Finkelstein puts the cast-iron case for David Miliband moving to Brussels.

Gordon Brown faces new PLP revolt, this time over axeing childcare vouchers

Advice to incoming Tory ministers via the always excellent Sue Cameron

Mandy denies rumours that he is now in the frame for EU foreign minister

Defenders of Kaminski include donors to the Tories

Just watched John Major at the public administration committee. The former Tory prime minister hasn’t added much sparkle to his much-satirised monotone delivery.

But Tony Wright, committee chairman, seemed impressed by the open and almost radical nature of his suggestions.

Such as:

a] Cutting the number of MPs to as few as 500 from today’s 646 (this goes much further than David Cameron’s proposal to cut to about 580 MPs)

b] Not letting peer-ministers stay in the House of Lords if they turn out to be a bit useless. (Major singled just three of them for praise: Lord Darzai, Lord Davies and Lord Adonis - not Lord Myners, interestingly). But they could keep their title, he proposed.

c] Letting Lords and MPs speak in both chambers. This could cut the cost of the ministerial payroll by up to a third, he argued.

d] Stop reshuffling so often. Under Major it became an almost annual event “like Christmas or Easter” which happened for the sake of it. Ministers would do a better job if they were allowed to stay in one department for longer.

e] Major also made interesting points about who becomes an MP (not as many former businessmen, farmers or officer - and lots of career politicians).

f] He warned that after a certain period of time, the “gene pool” of talent diminishes because the talented ones have already been through the ministerial sausage machine. That certainly seems true of this government.

UPDATE

I mentioned Sir John’s approval of ministers from outside the Commons. I forgot to mention an intriguing hint of a Lords comeback for the former PM. In a signal that he could yet serve again under a Tory regime, Major said he “never ruled out” entering the Lords if he could make a “significant contribution”. The reason he had not done so was because he had been on a temporary “sabbatical” from politics and spent up to half the year outside the UK.

The Tories - if they form the next government - will certainly have to think hard about where to find their first crop of ministers. Old MPs past their peak? Young MPs with little or no experience?

I was impressed by the honesty of Charles Walker, Tory member of the PAC, who candidly admitted during the committee: “The idea of me running a department, or even part of a department, is quite laughable.” That was because he was a legislator, not a manager, he explained.

The Infrastructure Planning Commission is much more important than it sounds.

Depending on your point of view, it is either a] an undemocratic body which will impose unwelcome nuclear power stations and wind farms on unhappy villagers or b] the only way to prevent the lights going out in 10 years’ time.

One day it could be a case study in utilitarianism. Who should have the final say - the small minority or the big majority?

It’s a major issue because the IPC is about to start work. But the Tories would scrap it next year. Their argument is that such schemes can get built; companies just need to work harder to turn “nimbies” into supporters.

The counter-argument is that time is running out. Ironically, it was Greg Clark in the chamber this afternoon who kept repeating the phrase: “Why did they leave it so late?“. (A report this summer suggested power outages by 2017 the way things are going).

Well yes, it is Labour’s fault that we are in this situation. The dirtiest coal power stations will have to be closed in the run-up to 2015. Many nuclear power stations have less than a decade before they are wound down. And still UK renewables lag behind all EU countries bar Malta and Luxembourg (as this blog has mentioned before).

But if the British public won’t embrace more power - while demanding 24/7 energy supplies - surely the time has come for some form of compulsion? Even if that means angering environmental groups* and others? On this Labour seems to have a more practical policy than the Tories.

Ed Miliband, energy secretary, tried to make the case, gingerly, this afternoon: “Saying no everywhere will not be in the national interest,” he said.

The Tory approach is to let the secretary of state make individual rulings on schemes - subject to today’s national policy statements, released by the secretary of state. Therein could lie the potential for even more judicial reviews.

There is no doubt that business groups are worried about the Tory policy, as my colleagues wrote here.

The Institute of Directors said today:

“The establishment of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the consultations on today’s national policy statements are important steps towards reducing these costly delays while preserving the democratic accountability that is properly part of the planning process. Now that the new regime is getting under way, it is important that nothing should be done to hinder the IPC’s ability to deliver quicker decisions on key infrastructure projects.”

*I know that Friends of the Earth and others want a more democratic system. But if the IPC delivers much-needed wind farms isn’t that the better of two evils?

In politics, the initial error is often compounded by a refusal to accept total responsibility. And so it was during an “excruciating” 25-minute press briefing for lobby journalists this morning.

This morning saw Gordon Brown’s spokesman refused to concede that Brown had made mistakes in a letter sent to the grieving mother of a soldier who died in Afghanistan. (See this morning’s Sun front page).

