Will Lansley be "taken out and shot"?

Speculation about the Health Secretary's future continues to grow.

Speculation that Andrew Lansley will be sacked has been growing for weeks and this morning's papers will do nothing to diminish it.

In her Times column (£), entitled "Is Lansley the exception to the no-sacking policy?", Rachel Sylvester quotes one Downing Street source as saying that the Health Secretary "should be taken out and shot. He's messed up both the communication and the substance of the policy."

Sylvester reports on an "intriguing idea" circulating in No 10: that Alan Milburn should be offered a seat in the Lords and his old job as Health Secretary. It's not hard to see why Cameron, who, by his account, picked up the baton of reform from Blair, might be tempted by this option.

But as Sylvester notes in a less conspicuous passage:

Both Mr Cameron and George Osborne are remarkably loyal to Mr Lansley, who was their boss at the Conservative Research Department.

Elsewhere, today's Daily Mirror reports on comments by James O'Shaughnessy, formerly one of David Cameron's No 10 advisers and now a lobbyist. "Actually, if you look at where we got to on the Health Bill, the fundamentals of what we were trying to do are still there," he said. This isn't news. Indeed, Lansley himself has boasted that the "fundamental principles" of the bill remain. But more damaging is O'Shaughnessy's admission that last summer's legislative "pause" was merely a "tactic" to get the bill through.

However, it's precisely because the "fundamentals" of the bill remain that it's hard to see Cameron either sacking Lansley or abandoning the reforms. He missed his chance to do that last summer. As the bill re-enters the Lords, the likelihood is that Lansley will live to fight another day.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496