Gordon Brown’s brief visit to Afghanistan brought sympathy for his political plight from President Hamid Karzai but his attempts to evoke the Olympic spirit with British troops drew a decidedly cool response from the ranks.

For the travelling pack of reporters, he only had one stock answer bu that didn’t stop them from hounding him with the same question.

Thousands of miles from home, at a press conference in the Afghan capital, Brown was repeatedly probed by reporters about his leadership, or lack of it as his enemies might say.

“We are getting on with the job,” Brown said, when asked about rumoured plots against him.

“It’s a good relationship,” he answered, when quizzed on the supposed aspirations of Foreign Secretary David Miliband. “We get on with the job.”

The journalists even had Afghan President Hamid Karzai discussing the topic.

“Cabinet ministers plotting is nothing new. We have it in Afghanistan too,” he said, smiling.

Brown will be hoping announcements he will make in September of economic measures to give Britons more money in their pockets will ease some of the doubts about his role as party leader.

In the meantime: “I am getting on with the job and that is what people would expect me to do,” he said.

He was in more expansive mood with the troops.

Wearing a dark suit and a purple tie, minus the jacket, told them they were “truly heroes”.

Stood against a backdrop of armoured tanks and trucks, he likened them to Britain’s medal-winning Olympic team in Beijing — only the soldiers made the country proud “every day of the week, every week of the year,” he said.

But the gathering of 300 or so men and women who listened to Brown at the British army headquarters in Camp Bastion, Helmand province, did not respond in kind.

They stood in silence amid the heat and dust. There were no cheers or applause after he wrapped up his patriotic address.

Some, largely those of higher rank, said the high-profile visit did make a difference to troop morale.

Captain Phil Hobbs said: “It shows support. It’s getting leadership involved at every level.”

But the more junior soldiers did not seem overly impressed and had little to say about their drop-in guest.

One said he had preferred the recent entertainment laid on at Bastion of comedy, dancing and a live band. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Brown is no match for a knees-up, especially after a few months in a tent in the desert.

Glasgow East has a very different feel to Crewe as it gears up for Thursday’s by-election.

In Crewe and Nantwich voters were palpably enthused by the prospect of giving Gordon Brown and Labour a good kicking. They were aware of the national significance of a Tory victory and relished the chance to send Brown a stern message. Turnout was a high 58 percent and the Conservatives achieved a massive 17.6 percent swing to win the seat in May.

A walk around the housing estates and shabby shopping complexes of Glasgow East tells a different story. Many locals frown and scurry off when asked their political views. Others who do stop and talk express indifference. The by-election may be a two-horse race between Labour and the Scottish National Party (SNP) but apathy is running a close third. Turnout here was less than 50 percent in the 2005 general election and is expected to be much lower next week, particularly because of summer school holidays.

But Labour is braced for a thrashing and a drastically reduced majority. Lifelong Labour supporters said they were switching to the SNP or even to the Conservatives, who barely make it on to the political map in Scotland. Diehard Labour loyalists — people who vote for Labour because their mother, father and grandparents did — may just help Brown hold on to the seat but Labour appears to be losing the support amongst the working class that it has relied on in Scotland for decades.

Take Scottish pensioners Sarah Carlin and Catherine Matheson. They have voted for the Labour Party since they can remember but both said they plan to switch allegiances next Thursday. Carlin, 64, may vote Conservative, if she votes at all, while Matheson will plump for the SNP.

“I’ve worked all my days and I don’t get anything. I pay for my glasses, I pay for my teeth. I’m going to try the Conservatives. I’m sick of it,” said Carlin, having tea after an exercise class at the Tollcross Park Leisure Centre in Glasgow’s deprived east end.

Other “eastenders” have lost faith in politicians, worn down by what they see as a failure to tackle the crime and drug addiction that plagues the sprawling constituency.

Michael McGonigle, who owns a butcher’s shop in the east end, said the area has got worse over the years, beset by drug addicts and dealers.

“I’m not voting. I don’t believe in any of them. They’re all in it for themselves,” said McGonigle, 38, as he sliced beef in his store on Tollcross Road. “You see them day and night, druggies, methodone junkies.”

A few doors down, Stephen Mclellan, 37, who owns his own grocery store, is similar disillusioned.

