BoJo really needs to pick his people better. First, Munira Mirza acts without letting him know. Then, James McGrath shoots his mouth off in an entirely unwise fashion. And now - this. A Lee Jasper moments, perhaps?

That’s the parallel that springs most to mind. Allegations of financial and sexual impropriety, as yet unproved, against a senior figure in the Mayor’s administration. And damaging ones at that; to take money from a disabled parishioner and then withold it hardly says good things about the man’s character.

But there comes the major difference - this was more than ten years ago. If Lewis admitted to the charges - if, of course, they’re true - it could be explained away. A lot changes in ten years, and Lewis could point to his record in the community since as evidence of that. It’d stain, but it might not sink him.

He’s denied everything, though. Which is fine, if he’s telling the truth - but simply deadly if it’s not. He’ll be damned as a liar and a cheat, and simply disappear from the face of politics. And it’ll stain the regime, too. Who wants a Mayor who employs a social parasite?

And who wants a Mayor who employs a potential social parasite? Even the allegations smears an unpleasant air of corruption over the administration; one which BoJo needs to eliminate. To cast aside the whole matter, and any parallels with Lee Jasper, he can only follow one course - an immediate, thorough enquiry. Otherwise, it’ll all begin to look even more suspicious…

What if he loses?
It seems as if Davis is planning on styling himself as the next Shami Chakrabarti, whether he wins or not. Sadly for him, he is neither as good a communicator nor does he appear as sincere. This town ain’t big enough for the both of them, that’s for sure.

What if Labour do not put up a candidate?
The stunt will be exposed for what it is, Davis will return to the Commons shaken, jobless, and with his seat very vulnerable at the next election.

Why should Gordon be worried?
The decision is totally unpredictable – a tsunami, if you like, sweeping all else up with it. Time will tell just how important a move it is, but the perception certainly is that it is very damaging to the Tories and actively helpful to Labour. Within a couple of hours of the announcement we had journalists running about posting their reactions on blogs: the media narrative has already been set. If in the coming weeks Cameron is perceived as having salvaged a good return for the Tories from the mess Davis caused, he will be more highly regarded by his party and the media (which feeds to the electorate). This has genuinely taken the Tory leadership by surprise, and their reaction to it could well build Cameron up. Gordon should get on top of this swiftly to prevent the Tories turning it to their advantage. It is a genuine test for Cameron, and expectations about possible gain are so low that he might just make something of it. The immediate rubbishing of reports of a split in the party have been successful, it seems. Score 1:0 to Cameron.

Where is the principle?
Davis opposed 90 days, then supported 28 days, then opposed 42 days. There is no logical reason for habeas corpus and the Magna Carta to be bandied about over 6 weeks’s detention without trial, but for 4 weeks to be acceptable.

As John Rentoul has written,

Davis as shadow Home Secretary supports locking people up without charge for 42 days under the Civil Contingencies Act if there is a state of emergency, which is a difference only of degree, definition and procedure from the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

So what is the “noble” principle at stake?

Why should the nation be glad?
Dominic Grieve is simply fantastic. I have long championed him as one of the palatable Tories (William Hague being the other prominent example). He seems very nerdy and bookish, looks like a 1980s Tory minister, and does not actively promote himself. He is interested in the law and making it work, making his previous role as Shadow Attorney-General perfect for him. He brings a more reserved tone to the role, but will doubtless have the upper hand over Jacqui Smith on anything and everything substantive. Above all, he deserves the promotion.

David Davis has resigned his position as Shadow Home Secretary and is forcing a by-election in his constituency. A bad idea on so many levels.

I admire Davis in many ways (although I admire his successor more), because of his civil libertarian stand. But acting as Shadow Home Secretary, with a clear promise of holding one of the big three Cabinet posts in 23 months’ time, should give ample room to campaign for civil liberties. It is obvious that Davis is far more libertarian than the rest of the Tory hierarchy - he has spoken at length about the number of CCTV cameras and threatened to resign in a meeting with Cameron on whether to support 42 days or not. But his actions today are shallow and counter-productive.

If Davis wishes to promote civil liberties, what better position to hold than Shadow Home Secretary, on the back of a good performance in a recent party leadership race? He stands to gain high office on a matter of months, and has not been ruled out of any future leadership campaign. He is respected by many in the party, and compares extremely well to Jacqui Smith. If he wishes to promote libertarianism in the Tory party, he has exactly the right job in which to do it. The leadership clearly considered backing the government on 42 days, but Davis put his foot down. He was right to do so - and his role as Shadow Home Secretary was perfect for that.

By resigning, Davis has given up his chance to champion such arguments in the future. Grieve has made it very clear that there will be no change in Home Affairs policy, but it is obvious that he is less of a central figure than Davis was. He has left an imbalance at the top of the party, with Cameron and Osborne more powerful today than they were yesterday.

His resignation has also proven a lack of respect for parliamentary democracy. He disagrees with Parliament’s decision on 42 days: he had the chance to vote against it and did. He lost. It is his responsibility to try to force another vote and campaign for a different outcome; a job much easier to conduct as Shadow Home Secretary than as an independent parliamentary candidate. The whole point of votes in parliament is that you can either win or lose, and you try to meet the demands of those who hold the balance of power. I do not believe Gordon Brown should have bribed the DUP members, and I do not believe they should have accepted the bribe, but it is up to them to decide how to vote. I have a lot of respect for the 37 Labour rebels who stood up for what they believed in - and I also have a lot of respect for Ann Widdecombe who defied the rest of her party for her convictions. She was wrong, but I respect her decision to vote by conscience. Parliamentary votes like this are about exactly that: conscience. It’s about winning the argument. Davis’ resignation rides roughshod over the whole principle of liberal democracy.

