoid that example.

Then there's the state of the Tories: Cameron is losing support on the right to UKIP, and his attempt to touch base with his core voters have left those in the centre cold. The Tories are weak, so with the LibDems looking irrelevant, now's the time. But in Scotland, Labour are finding things more difficult than at any point over the last fifty years, and rumours abound that internal strife is a problem: within the Holyrood group, and between the Holyrood and Westminster groups. In an election where every seat will count, every SNP gain will give the West Lothian complainers something to crow about. And in the event of a hung Parliament, could Brown stomach turning to the SNP for support? Of course, on both sides of the border, there's a more serious problem afecting Labour: Councillors are the key to an activist and campaign base. The Councillors are out there, spreading the message, and thanks to a wave of awful local results in the last years of Blair, and the new system in Scotland, there are far fewer Labour Councillors out there to do that.

Then there's money. On the one hand, more time allows Labour to raise more cash. On the other hand, thanks to a loophole in the law, the Tories can pump more money into the key marginals now.

What about Brown's personality? Brown's supporters say that he's not afraid of tough decisions. His opponents say he's too cautious. But whatever he does, it's a tough decision, and a major risk: if he goes early, he could win his own mandate or surrender Labour's power early and unnecessarily; if he goes later he gets extra time to settle into the role and establish what the Brown government is and will serve for a little longer for sure, but things could go wrong and the defeat could be worse than any loss to happen now. So no clue there.

Presentation is equally problematic. The "it's time for change" argument may be an obvious one for the Tories - it worked for the SNP, after all - but Brown can do a Major and define himself as leading a new administration. Major went to the country 18 months after becoming PM and still managed to fend off Labour's own "Time for a change" campaign. So he can wait a few months. However, if the campaign is as negative as every Labour campaign from 1999 onwards, then he has to hope that David Cameron has no policies of his own to advocate - a recent study showed that the SNP benefitted from being able to present a positive vision, while Labour kept up a constant attack on how the sky would fall in if Alex Salmond got into Bute House. If the Tories have nothing positive to offer, Labour win by default. If they have, then Brown is in trouble. That would make it advantageous for Brown to call a vote for about five minutes' time.

And the final point is that of 'events'. Brown could go to the polls now to avoid a Callaghan, who left it too late. Events overtook Callaghan, and the extra time allowed for more things to go wrong. Brown has already had to deal with floods (handled well), terrorism (handled well), foot and mouth (handling not so well, but no one seems to notice and the affected areas are pretty solid Tory anyway, so no real problem politically), and the Northern Rock fiasco (handled the actual problem but incapable of dealing with the panic, though it's the Bank of England that appears to be feeling the heat). Can he tempt fate by leaving it? But on the other hand, anything can happen at any time, and unless it happens one second after the polls close, it can affect votes. If there were to be a crippling strike in October, or more cases of Foot & Mouth or Bluetongue, or the banking crisis rumbles on, then Brown will need time to try and sort things out.

Basically, there's a case for calling a poll, and a case for hanging on, at least until the Spring.

Today, my gut says he'll wait, but I could end up looking like a fool tomorrow. We shall see.

3 votes for Coffee, 1,435,210 votes for tea

Yes, folks, Conference season is upon us once again and as is traditional, we kick off with the TUC. (By the way, I'm hoping to be blogging from the SNP Conference in Aviemore next month, if I can get a good connection at the hotel)

Anyway, this is as good a time as any to think about Brown's relationship with the Unions. Many Trade Unionists have seen Brown as the antidote to Blair: Blair was a necessary evil, perhaps even a Trojan Horse, to make Labour acceptable to Middle England, and to secure a Labour Government; Brown was the one who would deliver real Labour policies. That was the expectation. What they got was a Prime Minister who has praised Margaret Thatcher (reviled by the Unions) for being a conviction politician, and brought in Tories as his advisors.