“Nothing gets done. They just promise. I’d like something to be done locally,” he said, pointing at the drains outside his shop that he said flood every time it rains or the boarded up flats opposite. “There are too many people on methodone. They sell it at the bus stop, there is no support. Put police on the streets and the place would be ten times better,” added McGonigle, who is unsure who he will vote for, if anyone.

Politically-engaged locals agreed that Labour could have lost here if Margaret Curran hadn’t agreed to stand. She is a local political heavyweight and an energetic campaigner. Local taxi driver Robert Kemp, 54, thinks “a gun was put to her head. They needed a big hitter, so they said, Margaret, come and save our position.”

Others said that if the charismatic Alex Salmond had been standing, rather than the lesser-known John Mason, the SNP could have pulled it off — a result that would certainly have sent shockwaves all the way to Downing Street and could have sealed the prime minister’s fate.

(photo shows Scottish Labour Party candidate Curran campaigning in Glasgow)

If the message on the streets up here in northern England is anything to go by, Labour will be sent packing at the next election.

Yes, it was just a by-election. Yes, Labour is suffering from severe mid-term blues. But the swing was a massive 17.6 percent and it wasn’t the Liberal Democrats who gained from Labour’s troubles, as is traditional in by-elections.

From speaking to people on the ground, the Labour vote has collapsed and the Tories are out in force. When pensioners who’ve voted Labour all their lives switch to the Conservatives, it’s time for Labour to worry.

Rising living costs and the perception that Labour has encouraged a benefits culture that is bleeding taxpayers dry were high on voters’ grudge list. Then there was the 10 pence tax ”fiasco” as one called it, or Labour’s “cynical, condescending” campaign against Tory toffs, as another said. 

Overwhelmingly, though, there was a sense that people had just had enough. That Labour had had 11 years and what had they done with it?

On top of that, there was a whiff of victory that pervaded the Conservatives’ campaign and got many apathetic Tories or people who had never voted before out in support for Edward Timpson.

David Cameron just needs to maintain the sense that the Conservatives are on track to win and he could see thousands more floating voters jumping on his bandwagon.

Margarete Cernigliaro, 55, said it was the impression that her vote actually counted that prompted her to go to the polling station on Thursday. She is a self-confessed ”lazy voter” who supports the Conservatives but didn’t think it was worth bothering in the last general election.

She told how her six-year-old grandson had met his six-year-old friend on Thursday on route to the polling station with his family. “Let’s vote for the winners,” said one six-year-old to another, referring to Timpson & co.

Even diehard Labour voters think their party has lost the next election. Jeremy Vernon, a 45-year-old teacher, voted Labour as always on Thursday, but rather reluctantly.

“I think it is a national problem. It’s the Gordon Brown problem,” he said and went on to accuse the government of “cooking the books” over inflation, given the huge rises in petrol and basic food items. Asked if Labour could win the next election, he said: ”I think they’ll lose it, definitely.” 

David Cameron may find that looking like a winner between now and the next election will be enough to turn him into one. 

The Labour Party knew Tony Blair had to go when he became an electoral liability.

Less than a year into the job, where does Gordon Brown stand in terms of this all-important marker?

Well, don’t expect any answers from Labour’s candidate in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

Tamsin Dunwoody refused to come up with a straight answer in when she was asked the question repeatedly by a reporter. You can see the interview in the You Tube clip below.

“Gordon Brown is our prime minister” and a number of variations on that theme was her reply.

The Conservatives, whose leader David Cameron is back on the campaign trail in Crewe and Nantwich on Thursday, are gleefully circulating the clip of her interview, complete with an awkward-looking John Denham (minister for universities and skills) standing by.

Brown has been noticeably absent from the northern constituency in the run-up to next week’s by-election, which opinion polls show his party could lose to the Tories, despite it being regarded as a safe Labour seat.

Ed Balls had intended, by briefing political journalists on Monday, to take the media focus off personality and put it back on policy. Instead, he turned up the heat on an internal row with a bit of character assassination of his own.

In retaliation for Frank Field’s attack on Gordon Brown’s personality, Balls effectively accused him of acting dishonourably in his fight for compensation for those who have lost out from the abolition of the 10-pence tax band.

Field — who said Brown was “unhappy in himself” and prone to rages — was a loner on a mission to topple Brown, Balls intimated.