Davis appears to be positioning himself as a one-issue candidate, and will likely return to the Commons as a one-issue MP. He needs to understand that rehabilitation into the party will be very difficult if he intends to attempt it; otherwise he will live out the rest of his career as a single-issue campaigner the forum for which is better suited to lobbying than representing constituents.

The fallout could be huge. I do not exaggerate when I suggest that this, if handled correctly, could give Labour the chance to race ahead again. It is of monumental proportions. It is difficult to see how it could help to solidify the Tory lead, but time will tell. If, as is rumoured, Clegg’s LibDems do not contest the seat, we will have a straight fight between the Labour machine and a Tory oddjob; a fight that Davis is likely to win, taking attention away from the Conservative party completely. If one of the party’s big-hitters runs out for a personal glory-hunt, it reflects almost as badly on the party as on the individual. It is as if Gordon Brown were to have forced a by-election because Tony Blair refused to grant him permission to tax everyone at 80%.

This is a disgraceful personal glory-hunting campaign from Davis, and I really hope the Tory party does not support his by-election campaign. Moreover, the LibDems should put up a candidate who fights for the electorate on all issues, not for Davis’ ego on Home Affairs. The LibDems could easily steal votes from those who agree with much of what Davis has done but don’t like his attitude. For the sake of respecting liberal democracy, which David Davis has trampled over today, every party should put forward candidates to campaign hard for representing the electorate in parliament, and should they lose a vote or an argument with their party leader they should try to solve the issue instead of subjecting everyone to this kind of trauma.

I do not know what Davis is thinking, but his judgement is wrong. The LibDems are again failing totally in strategy: Nick Clegg seems to have made another poor call, when he had the most to gain. Labour could still make the most of this; it is a monumental mistake for the Tories to let this happen. Labour have a stark choice: be the only party to oppose Davis and risk losing, or fail to oppose him and expose his cheap trick. Either way, there is much to gain.

British coinage is to be snazzied up a little with some nice new designs.  The £1 coin will display the royal shield of arms, made up of shields for each of the four nations of Great Britain, and each of the other coins, arranged in a certain formation, will show parts of the same design.  I rather like them - especially the 20 pence design.

If you can bring yourself to read this response, do.  I couldn’t help but roll my eyes and declare it not worth reading so much into.  Any excuse…

I predict a bad week for the government.  This would be a U-Turn, if the whole thing hadn’t been a fudge in the first place.  The opposition will have a field day.

I don’t object to the principle of the move.  If Northern Rock needs to be saved to prevent a further run on the banks and general economic woe, then the state isn’t a bad answer.  It has deep enough pockets, and would at least be stabilising the bank for the sake of stabilising the bank, rather than making a profit out of it.

What I do object to is the way this has been handled.  The government will claim that this comes after exploring all the options available.  Actually, it looks like the government dithered, chose an approach, cocked that up because their delay had made the bank even more unattractive to bidders, and finally chose this.  That’s what the media, the opposition and finally, the voter will pick up on anyway.  The government made nationalisation a grudging last resort, rather than the firm, decisive step it could have been.  It looked like they didn’t want to do this - but they’ve done it anyway.  So now they look incompetent.

In short, strategic error of the month…

PMQs will, I fear, be uncomfortable.

About bloody time.  I’m not sure how much difference this’ll make to anyone.  Any mud that was going to stick will have stuck by now.  Although I suppose Brown at least is spared any further embarrassment now.

Hain, on the other hand, has a police investigation to look forward too.

That should be fun…

Hot off the presses has just come the news that the ex-PM of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, is presumed dead after a bomb at a rally.  In such a volatile area as Pakistan at present, this has major implications.

It’s almost certainly too early to comment - and prediction is, of course, a mug’s game.  However, several consequences are already apparent. 

If nothing else, the death of such a major opposition figure will leave a large vacuum, both in the PPP and the democratic movement on the whole.  Bhutto was renowned as a deeply charismatic figure, and was certainly one of the most prominent figures in the Pakistani democratic movement.  Especially in the lead-up to the elections in just a few days time, this is even more crucial.  I don’t know enough about Pakistani party politics to know who, or what, will fill that vacuum.  Her rival, Nawaz Sharif?  Another figure in the PPP?  Maybe no-one?  It might be that Bhutto was so key to her own party, at the very least, that the vacuum might suck it in and lead to its collapse, leaving another vacuum.

Or it might re-open the dialogue in the democratic movement.  Bhutto dominated her party, and did stifle discussion within her own, not-so-democratic, party.  It might even provide a wind of change, and be good for the movement (although this seems unlikely). 

Such speculation is essentially useless though.  It’s far too early, for a start.  What I fear though is the effect this might have on the democratic process in Pakistan.  The hard-won elections taking place next month are, I suspect, under threat.  A major figure in the democratic movement has been removed.  This might be disruptive at least, and at worst might derail that party’s campaign for the election completely.  Others might blame the government, and boycott the election.  It is under threat.

It might also provide an excuse for Musharraf to institute another state of emergency, postponing the elections until he judges it safe - which would not be for a while, even if he was being honest.  He would be able to prolong his illegitimate rule for even longer - although whether the army would co-operate now that he’s no longer in charge of it would remain to be seen.

It may well be that this disruption of the democratic process is what the bomb was targeted to do.  Various elements in Pakistan - religious extremists,  Musharraf, and probably others, although it’s impossible to point a finger this early - can only be damaged by democracy.

This cannot be allowed to happen.  If democracy is to succeed, it must not allow itself to be stalled by fear.  It must go on if the violence is not to continue.

But I can’t say any more now.  I may try later, when I’ve had more time for research and thought.