One FT colleague who was there (I confess I wasn’t) said it was the most grim lobby briefing for several years, with hacks incredulous at the refusal to concede a personal apology. Instead the spokesman apologised for the fact that the mother had been upset.

The biggest mistake in the letter was the mis-spelling of “Mrs Janes” (he mis-spelled it as Mrs James). Of course, there are issues over the prime minister’s poor handwriting which may stem from his poor sight. Some of the supposed mistakes identified by The Sun look more like handwriting issues than bona fide mistakes. But the name was definitely wrong.

Brown does not seem capable of unqualified apologies.

Here is his statement, issued just a few minutes ago (with my italics):

“I take very seriously my responsibility to the bereaved. Every time I write a letter to mothers and fathers and partners who have suffered bereavement to express my sincere condolences, it is a moment of personal sadness to me. And I am in awe of the bravery and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces.

“I send a handwritten letter to every family and I often write to more than one member of the family.

“I have telephoned Jacqui Janes to apologise for any unintended mistake in the letter.

“To all other families whom I have written to, I can only apologise if my handwriting is difficult to read.

“I have at all times acted in good faith seeking to do the right thing. I do not think anyone will believe that I write letters with any intent to cause offence.”

Iain Dale suggests we should “cut Brown some slack” because he never meant to cause offence. Others have pointed out that he has put considerable time into hand-writing the notes personally. Meanwhile Brown has phoned the mother personally.

UPDATE

The prime minister expressed his remorse at the monthly press conference this morning. But he still did not admit mis-spelling the soldier’s name.

Paul Waugh argues that Brown has dug an ever-deeper hole.

A partial farewell to the spectacular Roger Helmer - at least from the (Brussels) Tory front bench. (Here is a reminder of his insightful contributions to the Conservative conference last month). The NHS-hating Dan Hannan has followed suit.

David Cameron promises to maintain a steel ring for Sun readers

The Standards and Privileges Committee comes under fire again

There was a report a few weeks ago that Alistair Darling was uncomfortable about having to repeat the claim that “up to 500,000 jobs” had been saved by government interventions since the credit crunch.

The Mail on Sunday claimed that Darling had argued against Gordon Brown’s entreaties to repeat the figure more often.

You may remember that the chancellor first made the claim in the Budget. Then Gordon Brown in July upped the ante by claiming the government had saved “at least 500,000 jobs.” The figure was always a bit debatable because it included jobs saved by interest rate cuts and quantative easing, both of which were carried out by the Bank of England.

Back in September I asked the Treasury press office half a dozen times to give me more detail about the number, in particular the lower level of the range of estimates. No one could tell me, as I blogged here.

Now Alex has obtained the Treasury’s original guidance to ministers back in April. It was impossible to give a definitive number, said officials. But it would be reasonable to use the figure of “250,000 to 450,000″.

So not only was the lower estimate half the figure used by ministers. They also rounded 450,000 up to 500,000 to give a nice, round and not altogether kosher figure.

UPDATE

Alex points out that at least the methodology used to reach the range of estimates was sound. The Treasury did not take account of the UK’s generous automatic stabilisers (for example, tax credits).

An excruciating moment after PMQs when the Speaker announced the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy* as chair of the new IPSA expenses regulation body.

The announcement - and the fact that the professor will be paid up to £100,000 a year - was met by MPs with catcalls, jeering and laughter around the chamber. As Sir Ian was described as an “eminent” candidate, there were more hoots and jeers. At least one red-faced MP was jabbing his hands in the air with disgust.

This will not look good at all on television tonight.

* He chaired the inquiry into the Bristol Royal Infirmary scandal

So many numbers are flying around that you might not have spotted today’s real news on RBS.

That is, the government has wiped the slate of an estimated £9-£11bn of tax liabilities owed by the giant bank.

In private Treasury officials suggest that the figure is closer to £4.5bn. But the larger figure has come from RBS’s own accounts.

So, not only is the government pumping £25bn of new capital into RBS (as first announced in February). It’s also buying £6bn of new shares in Lloyds Banking Group as part of LBG’s private fund-raising. And it’s creating a contingency rescue fund of £8bn for RBS (which may never be used). Plus the £10bn tax write-off.

That’s close to £50bn of taxpayers’ money.

The Treasury’s defence is a] a lot of the money was announced in the spring, b] RBS will take on more onerous terms such as taking a bigger “first hit” of any losses and c] would your rather let the bank collapse and prompt another financial meltdown?

Even so: These are big numbers. John McFall, chair of the Treasury select committee, told the Commons: “RBS is in a worse state than everyone thought last February.”