So how old did Titian live to be?

After Gordon Brown's recent comments and the exchange at Prime Minister's Questions it seems the big political question is "How old was Titian when he died?"

At the end of PMQs Andrew Neil announced that his Art Editor has emailed to say Brown is right - because said editor had checked Wikipedia! And this is not the first time I've noticed the BBC relying on Wikipedia for research! Naturally an edit war is now beginning there - see this edit, this one and this one. And no doubt by the time you read this there will be more changes at the revision history.

Indeed as I type this I heard that Conservative Central Office and the Art Editor (again) have both contacted Andrew Neil to add to the debate. So will Titiangate run and run?!

Harriet Harman's rubbish memory

I'm just watching Prime Minister's Questions and Harriet Harman has attacked the Conservatives for having questions asked by the Senior Member of the Shadow Cabinet not the Shadow Leader of the House.

If Harriet Harman cares to remember when Labour were last in opposition (perhaps not given how pilloried she was by her own side), she will recall that when Tony Blair didn't do Prime Minister's Questions, it wasn't Ann Taylor but John Prescott who stood in for him. Was Harriet Harman complaining then? Or is she so incompetent she thinks the world began in May 1997?

Bring back John Prescott!

Embarrassing things to say at Prime Minister's Questions #94

The first Labour MP to speak mentioned Blair's campaigning "against anti-racism".

But somehow I doubt this will go down there with George (H.W.) Bush's comments that he stood for "anti-sexism, anti-racism & anti-semitism".

Why ministers should be on top of their departments

No I don't want to talk about the details of John Prescott's appearance in the news today. It's clearly an attempt to bury bad news - though given the way that neither Prescott nor Charles Clarke have escaped it does suggest that even the Not So Very New Labour spin doctors are no longer as effective as they once were. Is no-one in the Labour Party performing properly?

More concerning is the fate of Charles Clarke. Yesterday he offered to resign if it was necessary. Today yet more revelations have led to those who previously did not want his resignation to call for it. At Prime Minister's Questions today it took only a glance at the government front bench to see how isolated Clarke is and Blair was visibly not comfortable defending his Home Secretary. He didn't even hang around in the Commons when Clarke gave a statement in the Commons immediately afterwards and instead gave a pathetic excuse for being elsewhere. Since Clarke's resignation offer was turned down, one has to wonder why Blair is keeping him in the post.

Two thoughts spring to mind. First off Clarke is an increasing rarity in the Cabinet - a heavyweight Blairite. Blairites have repeatedly proved to be the weakspot of the Cabinet - just look at resignations such as David Blunkett (twice), Peter Mandelson (twice), Stephen Byers and so forth. With Patricia Hewitt also under heavy fire over the poor handling of deficits in the National Health Service Blair must be fearing ever more isolation in his final days if he's forced to lose another of his supporters.

But there's also a tactical possibiliy. Labour is expecting to do badly in the local elections and many expect renewed calls for Tony Blair to resign after them. Keeping Clarke on until after polling day would allow him to take the flack for Labour's pasting and then his resignation could be accepted whilst Blair carries on.

Meanwhile the Home Office remains a mess and more criminals are on the street and the public is not reassured. What's more important - shoring up Tony Blair's position or having ministers who are on top of their departments?