The more we are reminded by Mr Major that Mr Clarke was a central figure in his government, the more there is the perception of guilt by association. True, Mr Clarke was an outstanding Chancellor, and history has been unfair in its judgement of the manner in which the Major government managed the economy. But this leadership campaign should not be the vehicle, by proxy, for Mr Major to set right the record of his government – at least, not if he really wants to help Mr Clarke.Actually, I am slightly more optimistic about the prospects for Tory unity than may appear justified by recent events. There is a certain inevitability about flesh wounds being inflicted during even a good-natured contest.

The one salvation lies in the fact that the newly elected leader will be “owned” by the party members, rather than by the MPs. This means that any subsequent troublemaking by MPs and grandees will be seen to call into question the decision of the wider party membership, who will resent such attacks.The biggest danger for the winner will be if the losing sides in the parliamentary party refuse to knuckle under and accept the decision of the membership. If Mr Clarke wins there will still be a desire to make trouble among the most implacable of the Eurosceptics. And if Mr Duncan Smith wins, he can expect the Europhiles to be similarly difficult. In addition, there is the “a plague on both your houses” attitude from wounded Portillistas such as Francis Maude, Nicholas Soames and Archie Norman, who look like being a new “third force” in Conservative politics.The nightmare for the new leader is that, under the current rules, any combination of 84 these potential malcontent MPs can, still, oust him in a parliamentary motion of no confidence before the next election. For his own security he should capitalise on his mandate, from the membership, to ensure that any threat of removal is removed from the rules.

Otherwise, I fear we may be repeating all this before too long. And that really would be the end of the party.mrbrown pimlico.freeserve.co.uk. Now surely this is all a bit over the top I wanted to see a film last week. The film in question isn’t scheduled for mainstream release, and so I found the website that promotes it and looked up the next screening in London. Luckily, it was showing in just a couple of days but at an undisclosed location.

I rang the mobile number listed and was told to meet outside a Tube station. So there I was, one warm evening midweek, feeling just a teeny bit self-conscious, hanging around outside Turnpike Lane station, wondering if this guy wearing shades or that woman in the leather jacket was the one who would whisk us off to our secret destination.Promptly at the appointed hour, the woman in the leather jacket sidled over to me and asked if I was here for Injustice. In a manner of speaking, yes, I replied, and then we all – about 30 of us – moved off down Turnpike Lane to a sweltering meeting room, in a place that shall remain nameless, to join the other members of the audience, who numbered more than 100, and then we waited for an hour or so while people fiddled with the equipment and worked out how to turn the lights off. And then we got to watch the film in question.
That all sounds absurdly over the top, doesn’t it? What on earth, you might well ask, were we all watching – a film about how to procure seven-year-olds or about the best ways to build nail bombs? Injustice is, in fact, a very straightforward documentary about the deaths of various individuals in police custody.Oh yawn, yawn, yawn, I hear from my readers.