ANXIETY OUTPUT FROM TREASURY SOARS

The Chancellor's antennae are quivering like a spastic mantis. He sees what the prime minister is up to. (This is best read in a low, urgent monotone. Create authenticity by suddenly smiling for no reason, and then abruptly do the opposite. Begin:) I see what he's up to he thinks I don't see but I see all right. Yes, yes, yes, I see it all. Throws Prescott to the wolves. Holds an election for deputy. Installs Alan Johnson. Stays in place for two more G8s. Hangs on in office until Johnson has built up enough capital to be a credible alternative. Runs him for prime minister. Argghh! My Precioussss! Gargle argle argle! 

"Strait-jackets, nurse! Quickly, damn you!" 

It's amazing Gordon has any time to devote to running his department.

Gordon's Brownies are out and about. Roy Hattersley has told the BBC that the Chancellor would fit with the public mood because he is somebody who is "visibly and almost ostentatiously contemptuous of spin who wants simply to say it as it is."

That is the single most extraordinary misreading of character since the Tory grandees put Mrs Thatcher in power assuming she would do what she was told. 

POOR OLD BRUTE BACK UNDER THE LASH AS BLAIR FLOGS ON

LAST NIGHT OF THE PROMS

The prime minister added to the valedictory sense with a cheerful re-run of his greatest hits, and a return to the most courteous form. A Tory called Goodwill (yes, yes, very funny) jeered at him to go to Scarborough for his holiday and then retire there. He replied with 18th century courtesy: "I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion. One of the advantages would be bumping into him in the course of my holiday. I intend to have a good holiday and I wish him one too."

The charm of the man! You find yourself thinking, "Ah, go on then, you scallywag, go bomb Iran if it makes you feel better!"

But as always with Blair it could mean one thing or its opposite. His insouciance could be suggesting he's de-mob happy (the performance reminded one senior correspondent of Thatcher's last hours), or it could be sublime confidence of someone expecting to be there forever. 

LAST NIGHT OF THE PROMS AT PMQs?

19 July 2006: Did you catch a valedictory sense at question time this afternoon? David Winnick remarked on Presco's "great contribution" to the party, the Government and the movement over so many years. Presco maundered on about his 35 years in service, and never a penny taken from any other source. He sounded like a man accepting the gold watch and the outsize card. 

He may, of course, have been thinking about the Standards and Privileges Committee report which is coming out in the morning. The mildest rebuke will be enough, men say, to have him out. But those who know say there is nothing in the report to trouble him. Pause for a moment and consider that achievement. How is it possible to write a report about John Prescott without "the mildest rebuke"? How do you ignore the fact that (as one small - one very small - instance) he shagged his diary secretary behind an open door with civil servants in the next room, and as a result, his penis was represented on the front of the biggest selling paper in Europe as a cocktail sausage?

But then consider this, too: "I was not in any way involved in the sale of the Dome?' It's what he said. It's there in Hansard. But how can it be true? How on earth is he explaining it to himself? What brilliant, invisible legalism is he hiding behind? In the Sunday Times last week, we were reminded that Presco ran something called the Dome Sale Unit. Further, that he was credited by a former Dome Chairman as the man who "pulled his boss's balls out of the mangle . . . He stayed cool and took a great deal of care to achieve a compromise which got everybody off the hook". 

But there he was this afternoon saying, "I was not in any way involved with the sale of the Dome."

James Duddridge found himself yelling across the chamber: "That's a lie!" But that was about something completely different.  

CAMERON: FRAGRANT YOUTH, BUT BUILT TO LAST?

20 July 2006: Cameron's election pledge to take the Tories out of the grouping of federalist fruit-loops in the EPP is very much more damaging in the breach than the observance. 

Even Tory Yeuros like Stephen Dorrell say privately (by "privately" I mean he hasn't said it to me) that the pledge to withdraw should be honoured. Failure to do so is increasingly seen as faithless. The Neuros are spitting tacks about it. The promise of immediate pull-out was why many of them voted for him, after all. David Davis specifically refused to make the pledge. "I really thought Cameron was different," a Neuro said mournfully, today (it was before lunch). 

"Stop it! Stop saying that!" I got quite sharp.

"I really thought he was bringing in a new kind of politics."

"Pull yourself together, man! This is crazy talk!" I couldn't snap him out of it.

Honesty in politics is less about personal morality than experience. You can't be honest about your policies unless you know how difficult they are to implement. Cameron is clever but he hasn't been around long enough to know how much he doesn't know. And it's harder than it looks, much harder, to present a betrayal as a sensible compromise (the Master makes it look so easy).

It's not Cameron's fault to this extent: William Hague was given the job of pulling off the withdrawal and he failed. He just hasn't got the weight or the wallop. Because it's not the first time he's failed to do this (remember Malaga in 1999). He's about as ineffectual  as shadow foreign secretary as he was leader. And that makes it all Cameron's fault for appointing Hague in the first place. 