“I think people could look at what he was saying a few weeks ago and believe at that time that his intentions were honourable. As for what he said this morning, I think I leave you to draw your own conclusions from that,” Balls said. Throughout his political career, he had generally acted alone, he added.

Political hacks left the briefing looking gleeful at the prospect of a good story, suggesting Balls had not achieved his stated goal of putting the personality spat to bed.

The May 1 local election results and polling in the run-up to the Crewe and Nantwich by-election suggest the Field has public opinion on his side in his relentless assault on ministers over the tax blunder.

Balls’ counter-offensive on behalf of his boss could well backfire.

Despite recent press reportsthat the frostiness between Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson is melting,it appearedfromtherather awkward shuffle and carefully chosen words of the prime minister’s official spokesmanon Monday that the Brown-Mandelson relationship remains a way off being cosy.

Asked whether Brown believed Mandelson was doing a good job as European Union trade commissioner, the prime minister’s spokesman told reporters: “The prime minister has no difficulty with the job that Peter Mandelson has done.”

Asked to clarify this less than glowing reference,the spokesmansaid:”He thinks, er,I think the prime minister would be quite comfortable for me to say that Peter Mandelson is doing a good job.”

Nit-picking, you may say. But thespokesman is frequently asked about the prime minister’s opinions of his ministers or Labour Party colleagues and generally offers unequivocal support. For example, he said Tony Blair would be a “great candidate” for a big international job such as president of the European Council.The phrase”no difficulty” in reference to Mandelson certainly raised eyebrows among the assembled journalists.

The spokesman appeared far from comfortableabout the prospect of characterising his boss’ opinion of the man who infuriated Brown by backing Tony Blair in the 1994 contest to replace John Smith as Labour leader after his sudden death. Relations between Brown and Mandelsonhave been frosty ever since.

The spokesman added it was “early days” tobe talking about a second term for Mandelson but said the two had held a “constructive” meetingin Brussels recently and that they spoke regularly. Mandelson told Reuters on Monday he might rethink an earlier decision to leave the commission next year when his term ends.

The European question (pro or contra? in or out?) has divided the main parties for decades. The Tories’ internal convulsions over Europe led to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher and tore the party apart under John Major. Labour grappled with divisions on the issue in the ’70s and ’80s.

But last night, it was the pro-European Lib Dems who appeared to have fallen prey to the political curse that is Europe.

Nick Clegg’s order to his MPs to abstain on a vote on whether to hold a referendum on the new European Union treaty left his party in disarray and a question mark over his leadership, less than three months into the post.

Labour was hit by a smaller rebellion than it could have been and the Conservatives managed to put on a show of unity with just a few exceptions — but a quarter of Lib Dem MPs defied Clegg and three frontbenchers had to resign.

It’s an embarrassing outcome for a party that has been the most consistently pro-European for years and should have been the most united on the issue.

“He sat on the fence as a point of principle,” mocked Conservative MP Theresa May in the Commons on Thursday.

The outcome leaves Clegg looking vulnerable as he goes into his party’s spring conference in Liverpool this weekend and the trouble isn’t over yet in parliament. Lib Dem Lords may defy him on the same vote in the upper chamber. And a Lib Dem abstention in the Lords could force another vote in the Commons on the same issue, presenting Clegg and pro-referendum MPs with the same quandary.

There is little sense in the Commons that the Lib Dems have a taste for yet another leadership race so early into Clegg’s tenure.

Clegg’s faux pas, however, may have left some Lib Dems scratching their heads as to why they didn’t stick with Vince Cable following the ousting of Menzies Campbell. Caretaker Cable’s challenges to Brown over Northern Rock hit the mark and his joke on Gordon Brown’s “remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean” will not be forgotten.

But Clegg’s stumble means he needs to prove himself even more than before. He has yet to make a real mark in prime minister’s questions or on any particular policy.

And the Lib Dems are losing their trump card with the voters — Iraq. Their opposition to the war won sympathy with many in past years and gave anti-war Labour voters an option. But as Iraq drops down the agenda, the Lib Dems and Clegg need to find new impetus. The Liverpool conference will be a test, as will the May local elections.

On first glance, the news that foreign criminals in British jails are being offered up to 3,000 pounds to leave the country is likely to spark bemusement, even outrage. Particularly if it’s described as a ‘bribe’. If someone gave me 3,000 pounds, I’d be more than happy to up sticks and go and settle in sunnier climes, and I’m not even a criminal, you may say.