Remember that in 2005, UNISON launched a poster campaign, attacking the Tories and lampooning their own publicity ('Are you thinking what we're thinking?' was met with 'What are the Tories thinking?!'). If I were in UNISON, I know what I'd be asking: I'd be asking why so much time and effort was spent fighting the Tories and backing a third Labour term, only for a Labour PM to seek advice from Tories and pay homage to Thatcher.

So Brown does not (or at least, should not) start off with the best of relationships with the Unions. Where does he go from here?

Can he turn up the heat?

In the short term, yes. This will leave the Tories without a leg to stand on and generate positive headlines in the right-wing press. However, beyond that, it makes a full-on confrontation in the form of widespread industrial action very likely, and this will kill his Governmnet, just as the Winter of Discontent damaged Callaghan (though the devolution fiasco landed the fatal blow), and Heath's 'Who Governs Britain?' election to face down the miners generated the answer, "Not Edward Heath!" When the strikes bite, the press will turn, and the Tories will go on a very successful attack.

Can he pursue a niggly relationship with them, as now?

Possibly. It keeps his right flank solid, and in England, there is no credible left-wing alternative at the moment, with the exception of apathy. The LibDems are only leftist in some parts of the country (such as Manchester) and the total lack of impact by the Leadership rules them out of tempting people into their camp. Respect, meanwhile, requires large Muslim populations (and even then, they have to be completely disaffected with Labour, and completely unwilling to go in any other direction, neither of which is assured) and the person of George Galloway to thrive. Scotland is a different story: a LAbour that antagonises the Unions will lose leftist voters (though not key Union people themselves, who are too strongly associated with Labour to defect easily) hand over fist to the SNP. In a potential situation where every seat will matter, with the possibility of a Hung Parliament looming large, and with the West Lothian question hanging over politics like a cloud ready to unleash a torrential downpour, more SNP MPs would be Brown's worst nightmare. And with more SNP members in prominent local positions, it would be Wendy Alexander's worst nightmare as well.

Can he give the Unions everything they want?

Yes, but only if he wants to lose Middle England completely, hand over to David Cameron at the next election and see Labour reduced to a rump 'core vote', as the Tories have been in recent years.

Can he give them a little of what they want, but not everything?

Politically, this would be the worst option. If Brown gives an inch, the right will scream that he's kowtowing to the Unions. Only a handful will pick this up at first, but then, only a handful of Union members will be happy: they won't want to go part of the way towards their goals; they will want to reach them. Was the introduction of a minimum wage enough? Of course not: they want it to be higher. Is passing anti-discrimination law enough? Of course not: they (quite sensibly) want it to be enforced. Beyond employment law, did devolution kill the SNP stone dead, as George Robertson predicted? Definitely not!

With every demand that Brown agrees to, another one will come in its place. And with every demand Brown agrees to, the more people on the right of Labour's support will switch back to the Tories, and the more bitter the battle will become when the demands reach such a level that he has to dismiss them. He will face questions from the Right as to why he has drawn the line in the sand at that point and no sooner. He will face questions from the Left as to why he was willing to go as far as he had done, but no further. He will enter into a major row with the Unions, and perhaps the same industrial action as if he had gone into battle with them from Day One, but without the initial goodwill of the Right.

The bottom line

In short, Brown's options all carry risks: the 'niggle' option is possibly the safest for Brown, as he will be hit by the SNP, but strikes by the Unions would be impossible to justify, and he would cut off an obvious Tory line of attack that he is in thrall to the Unions who prop up Labour.

Brown likes to talk about being a 'British' politican. Here's his chance to prove it: can he battle the Tories, and win on their turf, at the expense of losing some ground to the SNP? If not, it shows that Scotland and Scottish politics is still his main focus, perhaps undermining a taunt that can be (and has been) levelled at him by the SNP (that he's sold out Scotland for his place in Downing Street), but giving fuel to the Tory taunt that he's a Scot running England, while the SNP run his own country.

And that opens up a whole new can of worms on the other kind of Union.

