A new first as a national newspaper follows up a story from this blog!

Many thanks to Iain Martin at The Telegraph who followed up my story that the new Transport minister, Simon Burns, is an avowed third runway opponent, with full credit and a link to boot.

Thank Iain, appreciate it.

Let me explain. I'm Steve McQueen. Zac Goldsmith is Hannes Messemer

The ever entertaining Neil Monnery has been asking about my Zac Goldsmith obsession and asking if it's lover or hate....

Of course neither is true.

Let me explain.

Zac is the MP for Richmond Park, in which Ham Common resides. He is my MP, he lives over the Common.

I am therefore like a Prisoner of War in a Tory run camp. And like every good captured soldier, it is my duty to make things as hard as possible for the opposition, to harry and harass them at every opportunity.

I am Steve McQueen. He is Hannes Messemer.

Only difference is - I'm not trying to escape. I'm going nowhere.

Sorry Zac

There's a fight at LDV. Get stuck in

There's a tremendous hoo hah going on over at LDV on Nick's leadership just now, in an 'LDV debate'. Here's my two pennys worth...

1. I do have a bit of a problem with the way the debate has been framed. It looks Like Paul W in the 'No to Nick' camp wrote his piece which was then read , analysed and replied to by Nick T in the 'yes' camp. I'd have preferred to see both pieces written 'cold' and then the debate on the comments section to begin...

2. I think Nick did a tremendous job as leader up until the election, and I think forming the coalition was the right (and probably only) choice at the time. I do not regret this decision and recall the tremendous excitement at the special conference when this was voted on (I was at the back, standing next to Lembit. Surreal).

3. I also think the party has done many good things in government - pupil premium, index link restored on pensions, raising tax threshold et al. I am proud of these achievements.

4. However we have also done many things I am not proud of in government - and while all the leadership takes the blame for this, Nick must bear the brunt. Putting aside the economic and philosophical issues, tuition fees was a disastrous political decision, perhaps the worst made by any leader since Gordon Brown decided not to hold 'that' snap election. Had he forgotten that PBB he fronted saying no more broken promises and  'no tuition fees' writ large in the opening frames? But it's not just that. Its signing the NHS white paper without apparently reading it. It's saying the snooping bill is just an update on modern technology (apparently forgetting a huge debate at Spring Conference just a few months before). It's the 'not a cigarette paper between us' line of government - of course there is, we're separate parties. It's giving the responsibilities for equalities back to the Tories.

Nick is a good man and a genuine man. But there have been too many mistakes.

5. But having said all that, I don't think a change of leader is enough. Look at the Tories going from Hague to IDS to Michael Howard. 3 different leaders, all with similar policies and agendas, all of whom failed. It was only when the Conservative brand was detoxified - albeit, as we now know, smoke and mirrors - that a modicum of electoral success was delivered. We need to do the same - our brand is just as electorally toxic now as the Tory brand ever was. And to cleanse it will require a wholesale change in direction

6. And that must happen first. We must develop distinctive and radical  policies to reset the electorates compass. And then, and only then, can we start the process of winning back trust and persuading the electorate that we will deliver.

7. For the former, we need Nick to lead that process. And when that process is complete and we have a fresh legislative agenda to lay before the electorate, then and only then can we change leader. It's not now. It is before 2015. Although if the cleansing of the party brand has been done well enough by then, then perhaps the Clegg brand can be cleansed too. I doubt it but I am prepared to be persuaded.

8. This, in my opinion, is also the best way for Nick to leave a strong legacy - the man who led us into government, and then set the agenda for two successive terms in government. But I doubt if he can lead us into that second term.

Cameron was foolish to ignore the Lib Dems

My latest from the New Statesman. Do pop over there to see the normal complimentary comments...

So, now it’s war.

As the reshuffle unfolded, my timeline was full of fellow Lib Dems asking "Is Cameron actively trying to piss us off?" And frequently it did feel like that. But of course the truth is, Cameron wasn’t really bothered what we thought. That wasn’t what this reshuffle was about. Neither was it really about a strategy to win the next general election - a lurch to the right seems unlikely to hoover up enough votes from UKIP to compensate for the seats the Tories would have won if the boundary changes had gone through.

No, this reshuffle was all about Cameron making sure he was still leading the party at the next election. He can’t afford to think much further than that, so weak is his position currently. He had to appease his backbenchers. And it may have worked for now – although how his stomach must have churned when he heard Nadine saying how much she liked the reshuffle.

But it is a very short term strategy. Yes, promoting the Patersons, Graylings and Hunts of this world may have secured Cameron’s position for a while longer. But just how angry will those same backbenchers be when they still can’t get their favourite policies through. Because it wasn’t Cameron stopping them having their way before. It was the Lib Dems.

