Benedict Brogan

A snippet from the frontline in the cuts war. With the Treasury lashing ministers to produce their 25pc and 40pc cuts, some are finding ways to navigate the perils ahead. One veteran told me the other day he had had no difficulty putting together a 25pc package. Really, I asked? What about the 40pc doomsday scenario the Treasury has asked unprotected departments to produce? “Oh, that was easy. I just threw in plenty of programmes for children and vulnerable people. That should give them something to think about. I wasn’t born yesterday. If that’s how they want to play this game…”

David Cameron and Barack Obama together last April. When they first met, Obama and his aides found Cameron more engaging than Gordon Brown (Photo: PA)

There was understandably great delight in Team Dave when he was offered a lift on Barack Obama’s helicopter in Canada at the G8 summit. It was a momentary PR coup for the Prime Minister (and a small victory for Andy Coulson, who won the coin toss for the only extra seat). It helped advance the narrative that Dave was fast establishing his own special relationship with Barack Obama. No Am Dram Cam meet No Drama Obama, etc. But that was then: today Mr Cameron flies off to Washington and the mood is distinctly cooler.

Much attention has been paid to the President’s own, personal ambivalence towards things British. The reasons have been well rehearsed: his outlook is Pacific, not Atlantic; he nurses vague grudges about the way his family was treated in colonial Kenya; the Old Continent did not figure greatly in his upbringing; frankly, he’s not that interested. Less has been said though about another reality that seems to be emerging: David Cameron isn’t that interested either. For some time there has been a school of thought at Westminister that divides senior Conservatives into hawks and appeasers. George Osborne, Michael Gove and Liam Fox are clearly in the hawk camp, honorary neo-cons who backed the invasion of Iraq and take a muscular view on the threat of Islamist extremism. Mr Cameron on the other hand is seen as a bit lily-livered on those big geo-political issues. The alliance with America does not appear to be an instinctive, visceral must that guides the PM’s thinking.

Expectations for the American trip have been reduced to next to nothing. Every detail so far speaks of polite indifference. Downing Street has let it be known that Mr Cameron views the relationship as an alliance – ie barely special. “Realistic, sensible, practical” are the words being used to describe it, but definitely not “needy” in the way it was under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He’s going commercial for “austerity” reasons even if that means having to make the timetable fit the airline and Amtrak schedules. The Coalition has moved fast to shift the blame for the release of the Lockerbie bomber onto the previous administration, though it will be interesting to see whether they make any effort to protect Tony Blair, Jack Straw et al from Congressional inquests. A pressing piece of No 10 business is a review of that extradition treaty, a suggestion that appears to have horrified the White House. Samantha Cameron is (for understandable reasons) staying home. There is to be no Camp David moment, with toothpaste and after-dinner DVD.

If it’s expectation management designed to have us rejoicing when Mr Cameron is invited to an “impromptu” White House family BBQ, all fine and good. But to the extent that anyone in America will notice, it is Mr Cameron’s indifference which is striking.

Lovely to get off Eurostar and find Matthew Norman’s must-read interview with the Prince of Darkness in today’s Telegraph. It’s packed full of lovely details (the great Peter Power whispering “disastrous, disastrous” every time that advert is mentioned, for example), while the idea of taking Peter Mandelson to the Gay Hussar for lunch was a masterstroke. Two highlights worth reading:

• On the Labour leadership race, he says it is “going slightly wrong” (that Mandelson knack for the understatement). David Cameron is doing to Labour what Labour did to the Tories after 1997: “We drove them further and further to the Right, and Cameron is driving us ever more to the Left. You only win general elections from the centre and we’re sleepwalking into a trap. We need to wake up. There’s still a little time for a leader to emerge from the pack.” BTW he denies he is or will be David Miliband’s Bobby.

• On George Osborne, he says they have made up and that the Chancellor is a stronger politician as a result of their run-in over that yacht business. “We both came out well from Corfugate. In politics what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

…while I disappear for some post-election recharging. What passes for normal service will resume in a week.

Ed Balls denies briefing against his rival Andy Burnham (Photo: AP)

The speed with which Ed Balls has rushed out to deny being the source of “malicious briefing“ against Andy Burnham is suspicious. The former Schools Secretary is a bloody-minded campaigner who is faring far better as a leadership candidate than his critics predicted. He is putting some energy into an otherwise anaemic contest. But his habit of denying political wrongdoing does him no favours. I have no idea whether he himself has been rude about Mr Burnham, or whether it was one of the charmers working for his campaign (the genteel Tom Watson, perhaps?). But he has played dirty in the past, as director of the Gordon Brown attack machine.

Today he tells the New Statesman:

There is no truth in these allegations, in these smears about me or my supporters. It is complete nonsense. Andy and I get on very well and no one from my team was involved in these briefings. Andy Burnham and I spoke this morning and we both agreed that any suggestion of him pulling out is rubbish. We both agreed that no one surrounding me has made this allegation. And both of us think there is mischief being made — but it’s not coming from my team or his team. It’s coming from a third party. I’ve had three years of people ringing up people like Rachel Sylvester and making accusations against me, off the record. But the only thing I’ve been focused on in recent days is Michael Gove.