The Big Clunking Fist

El Gordo (get out your Spanish dictionaries folks, but bear in mind that on this one, la olla está diciendo que el hervidor es negro) has set out his plans for reform. These include:

To hand over to Parliament the power to dissolve itself, rather than have an Election called on the PM's whim. The thing is, as long as the Government holds a majority, the PM still controls this. There was no commitment to fixed-term Parliaments, and no commitment to voting reform, but there was a promise to look at the effects of voting reform introduced since 1997. This most likely means the European Election system. Perhaps Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly will be discussed as well, but I don't think it's all that likely. But perhaps Arbuthnott will get his wish, and STV will be implemented for the Europ elections? Yes, and maybe I'll find a winning lottery ticket on the pavement tomorrow.

To limit the Executive's freedom to declare war. Did we actually declare war on Iraq, or did we just go in?

A statement on Lords Reform. Oh! A statement! Wow! Just what we need! Another bloody statement!

A debate on a Constitution. But not necessarily a Constitution. Marvellous.

Regional Committees to scrutinise the Regional Ministers. These are the same Regions that are drawn up artificially by Whitehall (which kind of defeats the purpose of regionalism, really), and this is in lieu of the Regional Assemblies that died the death when people in North East England laughed the proposal out of the room.

No resolution to the West Lothian Question.

A discussion of the voting age being lowered to 16, but no commitment.

A 'concordat' with Local Government. Wow!

And a commitment to preserve the Union, but no commitment to an open debate and vote on the matter.

The problem is that most of this deals with the mechanics of Government, which never really captures the imagination. But the issue I have with every constitutional change since 1997 is that it's either been piecemeal (i.e. the House of Lords), or stapled on to the existing situation without any real consideration of its implications in the wider sense (i.e. Devolution).

Why not start from scratch? Why not go back to first principles, and discuss the Union? Why not go through every constitutional principle and look again at it? Why not have one radical, cathartic look at the Constitutional affairs of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why carry on tinkering around the edges?

Brown's Cabinet

The details have been announced:

Alistair Darling has been appointed Chancellor (cue righteous indignation from the press about the 'Scottish Raj'). His replacement at what was the DTI is John Hutton, though his title will be Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. His replacement at the DWP is Peter Hain, who also keeps Wales. The new Northern Ireland Secretary could be a controversial choice - Shaun Woodward, one-time Tory MP.

David Miliband is the Foreign Secretary - a big promotion, but takes him off the domestic stage so weakens any potential challenge. Hilary Benn replaces him at DEFRA, and Douglas Alexander is Benn's successor in International Development. Des Browne takes Alexander's Scotland role but stays at the MoD, which has already provoked Tory protests that 'our troops now have a part-time minister (their words). Ruth Kelly replaces Alexander at Transport, and she in turn is replaced by Hazel Blears.

Jack Straw becomes Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor - no surprise there. Harriet Harman replaces him as Leader of the Commons and also takes the Labour Party Chair post from Blears.

Former Chief Whip Jacqui Smith is the new Home Secretary - the biggest promotion, and the first time a woman has held the post. Geoff Hoon replaces her in the Whips' Office. Interestingly, we have no word on the Europe Minister, or if they will attend Cabinet, but the Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN will attend Cabinet, and the appointment will go to Mark Malloch-Brown, formerly Deputy Secretary General to the UN, who will take up a Life Peerage.

Alan Johnson is Health Secretary. Johnson was tipped as a potential rival to Brown and this reflects that: Brown has played the traditional Scottish Labour tactic of nobbling your biggest threat with the hardest job: Labour has lost its standing in Health according to recent polls, so Johnson has the toughest job. Johnson's old Education and Skills Department has been split into two. Ed Balls is the new Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families; John Denham takes up Innovation, Universities and Skills.

Ed Miliband - David Miliband's brother - takes over from Hilary Armstrong at the Cabinet Office. James Purnell takes over as Culture Secretary, but Tessa Jowell will still attend the Cabinet as Minister for the Olympics. Baroness Ashton takes over as Leader of the House of Lords, while Andy Burnham takes over as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Beverley Hughes will attend Cabinet as Minister for Children and Youth Justice, Baroness Scotland will attend as Attorney General, while Yvette Cooper will be at the table as Housing Minister.

