Westminster blog

Labour’s plan to keep the details of its reshuffle a secret until tomorrow went spectacularly awry on Thursday evening after journalists found out much of it anyway, and two shadow ministers said they wanted to resign publicly before it looked like they had been sacked.

Those two were John Healey, shadow health secretary and John Denham, shadow business secretary. Both have attracted criticism from within Labour. Healey was blamed for alowing the Lib Dems to look like they had led the opposition to the health bill (even though they signed off on it), while Denham has been blamed for not doing enough to win over business – although he has long said he didn’t want to stay for long.

So who else is going where?

Grassroots party members are increasingly unhappy about annual conferences held in big city centres – prompting some ministers to call for a return to the traditional seaside town venue. One minister even told us that it might be time to scrap the format altogether in favour of regional events with a single one-off US-style convention before general elections.

Even watching the events on TV you can see that there are far fewer “ordinary” members at conference – they are instead swamped by suited lobbyists, hacks and other denizens of the Westminster village. “It feels more like a McKinsey corporate convention,” one Tory MP said yesterday.

I spoke to half a dozen constituency members yesterday and the mood was one of broad unhappiness.

Beverley Sullivan, a delegate from Bury said that “cost” had put off many people from coming to Tory conference.

“I have spoken to quite a few people about this, one said it had cost her £1,000 for these four days, and she was elderly, a pensioner, so it’s really difficult,” she said. “Compared to the seaside towns there is nothing to do here really if you get a free hour or so.”

No doubt there will be a mini internal inquest today within Cameron’s team over why his flagship speech included an exhortation to the general public to pay off their credit cards.

The clear implication of a prime minister asking the public to stop spending – at a time of a potential double-dip recession – was not lost on anyone today. Cameron was also under pressure from those who did not like the sight of a millionaire “lecturing them” (in the words of Ed Balls) over managing their household finances. And meanwhile GDP growth for the second quarter has been downgraded to a feeble 0.1 per cent.

This morning aides sought desperately to convince hacks that this was not what the speech meant – with no success. And now in the last few minutes there has been an urgent edit of the credit card passage.

The original phrase was “the only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. That means households – all of us – paying off the credit cards.” Now it will say “that is why households are paying off the credit cards.”

One of the dogs that didn’t bark this week was the planning row between the National Trust et al and the government. Those expecting more sound and fury over the “national planning policy framework” have been left disappointed.

There have instead been hints at reconciliation and compromise: the Times reported that the planning document will be softened;  Building magazine suggests there will be a transition period; elsewhere ministers say they do prefer brownfield to greenfield sites after all.

In a speech yesterday, planning minister Greg Clark insisted that ministers were “stewards of a matchless countryside”.

But rest assured, the government is ploughing ahead with the broad thrust of the plans. For the government there is a determination not to give way on the main policy. As one cabinet minister told us: “This is one issue which George Osborne simply will not turn back on.”

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is still at the heart of the document. For all the talk of going through the policy, line by line, holding hands with the National Trust, this will still be a

One of the striking themes of the Lib Dem conference two weeks ago was the many attacks on their own Tory coalition partners. There was Chris Huhne attacking Conservatives who “slaver over tax cuts for the rich.”And Tim Farron saying his party had been “tainted” by its association with David Cameron’s party. And so on.

Now at the Tory event in Manchester there is the reverse; a mood of benevolent (if slightly patronising) friendliness is emanating from senior Conservatives towards their allies. There is the occasional dig; George Osborne pointed out that the Liberals, in the late 19th century, opposed attempts to stop people sending children up chimneys. But otherwise it is all bonhomie, and references to “Nick” and “Vince” and so on. As Michael White at the Guardian suggests; they are “killing” the Lib Dems with kindness.

One Tory cabinet minister says that it is all about being “magnanimous in victory“. He is referring not only to the AV result but also to the truth that Conservative polling remains as

A young Tory who works for David Cameron asked me on Sunday night whether I thought the prime minister was “genuine”. Up to a point, was my answer, within the usual political realities.

The example I gave was that Cameron probably believed himself when he pledged several years ago to be “green” and to commit himself to an environmental agenda. (Of course it also had the upside of helping to rebrand the Tory party).  In today’s economic climate, however, many green initiatives are being toned down or thrown out of the window in the drive for growth at almost any cost. Does that mean that the prime minister was insincere? It is a moot point.

I asked a senior cabinet minister what he thought about the Tories and their drift away from the green agenda. His view was that with the economy in the doldrums the government would not be thanked for sticking rigidly to its green promises. It was not that David

The biggest “surprise” in the Osborne speech was his commitment to “credit easing” – developing an idea that the Tories had in opposition called the National Loans Guarantee Scheme. Here is our news story on ft.com.

This could involve billions – or 10s of billions – of pounds but will be fiscally neutral: because although the Treasury would issue gilts to raise money this would then be used to buy financial assets. These would then sit on the government’s balance sheet.

I’m told it has two elements.

1] In the short-term the government already has the option to buy corporate bonds, which would push down yields – making it easier for big companies to borrow. At present this is not necessary as bond rates are quite low. But it could be used if the eurozone crisis leads to a surge in yields in the sector.

2] Osborne wants in the medium term to develop a corporate bond market for smaller companies. At present this is only in its infancy in the UK but the US has a more developed sector. It could have the potential to lower borrowing costs (as well as being an alternative to bank loans) for relatively small companies, although perhaps not for the very smallest SMEs.

Given that bond markets require borrowers to want to raise 10s of millions of pounds – or hundreds of millions – you might need some kind of aggregation mechanism. (Or the securisation of many ‘granular’ SME loans). I’m sure this is the type of issue which will be explored by Treasury officials in more detail.