But the government argues that the facilitated returns scheme — as the package of incentives introduced in 2006 is called — makes financial sense.

UK prisons are bursting at the seams and it costs taxpayers 100 pounds a night to keep a prisoner in jail, the Home Office says. So keep a criminal behind bars for 30 days, and there goes the 3,000. Might as well ask them to leave for the same cost. Enforced removals cost an estimated 11,000 pounds per prisoner.

So do you think it’s right to pay people to pack their bags quickly? If not, what’s your solution to jail overcrowding?

The scheme was introduced by then Home Secretary John Reid, the minister who famously declared the rambling Home Office as “not fit for purpose” when he took it over in May 2006.

The government deported over 4,200 foreign national prisoners in 2007, 80 percent more than the previous year, and the facilitated returns scheme accounted for one fifth of that figure, says the Home Office.

“I think it is right that we get as many foreign national prisoners who are in British prisons back to their country of origin as soon as possible,” Gordon Brown told the Commons when pressed on the incentives scheme.

The standard package offers prisoners up to 800 pounds to leave voluntarily but the offer was increased to 1,500 from the end of October 2006 until the 1st of January and an enhanced package of up to 3,000 pounds is available again until the end of April, the Home Office says. Criminals have to have completed the custodial part of their sentence.

There are an estimated 11,000 foreign inmates in Britain’s jails and police cells are regularly being used to deal with prison overcrowding — so doing nothing isn’t an option.

Gordon Brown could test drive his latest crackdown on excessive drinking on his home turf. At Labour's annual conference in Bournemouth, the wine starts flowing at lunchtime fringe meetings and the parties and bars are packed until the early hours. The bar at Marriott Highcliff hotel is the place to be once all the parties empty out. The booze keeps flowing there until after 3 am. If delegates are lucky, some talented piano player will liven up the proceedings with an old-fashioned singalong.       

Fringe meetings - unless they can boast a big-name speaker - are a flop without free booze or a good plate of bangers and mash, and parties get a bad name when they run out of wine.       

No such hiccups at Tuesday night's News International bash. As usual, it pulled in all the big names from media and government but it was guest list only - and no arguments. Uninvited journalists hovered around the entrance, hoping to slip in on the coat-tails of more illustrious colleagues or as part of the entourage of Sarah Brown. Without success. There was to be no gatecrashing at this party and the disgruntled journalists left off the list found themselves jostling for position by the door with a retinue of assorted bodyguards, all talking into their ear pieces and wishing their respective ministers would call it a night.      

Brown may have admitted to being too serious but over the past few nights he made sure he paid a visit to all the major parties, particularly those hosted by the all-important newspapers. Whether he calls an early election or not, Brown wants the papers' editors on side.      

By Wednesday, the parties became much less exclusive as many ministers jetted off for important engagements and bleary-eyed delegates started to slope off home, leaving jaded journalists to party on, apparently safe in the knowledge that Brown's speeches are now done and dusted and there is little sign he will catch them out with a surprise election call.

Gordon Brown has ensured that nobody steals the spotlight from him at his first Labour Party conference as prime minister. For years, he made sure he shared the headlines with Tony Blair.

His speeches as chancellor were pored over by the media for signs of him mounting a challenge to his rival. Photographers watched his every move. Did he laugh at Tony's jokes? Did he clap? B

ut now he's in charge, Brown has told his ministers to keep their speeches to just seven minutes. All the more time for him. He spoke for 64 minutes in his opening speech and will take centre-stage again on Wednesday for a Q&A session, likely to last a while longer than seven minutes.

Tony Blair liked being star of the show but can anyone imagine him telling Brown to sit down after seven minutes? Maybe it's part of Brown's green agenda but ministers' conference speeches fit on just a few sheets of paper.

So his chancellor of the exchequer Alistair Darling had about 10 minutes to discuss the Northern Bank run and remind us Britain's economic fundamentals are sound. "Is that it?" asked the financial journalists after Darling wrapped up.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband's speech on Tuesday took up just 3 1/2 sides of A4, meaning many of the big issues were simplified into language like "the world can be a very scary place".

Nor are there any celebrity guests to outshine Brown. No Bono, no Bill Clinton. It's not surprising that seasoned journalists are complaining about a lack of buzz and trying to create their own in the endless round of evening parties.