There’ll be no third runway at Heathrow. There’ll be no tearing up of the Greenbelt. Even with no Ministers in the MoD (odd move that, Nick) there’ll be no Trident. I doubt if Norman Lamb will allow Jeremy Hunt to introduce his favourite homeopathy treatments into the NHS. There’s going to be a lot of crossed arms, shaking of heads, and great big "no’s". And however good a Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell may turn out to be, that won’t be much cop if the MPs standing in the way are in a different party. Cameron may have decided not to think about the Lib Dems when he reshuffled merrily away yesterday. But it was a foolish decision.

So while Cameron’s cabinet changes may allow him to empathise with his recalcitrant backbenchers for a while, soon the old frustrations will bubble up again. Because he hasn’t solved his real problem. He didn’t win the last general election. And sooner (if the Lib Dems can help it) or later they’ll punish him for it.

How's this for a conspiracy theory?

Here’s a thought.

Zac Goldsmith has promised to resign and force a by election if Tory policy changes on Heathrow (By the way Zac – it has changed. Previously it was no third runway, now it’s ‘we’ll look at it again’. I notice you haven’t resigned). He is presumably waiting to see if the 3^rd runway actually becomes policy. But what if he isn’t…

Zac isn’t finished with politics, even if he is disillusioned by Westminster politics. What other job do you think he might fancy? Now hold that thought.

Boris Johnson is anti third runway. He also wants to be PM. But first he has to become leader of the Conservatives, and before that even he needs to be an MP.

When asked yesterday if the Heathrow fiasco were to generate a by election would he stand, he was very equivocal indeed. It sounded like an option he would most certainly be considering.

So what if this is what is going on.

Zac resigns and forces a by election. Boris resigns in support and protest and starts a wider cross London debate about the third runway. Both elections would be about Heathrow and would require passionate and committed opponents of a third runway as candidates. Like Boris or Zac.

Boris fights Richmond Park. Zac fights Mayoral Election.

Of course there is a risk involved. Zac might not win (although the opinion polls are currently more favourable to the Tories than they were in May).

And Boris would have us to deal with here in Richmond. We’re ready for you Boris

But it would be quite something, weaken Cameron – how totally out of control would he look (and remember Zac is no fan of Cameron’s, not by any stretch of the imagination), and quite possibly kill of the 3^rd runway to boot.

So chaps

If that’s not the plan, why not meet up and have a chat.

Go on. I dare you.

UPDATE. I should have mentioned that @SunnyHundal tipped me first that he thought Zac would run for Mayor one day, as I mentioned in this story - spot on it seems

Were Zac and I at different meetings?

In his recent report to constituents, Zac Goldsmith commented on the new school proposed for Kingston, saying...

I arranged for Kingston Councillors and education officers to meet to (sic) Sam Freedman, the Secretary of State for Education's Senior Policy Advisor, to discuss alternative funding mechanisms for a much-needed new secondary school, including the free school option, which the Council has now selected as its preferred route. Following this meeting, I organised and chaired a public meeting to discuss the free school option. A clear majority of residents who attended the meeting were receptive to the idea, and a further meeting will be held in September LINK.  I am confident that if we submit a strong application for a free school, and if it is supported by parents, we will secure the funding we need to help address the lack of secondary school places in the Borough.

I have highlighted the bit I have a problem with in Red.

I don't think you know that, Zac

There was no vote.

Many of the questions were based on why was a Free School solution being thrust upon the children and parents of North Kingston.

Another example of how this solution is being forced through. In marketing we call things like  this 'the assumptive sell' .

No one said Yes at that meeting Zac. It would be wrong to pretend they did

So everyone. How did the professional reshuffle predictors do?

So, as many of you will know, I tracked every piece of press speculation since May on the reshuffle – kindly plugged by Andrew Sparrow in The Guardian on Monday – and now… the results are in.

So how did the pundits do? Between them, did they predict every position?

Nope

Here is the new Cabinet. It only includes members of the full cabinet, not folk ‘attending only’.

Green indicates someone, somewhere since May predicted the name in the role correctly

Red indicates that no one predicted the name in the role….

Prime Minister            David Cameron

Deputy PM                 Nick Clegg

Chancellor                  George Osborne

Foreign Secretary        William Hague

Home Secretary           Theresa May

Chief Secretary            Danny Alexander

Defence                       Philip Hammond

Health                          Jeremy Hunt

Justice                         Chris Grayling

Scotland                      Michael Moore

Wales                          David Jones

Northern Ireland         Theresa Villiers

Business                      Vince Cable

Environment                Owen Paterson

Energy                         Ed Davey

Leader, Lords              Lord Strathclyde

Party Chairman            Grant Shapps

Communities                Eric Pickles

Work & Pensions        Iain Duncan Smith

Transport                     Patrick McLoughlin

Int Development          Justine Greening

DCMS                         Maria Miller

So - 6 departments have leaders who NO ONE in the media knew would be in post. Which I find quite extraordinary. Two - Lord Strathclyde and our own Michael Moore- were the incumbents!

What's more, it was almost 7. No one tipped Vince to stay in Business until Monday Lunchtime. 

Which I guess goes to show that predicting re shuffles is very difficult.

And that the media don't have as much of the inside track as you might think