THERE was brief excitement on Tuesday when a series of ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and special advisers streamed out of Number 10 at the same time.

Among them were the Home Secretary David Blunkett, Health Secretary John Reid and Education Secretary Charles Clarke, accompanied by lower-ranking ministers and PPS's including Worcester MP Mike Foster.

The assembled television reporters - stood around in Downing Street waiting for their early evening news bulletins - were immediately suspicious they had missed a high-level meeting and swooped with a barrage of questions.

Told that the gathering had been summoned by none other than the Prime Minister and his new election supremo Alan Milburn, suspicions were naturally hardened there had been a council of war ahead of the looming general election.

One reporter, mindful that the PM might be set to call the election the following day, even asked: "I'm not going to have to change my plans for November, am I?"

If an election date had been decided, those that attended the meeting were not going to disclose it.

But both the reporters' line of questioning and the contents of the meeting were signs that thoughts are increasingly beginning to turn to the next general election.

Most people are convinced it will be held on May 5 next year, even though it does not need to be called until June 2006.

When somebody at Tuesday's meeting suggested that there might not be a general election for another 18 months, the thought was met with raucous laughter.

Betrayed

The meeting addressed the importance of "delivery", a concept any political party would need to get across in an election campaign after seven years in government.

As Peter Luff summed up during a Commons debate this week: "Labour members seem to forget that they have been in power for seven years - some things are actually their fault now."

Sir Michael Spicer also betrayed a preoccupation with the next election recently in a question to the Leader of the House, Peter Hain.

He asked Mr Hain to ensure that sitting MPs have access to their parliamentary computer system during the election period so that they can get on with their casework.

Sir Michael was bothered that he would have difficulty looking after constituency matters during the election "purdah", when MPs lose their parliamentary privileges during the campaign period.

Mr Hain assured him he was looking into the matter and sympathised entirely with his concern for his constituents.

While election planning gathers pace, it can't have escaped notice that the Labour Party is yet to appoint a prospective parliamentary candidate to take on Sir Michael at the next general election.

The Liberal Democrats appointed their man, Malvern Hills district council leader Tom Wells, more than two years ago so he has had plenty of time to make inroads into Sir Michael's 5,374 majority.

Coun Wells must be rubbing his hands with glee that Labour are leaving it so late to appoint their candidate, as it effectively gives him a free run at West Worcestershire voters on the left of the political spectrum.

But senior Labour figures know this and are none too concerned. There is method in their madness.

"There's plenty of time yet, but it's fair to say West Worcestershire's certainly not on our hitlist," a Labour insider tells me, before adding mischievously: "We're expecting a very close fight between Sir Michael and Tom Wells."