Which is ironic of course, because there are people out there who believe he is the one who spent years ringing up other journalists to make accusations against his colleagues. Of course, this is a ding-dong between those fighting for last place in the Miliband race. But it reminds us that the leadership contest is in many ways a displacement activity that postpones what many fear will be a brutal settling of scores.

The contenders are touring the country being nice to each other in public. But one of them has to win, and to do that ruthlessness and an ability to play the game are needed. Some of David Miliband’s close supporters are briefing that he will lose to his brother Ed on second preferences. They are waiting to see whether Peter Mandelson’s memoirs, due out this weekend, will help or hinder his campaign. Today’s skirmish is small beer. The nasty stuff is still to come.

David Cameron will address nearly 500 senior civil servants this morning on his new philosophy of public service, namely that departments will no longer be answerable to targets issued from above but directly to the taxpayer. The Government has been busy talking to Whitehall this week, and I’ve looked at this love-bombing in my Telegraph column today. Here’s an extract:

“Mr Maude yesterday addressed a conference organised by the think tank Reform, whose director Andrew Haldenby is one of the most eloquent critics of what he fears is the Coalition’s failure to take on what he calls the “structural causes of inefficiency”. For a start, he says, ministers being embraced by delirious civil servants, telling them what a joy it is to have them on board, should be immediately suspicious. As Jim Hacker discovered every week, a happy Sir Humphrey is a Sir Humphrey who is getting away with something. Mr Haldenby believes that Mr Cameron is returning to a traditional model which is no longer working.”Then there are those in Westminster who believe that by ceding power to the mandarins, for example by doing away with the political advisers who previously used to drive through progress, Mr Cameron is guilty of “unilateral disarmament”, leaving ministers vulnerable to wily officials. Some senior mandarins are uneasy about the absence of heavyweight policy advisers in No 10 itself. Giving Cabinet ministers autonomy when things are going well is easy: but how will Mr Cameron drive through his agenda if members of his private team underperform, as some inevitably will?

“The Prime Minister’s decision to put Lord Browne of Madingley, the former head of BP, in charge of an “efficiency unit” just when he is talking about ending the reliance on outside agencies has also been questioned. The betting is that like so many of his predecessors, Lord Browne will be eaten for breakfast, no doubt at the Athenaeum. Then there is the “hair shirtier than thou” issue, as competition between ministers to promise the largest cuts is derided by officials who fear political posturing is coming before value for money.”

Sir Alan Budd was always going to go now. He told colleagues a month ago that his exit would be in July, and he would not be talked out of it. This morning’s excitement over the reasons for his departure is just that, excitement. It may disappoint some, but his going was planned. Far more interesting is the question of his replacement. This morning’s papers have provided George Osborne with the shortlist he needs, notably the FT, which punts Rachel Lomax, John Gieve, Andrew Dilnot and Robert Chote. That’s a high powered line-up, though the markets are fast making Chotey the favourite.

The case for the head of the IFS is obvious: he was doing the job already. The IFS acted as Labour’s OBR, albeit unauthorised. Gordon Brown hated Chotey when he was an FT journalist, and even more at the IFS. No wonder: he was that rarity, a lucid, confident contrarian who was happy to point out the Iron Chancellor’s economic nakedness. He would make a great choice, especially if he was put in charge of tax simplification as well.

But here’s another name that should be considered: Sir Michael Scholar. The OBR is supposed to be an impartial outfit, kept well away from the political fray. But with a Chancellor who is a political street-fighter, it needs to be run by someone who is not afraid to smack the politicians in the chops from time to time. He – or she – needs to be fearless, willing to step into the limelight when a point needs to be made. It cannot be given to someone who is used to operating behind the scenes. The OBR will need to have a public face. And Sir Michael has shown in the past few years that he ideally suited. As the non-exec chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, who oversees the ONS, he established himself as a speaker of truth every time Gordon Brown tried to fiddle the figures. His letters deploring dodgy changes to Government numbers helped restore the ONS’ credibility. He is experienced in the ways of Whitehall, numerate, a keen organist. Ideal.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister (Photo: Paul Grover)

Francis Maude is a fan of the Civil Service. Today he presented its upper echelons with his plan for what Whitehall should look like in 2020, a decade from now. In his speech he noted that the qualities of the Civil Service that make it “one of the jewels in our constitution” remain intact 18 years after he was last in government. He made a point of noting the ill effects of 13 years of Labour: the Civil Service had too often been marginalised “through the spread of special advisers or the over-use of expensive consultants”.