The Change

Having taken office from John Major on 2 May 1997, Tony Blair is about to pass it on to Gordon Brown. Brown's inbox is... interesting, to say the least.

There is, of course, Iraq. It would be very easy (and popular) for Brown to pull the plug, but can he? If the Coalition were to pull out of Iraq, what would they leave? The likeliest outcome is that the different sides would polarise, lurch to the extremes, and generate more instability and chaos, and when I think of that, my mind drifts to Afghanistan and the Taliban. Whatever Brown does, he faces problems, that may come to haunt him or his successor.

Then there are the nations of the UK. You have opinion formers in England turning on the relationship between England and Scotland, sniffing at the Barnett Formula, and complaining about the West Lothian Question, particularly potent now that the Government is led by Brown. They complain that Scottish MPs shouldn't have to vote on English matters when English MPs can't vote on Scottish matters, and they complain that it's Scottish MPs propping up the Labour Government, as England voted Tory in 2005. Now, the Tories got more votes in England, but Labour got a majority of seats in England, so their complaint is, basically, bullshit, and they know that the voting system delivered this Government, not Scottish MPs. (And they didn't seem to mind Scotland and Wales having to deal with a Conservative government that they didn't want, but hey, they've had ten years to think about the matter)

And that's just England: Brown faces an SNP Administration at Holyrood, and has appointed as his election supremo the man that Labour MSPs blame for their defeat. He has to try to deal with Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness at Stormont, and I suspect that they'll be more troublesome to him when they're working together than they were to Balir when they were on opposite sides. Rhodri Morgan in Wales has always worked to assert his autonomy from Downing Street, and his future isn't guaranteed. He might get a deal with the LibDems (Brown's probable preferred option), but there might instead be a deal with Plaid (which would see the Welsh Assembly Government have to pull further away from London). And there's the option of the Rainbow Coalition, with Morgan being ousted by Ieuan Wyn Jones, supported by the Tories and the LibDems. This is not going to be easy for Brown to sort out.

Staying with constitutional matters, what will become of the House of Lords?

Then there's Europe. Will the new Treaty be ratified? How will Brown deal with events? What about the Euro, is that ever going to happen in the UK?

In fact, Brown is the test to see if he will be different from Blair. Blair's allies ended up being former Spanish PM Aznar (right wing), former Italian PM Berlusconi (right wing), incoming French President Sarkozy (right wing), and in the recent negotiations, the UK's best ally appeared to be Poland, led by the Kaczynski twins (right wing), the political equivalent of the Krays. Now key leftist allies are thin on the ground, but will Brown sit with Prodi, Berlusconi's left wing successor, and Zapatero, Aznar's leftist successor, or will he stick with Sarko?

And that's just a handful. This is what Brown has wanted, but does he know what he's taking on? Perhaps he's going to realise just why you should be careful what you wish for.

A darkened room

Clearly key members of the political parties need time in one right now: Gordon Brown is busy suggesting that the SNP and the Tories are working together to bring down the Union, and his point is supported by his Constituency neighbour, Menzies Campbell - this is a shape of things to come at Westminster the 'two old men from Fife' working together to run the show. That'll really put the West Lothian Question to bed, eh? Anyway, this is the daftest accusation of the year so far, and it puts him in early contention for the 'Comical Ali' award. Firstly, the SNP's refusal to have anything to do with the Tories is a firmly established Party policy and doesn't look like changing any time soon. Secondly, leading Tories (at least in Scotland) have floated the idea of propping up a minority Labour administration, to stop the SNP from getting in. Brown needs to check his facts.

On the other side, Alex Salmond seems to have lost his rag with regard to Douglas Alexander: he accuses the Scotland Secretary of never having had a job in his life, and compares him to a Sunday School pupil. Seeing as the SNP are supposed to be running a positive campaign, I'm surprised that someone as politically savvy as Alex Salmond can let himself appear so wound up.

And the thing is, the Election is still three and a half months away. If the pelters are this heavy in January, what are they going to be like in April?