One of those annoying phrases that always gets wheeled out by analysts is ‘a week is a long time in politics.’ The thing about clichés though is that they have only become a cliché by containing a fundamental truth.

Thus Brown, who was floundering a week ago, delivered a speech that shored up his position and seemingly threw down the gauntlet to the Tories with what one delegate described as ‘initiative Tourettes’; more hours of sunshine, death to be abolished by 2015, and a pet chinchilla for every school-girl to stroke at lunchtime. Party activists were thrown enough red-meat to ready them for the slog ahead whilst the decent reception for the speech itself meant that internal critics were effectively silenced.

Obviously, the defection of The Sun to the Tories was damaging for Labour, but with the declining influence of print media coupled to the fact that the timing of the announcement was so blatantly cynical (and expected), it may be the case that News International have shot their bolt too soon (incidentally, Rupert Murdoch is a former treasurer of Oxford University Labour Club- what this says about Murdoch, or indeed OULC, remains to be decided). All told then, Labour had as good a conference as they could have hoped for; only time will tell whether Brighton marked the start of a fight-back or was simply too little too late.

On the same theme of weeks being lengthy creatures, the Tories entered conference week with their bête noire, Europe, centre-stage after the Irish backed the Lisbon Treaty second time around. That the announcement of the result couldn’t have been more perfectly timed to inflame old divisions must have irked Cameron no end. That Andrew Marr’s line of questioning on Sunday morning focussed on his personal wealth must be an indication to Tory strategists that the kid-glove treatment is over.

At the beginning of the week all of the Conservative Party’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidates receiving a phone call not to discuss Europe with the press. This had the unintended consequence of Boris making Euro-mischief all on his own, culminating in an interview with Paxman that can only charitably be described as erratic. The same episode of Newsnight featured a focus group which will provide little comfort to Conservative HQ; anger and disaffection at the government, but little enthusiasm for the alternative.

One week on then, it is David Cameron who now has to step up to the plate and look like a Prime Minister in waiting whilst not appearing to take victory for granted. Can he do it? One thing’s for certain; by the time he receives his obligatory ovation tomorrow, the campaign for the next general election will have already begun.

It was revealed recently that in 1995 the US Secret Service had to rescue Boris Yeltsin from the kerb outside the White House after he got hammered and tried to flag down a cab wearing nothing but his pants. British politics has not generated as eccentric a character for some time but for those wanting to watch a politician discernibly in need of rescue one only had to watch the Prime Minister on GMTV a couple weeks ago.

The irony is that whilst he is hammered by the press at home, Brown is lauded abroad – indeed, he jetted off to the States to speak at the UN this week and while there he was presented with the World Statesman of the Year award. It’s such a disparity in domestic and international popularity that draws parallels with another figure from the pantheon of former Russian leaders; hailed as a statesman across the globe but reviled at home, Gorbachev can be best characterised as unwittingly orchestrating the downfall of a system he’d spent his lifetime defending.

Similarly, the PM is the architect of many of the problems he now faces; Labour made a case for public spending (or ‘investment’) when it entered office but the means for raising revenue were never commensurate with the sums spent. As a result the UK entered the recession with an already burgeoning budget deficit; a 25% collapse in tax revenues post-credit crunch looks set to push the deficit to £175bn. To put this in perspective, 1 pound in every 7 spent by the government will have to be borrowed and it is this harsh contraction in the amount of money the state has at its disposal to dole out that will form the backdrop against which the next election campaign is will be played out.

Now that it is conference season, the language of ‘difficult choices’ and ‘the c-word’ (cuts if you were wondering) echo around the chambers as delegates applaud uneasily. It already seems that disquiet from party members is behind Nick Clegg’s decision to row back from his previous call for ‘savage cuts’; the net effect of all this for the Lib Dems has unfortunately seen them credited for candour and criticised for being confused all in the space of a few days.

Back on the GMTV sofa, Brown was adamant that he would lead Labour into the next election. The worst-case scenario for Labour is also the most likely; plenty of leadership speculation but no coup. James Purnell is the man to watch, but his time is perhaps another general election away yet.

The received opinion then is that the next election is the Tories’ to lose. This very fact will put added pressures on Cameron and Osborne as they come up to the Conservative Party conference for theirs is almost the hardest task of all- much like a British tennis player 2 sets up, they simply have to keep their nerve and not fluff it. Whether they can rise to the challenge remains to be seen. One thing’s for sure though; the starting pistol for next election has been cocked and is being held aloft in expectation…

The scientific community has known for years that we are facing a severe shortage of science graduates. If Britain is to keep up with the rest of the world, we need to increase the number of young people entering into industry and research – some estimate that we need to as much as double our output by 2014.

With science courses shutting down all over the country, and 25% of secondary schools teaching physics without a specialist teacher, it is no surprise that many are worried that research companies will start taking their business elsewhere. A surprise move from the Government to open up 10,000 new University places solely for maths and science students seems like a good idea – but is it all it seems?

As the recession drives down house prices, and forces businesses to shut up shop, it is having another, less obvious effect on the education sector. Thousands of worried students – both A-level and recent graduates – have chosen to try and sit out the recession by applying for university courses. This year, applications for undergraduate courses have risen by 10%, as more and more people come around to the idea that staying in education may be the best way to avoid a difficult job hunt.

At first glance, this might seem like the silver lining to the otherwise stormy cloud of the recession. After all, surely a better qualified population can only mean good things for the country’s future, right? Until Autumn, the Government agreed: after all, it aims to get 50% of all school leavers heading into higher education. However, when the figures were examined, it rapidly became apparent that the number of students qualifying for a full maintenance grant had been severely underestimated, leaving a hole of £200 million in the budget. The Government’s response to this was to limit the number of places that Universities could make available this year.

Soon however, a new problem arose. Estimates started to put the number of students who wouldn’t be able to get a place at University at all at 50000. Under increasing pressure from students and Universities alike, the Government has recently announced plans to provide 10,000 extra places – but with a catch: they will only be allocated to maths and science courses.

In theory, this move should be good for the country: and it seems to be working. The number of people applying for maths degrees has risen by 11%, this year, and applications for mechanical engineering is up by 19%. So far so good – but there is a slightly worrying side to this announcement.

Gordon Brown has told the Universities that the Government will provide the 10,000 students with tuition fee loans (as well as maintenance loans and grants), but that’s it. Normally, Universities get £6739 per student for those enrolled on a lab-based or engineering course on top of tuition fees, to pay for equipment and tutors. But if Universities are to offer these extra places, then they are effectively accepting a funding cut – the first in many years.

This seems to be typical of the Government’s general approach to science education. With secondary school curricula stripped down to the bare bones to make science “more interesting”, and several physics A-levels teaching very dubious oversimplifications so that those without maths A-level can understand it, it is no wonder that we don’t have enough scientists. The Government’s attempt to open up more science degree places has its heart in the right place, but without proper funding, Universities cannot be expected to offer tuition that competes with international institutions.

There is no doubt that we need to seriously need to look at the way that science is taught and promoted in this country. But the Government needs to realise that if it wants to have a workforce of qualified scientists, it has to invest in in its students first. It is no good having a generation of graduates that missed out on vital knowledge simply because there wasn’t enough funding to buy the right equipment. At the end of the day, the Government cannot half-heartedly commit to training its scientists: if it doesn’t want Britain to fall behind, it’s all or nothing.