What he plans is not easy. His shopping list included quite a few words freighted with meaning that will make some nervous. The Civil Service of 2020 will need to be “smaller and more strategic”, which means reducing numbers (though whatever the doomsayers of the Guardian and elsewhere predict, much of what is required can be achieved by natural wastage); also “modern and flexible”, which suggests greater private sector influence and changes to working practices; it will need to produce a “modern employee offer”, which sounds like a reworking of the pay and conditions for recruitment purposes to align it with the private sector.

But there is a lot that those in the Senior Civil Service who are happy to embrace reform will be delighted to hear. For example, on performance management, he questioned not only whether outstanding effort it rewarded, but more problematically whether “we manage poor performers with sufficient rigour? I sense some discomfort that the under-performing few are too often carried by the hard-working majority.” The SCS needs to give greater value to operational and managerial jobs, which in the past have been neglected in favour of policy jobs working alongside ministers.

He wants Whitehall to use its “massive collective buying power” to drive down procurement costs, and to limit the scope of its activities to a core few (strategy, cash, headcount, big reputational projects, etc). Significantly, he wants to design an “affordable reward package with a sustainable balance between pay and pension”. The existing redundancy scheme is “untenable”. It should be capped at 12 months for compulsory, 15 months voluntary. Sick pay – a particular bugbear – has to be brought in line with the private sector.

Mr Maude is walking a tightrope. He is asking the Civil Service, which expanded under Labour, to join in the task of shrinking every aspect of its being: size, cost, sphere of activity. The Civil Servants in his cross hairs are the very people he needs to deliver sweeping changes in Government departments and further afield. He must engage them, while maintaining enough distance to be able to drive them and demand great sacrifices. His is not a role that will attract great public attention but it is one of the most important in the Coalition.

Charles Kennedy: is his parliamentary seat for the chop? (Photo: Paul Grover)

We have found a worthy successor to David Laws as Coalition hero of the day. Nick Clegg used his statement on AV and the size of the House to lay in with gusto to those in front of him – and behind him – who are unhappy with the detail of his constitutional proposals. He was particularly good at duffing up Labour, to the delight of the Tories around him. He could almost be a Conservative, such is the energy and anger he put into his demolition job of Labour’s dishonesty and failures on constitutional reform. David Cameron – “my Rt Hon friend” – looked particularly pleased. Mr Clegg’s performance will have strengthened No10’s claim that the two are joined at the hip.

Also striking was the tone he used against Tory opponents. To Bernard Jenkin, the ’22’s anti-AV organiser, who asked if choosing May 5 was a wheeze to inflate turnout, Mr Clegg asked pointedly what was inflationary about giving people a chance to have their say. To Philip Davies who asked why have a referendum so soon, he asked if he prefered to “waste a huge amount of taxpayer money” to hold the referendum another time. The terms of the announcement favour the Conservatives, despite the nervousness of the opponents of AV. In exchange for the certainty of reducing the size of the Commons – from 650 to 600, a smaller reduction than initially planned – they get the possibility of a change to the voting system. Tory MPs are even now preparing wrecking amendments, but Downing Street calculates that most will conclude that the balance of advantage lies with them.

That may of course be a tad optimistic. Mr Clegg left a few unexploded bombs behind him as well. Take Charles Kennedy. He has so far kept quiet about the Coalition after voting against it. He popped up today to ask Mr Clegg a parochial question of great importance to him: what will happen to the Highland seats, specifically his, which is the biggest by area of any parliament in Europe. There will be no exceptions to the constituency equalisation review, Mr Clegg told him somewhat tartly, apart from the two island seats (Orkney and Shetland) and the cap on seat size of about 13,000 sq mi. In other words, Mr Kennedy’s seat is up for grabs and could be for the chop. Will this hasten Mr Kennedy’s decision to hoist the flag of Lib Dem opposition to the Coalition?

The good ship Coalition has left the shelter of the harbour and is heading into choppy seas. Put disparate bits of news together and you can start to see why it is going to get much worse. These sunny days will seem a distant memory when the storm hits. So far we’ve had the opening salvo from ACPO – cuts mean fewer coppers – given extra wellie by John Yates at the weekend when he said cuts would mean more terror attacks. The more they protest the sillier it gets (the tale of the lavish life enjoyed by the guys paid to protect Tony Blair, Sir John Major et al was capped by the bitchy account of ACPO bosses and their spouses being escorted by armed police from one champagne reception to another), although it also tells us that the boys in blue play hardball. This will get nasty. More serious is this morning’s FT account of the problems Andrew Lansley is having persuading the Treasury to take his NHS reforms seriously. It seems the coalition committee threw the plans out, whihc suggests the white paper due next week may be delayed further. The Treasury doesn’t like the idea of giving tens of billions to GPs who are in effect private companies with no obvious ability to manage such vast sums. Then there is today’s announcement from Michael Gove that the schools building budget is going to take a hit, alongside mutterings that even the Coalition’s cherished high speed rail project will have to go. We are assured that the guys at the top are steeled for the fight, but they have yet to be tested.