The most vicious piece of internal blue-on-blue briefing seen from this government, so far, came on Sunday against Andrew Lansley.  A Tory minister told the Telegraph:

“I have immense personal sympathy for Andrew but if the Bill becomes something totally different from his original proposals then he will simply not have the credibility to lead the reforms.…”

Well it seems Lansley doesn’t agree and is digging in. He has come out fighting in the same paper this morning, claiming that he is ready to accept  ”substantial and significant” changes to his bill. We shall see… 

Downing Street source says…

“If Huhne was a Tory he would have gone already.”

While Downing Street tries to mop up two yellow messes in the shape of Clarke and Huhne, yet more signs emerged last night that Cameron needs to watch his back and tend his own flock. Backbenchers screaming “we’re sick of the yellow b**tards” should be a pretty big wake up call for the PM. He’s in a coalition with three parties, and when is he going to realise the one to his right is not happy?

For all the talk of Lansley’s neck being on the line, he was apparently given a thunderous applause at the meeting of the 1922 committee last night. For all the mud being slung at him, Lansley has kept schtum. A minister who knows how to keep his mouth shut seems strangely refreshing. 

As for the “yellow b**tards”, the entire Downing Street grid this week has been blown off course by LibDems and wannabe ones. Though it’s not all bad news for Dave, even the Labour cheerleaders are conceding that Miliband tactically blundered in calling for Clarke’s head.  He still has a job due to the amateur leader’s hysterical reaction to a whiff of blood. There was no way Cameron would push, specifically because Ed had said he must. The Indy’s Andy McSmith went into bat for his old friend on Radio 4 this morning, saying  it was only nasty right-wingers that are happy at the demise of Clarke. Try telling that to left, right and centrists who exploded yesterday. What is remotely nasty about wanting to lock up rapists for the longest time possible?

Steady Hammond was deployed this morning to try clear up the mess Ken left yesterday, but it was Vince that was given the harder job:

 “It would be a loss if he went but he’s not talking about going… It would be a loss because he’s a very effective colleague.”

If Huhne’s not talking about going, why was Vince sent out to spin for him?

Once again one of Liam’s little letters has made its way into the papers. Again he is protesting his innocence, and this time he’s not the only suspect.

“A source close to Dr Fox” said “the Defence Secretary fully supports the principle of a 0.7% target on international aid.” Yet his letter will be seen, by the Tory right and grassroots, at the very least, as a rejection of what a growing number believe to be an absurd policy. While we scrap aircraft carriers, we thank Pakistan for all their help recently by sending them hundreds of millions….

But who else would benefit from this row being out in the open? Which ambitious and restless colleague was consulted and is mentioned in the first sentence of the letter:

Dear David Cameron
I have considered the issue carefully, and discussed it with Andrew [Mitchell] and William Hague, but I cannot support the proposal in its current form….

Could maneuvering Mitchell be doing a little fox-hunting?

It’s clear Mitchell would have known the letter was coming and he has a stake in the fight, but could it have been even more Machiavellian? Downing Street don’t want a reshuffle just yet, and this debate has distracted nicely from Huhne’s problems for a couple of hours. Who knows, maybe this is even the beginning of another government u-turn. This time to throw a bone to the Tory-core vote, that held up, rather than the electorally decimated LibDems.

Gerald Kaufmann has made a big hoo-ha about getting a reply from Downing Street signed by “Mrs E Adams”, a made up pen name used by Downing Street correspondents. As you can see she was employed by Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown liked to use imaginary staff. He put Miss Money Fairy in charge of the deficit.

Chris Huhne’s posturing at Cabinet has been well reported elsewhere. Apparently he cares so much about the AV campaign that he openly challenged the Prime Minister at Cabinet. He then fully briefed hacks within minutes that he’d done so.

He certainly seems wound up, and there is even speculation that he could walk on Friday when the LibDems are decimated locally and in all likelihood the “Yes to AV” Campaign is defeated. This anger feels fake to Guido though. Perhaps Huhne’s mistress, Carina Trimingham. who is on the “Yes to AV” campaign, has him on a Lysistrata-like no-win-no-lay policy. 

There wouldn’t be much love lost if the manoeuvring Huhne did walk. It would solve the where to put David Laws problem in one. Though Huhne could stir from the backbenches, he should remember that Helseltine was actually popular and liked before he wielded his knife. And he had better hair too…

Cameron has seen the error of his ways and realised that he is very low down on the agenda at the Royal Wedding and should not use State occasions for tacky political gimmicks. After confirming to James Forsyth at the weekend that the PM would not be wearing a tail coat at the wedding, a spokesman reaffirmed the lounge suit line to Reuters yesterday. Since then the PM has been attacked by pretty much everyone, including Boris, with the Telegraph particularly heartbroken. It’s no surprise then that No.10 have had one of those “fix this quickly” whispers in Ben Brogan’s ear this morning:

“Of course he’s got to wear tails. He knows that. He’s the Prime Minister, it’s the Royal family, there will be foreign dignitaries present and it is only right that he dresses for the importance of the occasion,” 

The source went on to stress that Dave hadn’t been properly consulted and blamed a spinner. Seems this is another episode where the chance to pull off a cheap gimmick has been totally misjudged in terms of the public mood and it has subsequently unravelled. Commonsense, duty and politeness 1, Steve Hilton nil.

Kay Burley sails close to the wind in her political bonkbuster ‘First Ladies.’ Guido has touched on the similarities to certain real life ladies involved the the Blair-like PM in the novel already. Not content with upsetting the lawyers there, Kay pushes things even further…

In the most shocking scene in the book, “Valerie”, nearly dies after taking a drink and drugs overdose in the No. 10 flat, while her husband ‘Julian’, the Blair-like PM, is at a tryst with one of his mistresses. She is discovered unconscious in the middle of the night by her 13 year old daughter. No. 10 officials try to stop doctors rushing her to hospital to stop the press from finding out.

Any similarity between this and a real life drama in No. 10 concerning the Blair family is pure coincidence.

The congregation of St Peters Church in Hammersmith are getting used to a new star amongst the flock. A slightly more-on-the-ball parishioner noticed some subtler changes too. Naturally the people of Japan were at the forefront of the vicar’s request for prayers, but there was some confusion to why the local Tory council was in his thoughts this week. The government too…

The vicar also discussed the importance of solving unemployment and even invited his flock to a big society-esque meeting about  finding  jobs this Wednesday at a local pub. Regulars definitely noticed a change in tone that can only be explained by the leather jacket-clad “trendy dad” Craig Oliver, who was seen chatting away with the vicar for so long at the end that he caused a queue to get out. Guido can only assume Oliver was thanking the vicar for the government’s new found backing from God.

After a hounding from the Lobby and the print press in the last few days, there are already those who question whether Craig Oliver will last very long in his new role. Though he may have had a rough time since accidentally briefing against Andrew, as well as being stand-offish with the darlings of the Lobby, the former Beeboid has come out fighting…

Infuriated hacks seeking to cover John Hutton’s pension review for this morning’s editions of the papers were under a strict embargo of 8 a.m., meaning the coverage could be crafted on the airwaves by interviews this morning. A grumpy spinner said last night ”It’s meant to be for broadcast tomorrow and the papers the next day”, something the Mail and Express promptly ignored. Seems someone is getting the hang of this string pulling malarkey…