Tony Blair believes that when Cameron comes out with policy (the Conservative program is called Built to Last) he'll collapse. Blair is better on the Tories than the Tories ("I could sort them out in five minutes," he has said). So far, he's right. Withdrawal from EPP (boom). The British Bill of Rights (bang).  What's next? 

JUST GOING BACK TO THAT ANSWER ON THE LEBANON

22 July 2006: Because it's important to pay very close attention to what the prime minister says - can we explore his answer to Julian Lewis's question last Wednesday? 

Lewis said that the Government of Lebanon had been described as helpless to control Hizbollah. Therefore, "Does the Prime Minister have any indication that the Government of Lebanon have asked for assistance from the international community to do so?'

The prime minister didn't say, "Yes, they have asked." He said he talked to the PM of Lebanon. Then he said, "I think Lebanon is asking for international help." (Think? What did he mean by "think Lebanon is asking for international help"?) And then, "I believe the Prime Minister of Lebanon wants to do the right thing." 

Try saying that in the incredulous tones of a supercilious QC. "Wants to do the right thing"? It's clear to forensic linguists (let alone to Middle East experts) that the PM of Lebanon isn't finding it possible to do exactly what Tony Blair wants him to do. What with Hizbollah in the Cabinet, and all. But that's the sanctity of representative democracy, as Tony Blair would be telling us, if circumstances were different.

DAVID MILIBAND. BRAINIAC. (BACK AWAY SLOWLY)

20 July 2006: The new young minister for the Environment says he's got a scheme and it will change the way we live as profoundly as the Welfare State changed us. Are you ready for this? Sitting down? Sedated? 

Personal Carbon Trading.

"Nurse! Quick!"

Every purchase we make will be recorded in our personal carbon account and we can buy what we need and sell our surplus. Sound good to you? Except that every single commercial transaction we make will presumably have to be recorded in a central Carbon Database, monitored by the state. 

Maybe our carbon details can be kept on our ID cards, along with (by then) our tax profile, our VAT returns, our Certificate of Rural Competence, our health records, our Key Stage results, our social worker reports, our . . . 

PRESCOTT AND THE CODE OF THE FRONTIER

THE MEANING OF MARGARET BECKETT

23 July 2006: Ahhhhhhh! I suddenly got it.

The appointment of this entirely mediocre career politician doesn't mean that Tony Blair is preparing to support the bombing of Iran . . . but if he were preparing to support the bombing of Iran, he'd have to get rid of Jack Straw (who has frequently described such an option as "Nuts"). 

It's Sunday night; the Rapture is at hand; Tony Blair is putting in place the preparations for Armaggeddon. Would any devout Christian readers of this column put in a word for me, when the time comes? 

WHAT JACK STRAW SAID (see below)

BEST JOKE AWARD

Cameron came in on sparkling form, the best performance since his first performance. "These sessions are about the Prime Minister answering questions on behalf of the Government. I know that he does not like being interrogated, but with the way things are going at Scotland Yard, he had better get used to it. For the purposes of the tape, Mr Speaker, I am interviewing the Prime Minister."

It was the best sort of public school teasing - seemingly good natured but deeply offensive to the idea the Prime minister has of himself.

Cameron also caught Blair out on the fact that the fact that the Planning Gain Supplement had been abandoned. You could see Blair flinch but it only made me admire the man's grasp of the Government's program  (I hadn't been aware the Planning Gain Supplement had been introduced). 

MOST UNDERMINING FRIENDLY QUESTION IN PMQs

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. IT WAS SHEER GENEROSITY

MEACHER STOCK - SELL! SELL! SELL!

Twice, recently, the Speaker has told Michael Meacher to sit down and belt up as his supplement-aries turn into mini-statements. It's not just that he's suffering from ex-Minister's Disease. No, he is planning to run against Gordon Brown as the Che Guevara candidate - of course he needs more time to develop his argument in the House than dumb back bench troops. This is a man a man of destiny. A MAN OF DESTINY, do you hear?

Thus, the behaviour of John McDonnell has really put a feline presence among his pigeons. 

It seems McDonnell didn't exactly keep the Campaign Group fully up to speed with his Campaign campaign. So the left vote is split between McDonnell and Meacher. They both have one vote each.  Though McDonnell's vote is soft.  

THE CARBON PRICE (BY DRIBS AND DRABS)

20 July 2006: Vince Cable often asks about power; if only Dave Watts was a minister he could answer them. 

The question asked: How is the EU Emissions Trading System being reformed to ensure there will be a carbon price set to make new nuclear power stations economically viable?

David Miliband: ". . . it is significant that the European Commission has said that no caps for phase 2 will be below the current level of emissions. So scarcity will be built into the system."

This is unnecessarily opaque. He's hiding something big, I guarantee it.

TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS ON THE WAY

ISC LEAK ENQUIRY SHOCK -

LABOUR BARRON - AHEAD OF TORIES ON HEALTH REFORM

WHAT'S TO BE DONE WITH ROSIE?

BRILLIANT NUCLEAR QUIBBLE

Archive: