LOBBYDOG

Battle of the speeches

2012-02-08T10:27:00.001Z

When the press notice came through this morning that Ed Miliband would be giving a speech on Thursday on “fairness in tough times” there was something about it that smelt a bit fusty.

I couldn’t put my finger on it till I glanced over at my diary and realised what it was. The Labour Leader’s speech, timed to begin at 6pm, will take place at exactly the same time as a speech by his one-time-mentor turned nemeses – Maurice Glasman.

It was Lord Glasman, once described as a father-figure for Miliband, who soiled the Labour Leader’s January by writing an article claiming he had “no strategy, no narrative and little direction.”

I’ll be tweeting from the Glasman speech on Thursday and if he says anything interesting I’d wager it is he, and not Miliband, who gets more column inches on Friday morning.

David Miliband suggests Coalition unemployment policy may have some merit

2012-02-06T17:04:00.006Z

Earlier on we had a briefing with David Miliband who has been touting the proposals for tackling youth unemployment from a commission which he chaired.

In his opening spiel he said: “In terms of reforming the welfare state we’re saying that if you’re unemployed, if you’re on the Work Programme for a year you should automatically get a part time job guarantee – part time so that you can spend the rest of the time looking for work.

“We say that if you’re unemployed or on the Work Programme for two years you need to be in a long term subsidised job.”

The Work Programme is the Coalition’s flagship back-to-work policy, which sees contractors tasked to find jobs for the unemployed.

It’s interesting that David is suggesting ideas that incorporate the Work Programme because the official Labour Party line espoused by Ed has been to slag it off and say the previous government’s Future Jobs Fund (FJF) should be reinstated (see here and here).

So did David Miliband’s comments today mean he supported the Work Programme on some level and stood against the FJF – he did claim that the Work Programme was not extensive enough but went on to say…

“The Future Jobs Fund had good aspects including the sense of reality that it was a real job, but it also had some problems, for example in targeting different needs amongst young people – it was an emergency response to the recession.

“We say very clearly that we want to learn from the Work Programme, not reopen the debate to go back to it or not have it – we can actually learn from it.”

David’s response appears to be a break from Ed’s idea that the FJF should just be reinstated. Meanwhile there is the clear suggestion that the Coalition’s Work Programme has positive aspects.

I’m sure David would say this isn’t criticism of Ed's chosen path of course, just a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

Boom and Bust - the definitive explanation

2012-01-19T17:57:00.004Z

At the Press Gallery Lunch earlier The Guardian’s Michael White and Ed Balls had a conversation about the claim that Labour had abolished Boom and Bust, and it led to the most, shall we say, meticulous explanation of it that I have heard. It follows here…

Michael White: Whenever Gordon Brown said, as he so often did, ‘no more boom and bust’, some of us GCSE economists flinched because we knew that couldn’t possibly be true. We thought it couldn’t be right. What did you think?

Ed Balls: I think, economist or not, the power of retrospection is a great power.

MW: No. That’s the chairman’s cheap joke, come on, what did you think at the time?

EB: Since 2008 there have been many people who have written columns that said in retrospect that phrase about ‘boom and bust’ shouldn’t have been used. But I certainly used the boom and bust phrase as did other politicians in the previous 15 years. Go back to the first time it was used, was in the Labour party economic policy submission to Labour party conference of 1993. I wrote the words, and it was basically pointing out how Conservative politicians of the previous ten years, particularly Nigel Lawson, in their attempt to play politics with interest rates and the currency had ended up with self-inflicted boom and bust ups and downs, and the solution to that boom and bust political interference was an independent central bank, which was our argument. It was never an argument which was, ‘we could abolish the economic cycle’. It was an argument that we could through bank independence prevent the self inflicted political mistakes of the political era.
Did, as the years go on and Gordon Brown made more and more budget speeches, did he sometimes give the impression that stability might have been cemented into the British economic reality and psyche….perhaps. And perhaps in retrospect that was a rhetorical error.

It is only a “rhetorical error” rather than an “error”, Balls explained, because the fact that Labour used the phrase was not a reflection of an irresponsible fiscal policy executed by the party, as claimed by the Tories. The country’s economic situation going into 2008 was sound, said Balls.

So summed up, the boom and bust thing was just a phrase that Gordon Brown got a bit carried away with. I’ll say he did.

Cameron's speech is, er, more about "setting tone"...

2012-01-19T12:08:00.003Z

There was a rather distracting Union Jack poster behind the PM as he gave his speech on capitalism just now – it almost meant I missed the new thing in his speech which was thoroughly tucked away.

The talk was the latest move in a bid to wrestle the lucrative “responsible capitalism” territory away from Ed Miliband. It’s been riling the Tories that the Labour Leader has been going round saying he started the debate on the issue in his conference speech last September.

And so to show that actually the Tories were talking about it first, Cameron claimed his party set the ground for this debate years ago, and just to make sure Eddie couldn’t trump him again he went as far back as Disraeli and Pitt, before Labour even existed.

Most of the rest of the speech was doing that thing that the Tories do quite often, where they choose a theme and then try and show how all their existing policies already link into it.

So here renewal of the right-to-buy scheme, academies and free schools all tied into moral capitalism.

Then 2,600 words into a 2,800 word speech the PM announced that there were 12million co-operative members in the UK and that their groups are governed by 17 pieces of legislation.

“Today I can announce they will all be brought together and simplified in a new Co-Operatives Bill that will be put before Parliament.”

I know he’s unable to step on the toes of Vince Cable, announcing measures on executive pay in the near future, but it’s hardly a measure to get the blood racing is it.

Footage of Commons debate on EU veto...

2011-12-13T10:47:00.001Z

If you didn't catch it yesterday...

Uploaded on to Youtube by TAofMoridura

Preview of tomorrow's column...

2011-12-12T18:55:00.006Z

Here is a section of tomorrow's column in the Stoke Sentinel, buy the paper in the morning to get the full thwack...

Eddie suspected this all made the PM look a little like a loony right-winger, or at least like a PM kowtowing to a bunch of loony right-wingers on his backbenches.

But instead of stating it outright he asked what moderate pro-EU Tory peer Lord Heseltine had said on the issue.

The comment induced a hail of laughter from the rather mean righties on the Tory benches who see grandee Heseltine, nicknamed Tarzan in-part because of his wild hair, as a figure of fun.

“Oh, Oh, Oh,” said Ed managing to bend his mouth into such a perfect circle that it could have been used to mint a one pound coin.

“Oh Mr Speaker, oh how significant,” he continued. “That’s what they think of Lord Heseltine now in the Tory party,” added Miliband finally getting his own back for the Blair botch.

He then went on to quote Heseltine’s moderate view on the EU adding: “But it’s no longer the Conservative party of Lord Heseltine, it’s the Conservative party of the Right Honourable Member for Stone.”

That member is of course Stone MP Bill Cash – arch eurosceptic, arch agitator for his cause, arch thorn in the side of successive Tory leaders.

And for one golden moment you could see the thought fancifully dancing about behind his eyes – ‘the Conservative Party of Bill Cash’. What a glorious day it would be when that party came to power.

An immediate embargo slapped on Croissants, mange tout renamed ‘flat beans’, peppered German salami vetoed – every Englishman waking up every morning drinking English tea with his full-English breakfast – hurrah!

I'll post a link to the full column tomorrow night.

Clegg answers questions on his absence at EU debate

2011-12-12T18:02:00.002Z

For those of you that missed here are the DPM's words after he missed the debate on the EU statement:

DPM: The coalition government is here to stay. On Europe, what I’m going to do is this – build bridges, re-engage, and make sure that the British voice is heard at the top table in Europe. Why? Not for the sake of the EU as a whole, because I think that is the right thing for jobs in this country, for growth in this country and for the livelihoods of millions of families in this country because that’s what I care about most.

Asked whether his not being there was a greater distraction:

DPM: The PM and I clearly do not agree on the outcome of the summit last week. I made it very clear that I think isolation in Europe when we are one against 26 is potentially a bad thing for jobs, a bad thing for growth and a bad thing for the livelihoods of millions of people in this country. I’m not here to defend the EU in and of itself; I am here to defend the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people in this country. That’s what I care about and that’s why I think what we need to do know is build bridges, re-engage and make sure that the British voice is heard loud and clear in the heart of Europe.

Asked if he had changed his position since Friday:

DPM: On Friday, I said that I regretted the outcome, and I’ve stuck to that line and I said that I thought that anti-Europeans should be careful what they wish for so I was quite clear on Friday that I was not welcoming the outcome of the...[interrupted]

Asked about the fact that the negotiating position was agreed in advance:

DPM: I haven’t changed my mind on that at all. The specific list of safeguards which were sought, which was a list of negotiating asks, were perfectly reasonable and perfectly measured in their scope. I haven’t changed my mind one bit from the moment the summit was closed.

Asked if he was running scared from his own MPs:

DPM: When I was told the outcome of the summit, after it finished, I immediately told the Prime Minister that I could not welcome it, that I thought it was bad for Britain. I have stayed with that view since, and I have simply amplified on my reasons for that since the summit.

Asked how damaging this is to the coalition:

DPM: The Coalition Government is here to stay. That’s absolutely clear. On this issue – and by the way, there are many issues, of course, in the Coalition where the parties differ – we differ, and it so happens to be that this is a particularly significant issue. Why is it significant? It’s worth remembering. Not because all things in the European Union are perfect, far from it, but because I think that being isolated - as one - is potentially bad for jobs, bad for growth, bad for the livelihoods of millions of people in this country. But the Coalition Government is here to stay.

Odds on collapse of Euro

2011-12-09T15:43:00.003Z

William Hill is now offering odds of 3/1 that the Euro will cease to exist as a currency by the end of 2012, and 2/9 that it will survive.

The book-keeper have also slashed odds for the UK pulling out of the European Union before the next General Election from 33/1 to 20/1.

But it has also seen money for a 2012 General Election as punters speculate that the Coalition could split over Europe. Hills have cut odds on a 2012 election from 5/1 to 4/1.

How will Cam be treated back in the UK?

2011-12-09T12:52:00.002Z

A couple of days ago the main story of the EU summit was how the nations would save the Euro, but this morning it has changed to Britain’s veto and the future of the EU.

That is even more so since our erstwhile allies in rejecting a deal, Hungary, the Czech Rep, and Sweden are all now looking to sign the “inter-governmental accord” leaving us in our very own group of one.

That has suited France and Germany who have removed the UK as a potential barrier from blocking their goals. One Labour MP also suggested to me this morning that Cameron had been deliberately hostile to a deal in order to paint himself as a blueblooded eurosceptic before a potential election.

Either way both Labour and Tory MPs that I’ve chatted with, both anti and pro EU, appear off-the-record to be agreeing on one thing – whatever deal the other 26 nations come up with, it won’t be enough to save the Euro.

Many also agree that even if there had been a treaty – which would have needed to be ratified through nation states’ parliaments and referenda – the Euro may well have gone down anyway, because any treaty would not have been enough to calm the markets.

That’s all speculation of course, but also a view of events “that might have been” which could shape the way Cameron is treated on his arrival back in the UK – one that moves away from seeing him as an isolated wrecker and towards a defender of the national interest in the face if an inevitable catastrophe.

Clegg on the eurozone

2011-12-08T14:33:00.005Z

These are the latest quotes from Clegg on the eurozone crisis. Despite him saying he is "hand in glove" with David Cameron - which sounds a bit creepy by the way - on the issue of financial regulation, it doesn't quite feel that way. He points out that he is not asking for "exceptional" treatment for the City.

Deputy Prime Minister, what do you hope will come out of tomorrow’s meeting on the Eurozone?

Well, what I want to see, and what this whole Coalition Government wants to see, on all sides of the Coalition, is that we do the right thing for the country as a whole, in the national interest. What does that mean? It means firstly that we of course must play our bit in making sure that the Eurozone sorts itself out, because that’s good for our economy, it’s good for jobs and growth in Britain. And secondly, we must do everything we can to avoid a great big split in the European Union. Because if you split, you fragment the single market, which, after all, is the world’s largest borderless single market. That’s bad for jobs and growth in this country. Three million people are dependent for their jobs on our access to the single market. I have been speaking to a large number of European leaders over the last several days and weeks and, you know, that British perspective is one that is widely heard and widely shared by many other countries in the European Union.

What do you expect the Prime Minister to be asking for at that meeting?

The Prime Minister has been quite clear, and this is something that we all share in this Coalition Government, I mean I work in lockstep, hand in glove, with the Prime Minister on these issues, and as we are supportive to the Eurozone so they can sort their problems out, in return they introduce safeguards to ensure precisely what I said: that the single market is not fragmented and that important industries like the financial services industry are treated fairly. Not exceptional treatment, but are just simply treated fairly, on a level playing field within Europe.

You’ve said twice now that you’ve got to ensure there is no fragmentation of the market. Is there a danger that could happen?

There is always a danger at a moment of crisis, when some countries are part of the Eurozone and others are not, that you get, in the rush to create an instant solution, that you get momentum towards different solutions for different parts of the European Union. I think that might be tempting in the short term, but could be damaging in the long term. We have to remain, as we always have been as a country, absolutely part of our European backyard, our neighbourhood, and we’ve got to be able to continue to sell our goods and services, and create growth and jobs in this country, because of our place in the single market.

European charades

2011-12-08T09:47:00.003Z

When I spoke to senior people at the Department for Transport earlier this year there was complete befuddlement over how the French and Germans managed to give almost all their major train-manufacture contracts to firms in their home countries without breaking EU rules to prevent protectionism.

As far as the British could see they were following exactly the same procurement process yet they were helpless to stop big deals often going to foreign firms – causing consternation and political problems at home when industries dependent on Government work lost contracts. Remember Thameslink?

Anyway the Government spent the summer studying how the French and Germans get away with it and this article based on Government documents not seen elsewhere lays out some of the things ministers have learnt.

The beauty of the whole thing is that when British officials didn’t understand how to “fix” contracts so they went to home-based firms, they complained the French and Germans weren’t sharing their secrets and even said they were a victim of a “conspiracy of silence”.

Now that they appear to be getting it, officials aren’t so willing to discuss the issue anymore, i.e. they have worked their way into the conspiracy.

What we are left with is three big European governments all shamelessly pretending they operate in an open market, and yet all giving their contracts to home industries. Satire at its best.

PMQs - 'Weak, left wing and irresponsible' becomes new catchphrase

2011-11-30T13:37:00.003Z

It’s not often I see Ed Miliband smile in the House of Commons. I mean a proper smile – open mouthed with teeth showing in absolute delight.

But David Cameron’s comment that he came into politics to improve people’s welfare was enough to force one on to his face, and on to that of his dramatics chum’s face Ed Balls.

It appears to me that Leader Ed has been taking some lessons of the other Ed on how to act while not speaking at PMQs. Widow twanky would have proud of Balls’ gurn when a question was asked by Jacob Rees-Mogg MP – a man who was written by PG Woodhouse rather than born. Indeed watching the Eds contort their faces as the Prime Minister spoke today was much more entertaining than listening to the PM try and bat away questions.

That might also be because PMQs was a bit banal after the hype of the Autumn Statement yesterday. Even the strikes, which formed the first part of the debate between the two leaders, didn’t really ignite – perhaps Cameron wanted it that way given that he branded the action a “damp squib”.

Ed knew that if he were not to exacerbate the difficulty of his position on the strikes, he would have to highlight them and align himself with anti-coalition feeling, if not fully back or oppose the action – something Cameron constantly poked him on, provoking the response from Ed that he would not “demonise dinner ladies”.

Cameron came back with the usual line about Labour being in the pocket of the unions (better than taking millions from Lord Ashcroft retorted Ed), but twice used the phrase “weak, left wing and irresponsible” – suggesting this might be the new buzz phrase the Tories use when attacking Labour over industrial action in coming months.

After that Ed floated on to tax credits and borrowing covering a lot of ground but not quite hitting any one of them meaningfully, a recurring theme in his PMQs attacks for me – until he gets that sorted I’m not sure he should be smiling quite as much as he was.

Leveson Inquiry witnesses

2011-11-18T13:52:00.003Z

Here is the list of witnesses at the phone-hacking inquiry next week:

Monday 21st November
Bob Dowler
Sally Dowler
Hugh Grant
Graham Shear
Joan Smith

Tuesday 22nd November
Steve Coogan
Mary-Ellen Field
Garry Flitcroft
Margaret Watson

Wednesday 23rd November
Sheryl Gascoigne
Mark Lewis
Gerry McCann
Tom Rowland

Thursday 24th November
HJK
Sienna Miller
Max Mosley
JK Rowling
Mark Thomson

Monday 28th November
Charlotte Church
Anne Diamond
Ian Hurst
Chris Jefferies
Jane Winter

Cameron's letter to Sepp Blatter

2011-11-09T16:49:00.006Z

This just in - David Cameron's letter to FIFA chief (verbatim) over the poppy ban...

Dear Sepp

I know that you are aware of the importance of Remembrance Sunday in the United Kingdom, when we pay tribute those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in times of war.

We fully understand, and respect, FIFA’s rules on its member nations not adorning their shirts with ‘commercial’, ‘political’, or ‘religious’ symbols or messages. However, wearing a poppy is an almost universal symbol throughout the United Kingdom - people from all backgrounds and walks of life across the country join together in doing this as an act of national remembrance, to commemorate those who gave their lives in the service of their country. I can assure you that there are no political connotations whatsoever to wearing a poppy.

You will have seen the letter to you on this issue from Hugh Robertson, the Minister of Sport and Olympics, yesterday. The mood of the House of Commons on this issue today was clear - and I believe this reflects a similarly unambiguous sentiment across the country.

I do hope that we will be able to find a sensible way through which allows British participants in this weekend's matches to commemorate those who have fallen in conflict.

Government justice plans in spotlight

2011-11-08T17:18:00.002Z

Earlier in the House of Commons there were gasps of horror when an MP raised the case of a paedophile let out on day release by a secure mental health unit, who went on to try and rape a ten year old boy.

You can read the full story here. It concerned one Shaun Tudor who was being held at St Andrew’s Healthcare in Notts.

The unit is the UK’s largest not-for-profit mental healthcare charity providing secure services and care for 70 men with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders.

The MP asking about it was Sherwood’s Mark Spencer who used the case to question the Government’s plans to encourage more charities and private sector companies to start projects to rehabilitate criminals and then pay them according to the number who cease offending.

Crispin Blunt responded: “That case referred to a patient who was detained under the Mental Heath Act – when unescorted leave required both the approval of the secretary of state with a risk assessment and with a recommendation from a responsible clinician.

“There are no proposals for companies to be making these kinds of decisions.”

None the less the case does raise questions about giving the private sector and charities any sort of supervisory role over criminals – particularly given the background of companies like G4S.

Who says they're a soft touch on sentencing?

2011-11-08T15:43:00.002Z

There was more than a titter when it emerged in the House of Commons just now that according to the Government’s proposals on abolishing indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs) someone will be in line for a mandatory life term if sentenced for using a nuclear weapon – the second time.

Presumably after the first offence the culprit will be given a probation officer and told to pick up litter in Victoria Gardens.

The issue emerged in a comment from the gnarled Scottish Labour MP Stephen McCabe during Justice Questions with Ken Clarke. McCabe went on: “Allowing for all the Lord Chancellor’s wisdom and guile wouldn’t it be an awful lot smarter to hold someone indefinitely the first time they committed that offence?”

IPPs were introduced in 2005 for a whole range of violent and sexual offences, but are now being abolished by the Government in favour of letting judges use their discretion.

Ken Clarke responded in as dry a voice as he could: “The Government takes a serious view of the use of nuclear weapons.”

On an aside – earlier in the session Labour justice spokesman Sadiq Kahn claimed the Chief Inspector of Prisons had taken a dim view of Government policy and thought “there should be a rocket put up this Justice Secretary’s backside”.

Hopefully the aforesaid inspector won’t be encouraged by the fact that if he makes it a nuclear one he might get away with it on the first strike.

Where is Tory support for marriage?

2011-11-07T11:06:00.001Z

I was just reading through some recent early day motions when I saw this one today backing the “Faithfulness Matters” campaign.

It’s basically saying that cheating on your husband/wife/partner is bad for society and therefore websites which help to arrange extra marital affairs should be shut down.

I’m probably a bit young and naïve in these things, but I was shocked to see just how many of the websites there are and how popular they seem to be.

The question is of course at what point does the state stop interfering in a citizen’s personal life? And if these people want to have affairs then it’s not against the law. And if it’s not against the law then it’s a business opportunity and so the market steps in and you have a fledgling industry.

Interesting to see that there are no Tories that have signed the EDM though, despite the fact that they are the traditional defenders of the family unit. Isn’t this something the PM, for all his talk of supporting the institution of marriage, would want to take a moral stand on?

This week's column

2011-11-04T11:01:00.002Z

My Notts column from this week, click to go to full article...

DAVID Cameron once called Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls the most annoying man in British politics. It was a brutal description, but perfectly true.

I imagine it is even a badge Balls is quite proud of, in the same way a trouble-making youth has no qualms telling peers about his asbo.

Indeed, in the scoff-fest of the Commons floor it helps to be highly annoying, it distracts your opponents and knocks them off guard and Balls is a master.

NEW PPSs

2011-10-28T10:41:00.002+01:00

In the wake of the EU rebellion here are the new Parliamentary Private Secretaries (bag carriers) that have been appointed. Good for them - I wonder if they'll let them make the tea.

>Conor Burns, MP for Bournemouth West, will act as PPS to the Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

>Gavin Williamson, MP for South Staffordshire, will act as PPS to the Rt Hon Hugo Swire MP, Minister of State for Northern Ireland

>Tobias Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth East, will act as PPS to the Rt Hon David Lidington MP, Minister of State for Europe

PMQs vid

2011-10-26T15:07:00.003+01:00

Great vid from the Telegraph site. Miliband should take note of how Blair skewers Major for having difficulties with his backbenchers. Also interesting to see Cameron having a go at Blair for asking questions when he should be answering them - one of his own favourite tactics now he's on the Government benches.

Fox's response

2011-10-18T17:52:00.002+01:00

This is Liam Fox's response to the report. Is it just me or can Fox not even bring himself to say Werritty's name in that second paragraph. Referring instead to "anyone other than Minsters and Officials".

“I am pleased that the report makes clear that the two most serious allegations, namely of any financial gain sought, expected or received by myself and any breach of national security, have no basis. As I said in the House of Commons last week, I accept that it was a mistake to allow the distinctions between government and private roles to become blurred, and I must take my share of the responsibility for this.

“More care should have been taken to avoid the impression that anyone other than Minsters and Officials were speaking on behalf of the Government, as this was not the case. Although there were no actual conflicts of interest I acknowledge that in order to avoid any possible perception of this, all private interests should have been fully declared to the Permanent Secretary.

“I welcome the recommendations in this report which will provide greater clarity for Ministers, officials and private individuals in the future.”

GoD's plan to avoid another Fox affair

2011-10-18T17:34:00.002+01:00

At the end of what is a pretty tame report from Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell on Liam Fox's behaviour, thease were his recommendations...

a. Where discussions take place with external organisations which raise substantive issues relating to departmental decisions or contracts and where an official is not present Ministers should inform their department.

b. On Ministerial visits, whether in the UK or abroad, departments should make sure there is no confusion about who is and is not a member of the Ministerial party.

c. Officials should accompany Ministers to all official visits and meetings overseas at which it is expected that official matters may be raised, and should seek guidance from the FCO if there is any uncertainty about the status of such meetings or the attendance of non-officials at them.

d. Permanent Secretaries should discuss with Ministers at the time of their appointment and regularly thereafter whether any acquaintances or advisers have contractual relationships with the department or are involved in policy development. The Minister and the Permanent Secretary should take action as necessary to ensure there can be no actual or perceived conflict of interest in line with the principles of the Ministerial Code.
10

e. Permanent Secretaries should take responsibility for ensuring departmental procedures are followed, and for raising any concerns with Ministers, advising the Cabinet Secretary and ultimately the Prime Minister where such concerns are not resolved.

More civil servants at MoJ

2011-10-18T12:53:00.002+01:00

The budget at the Ministry of Justice is being slashed back at the moment, with legal aid and prison spaces as two of the more high profile victims.

So it is interesting to see that the amount of money the MoJ is spending on hiring civil servants to deal with procurement is going up.

In 2009/10 the MoJ spent £7.7m, in 2010/11 they spent £8.8m, and in 2011/12 they are estimating that they’ll spend some £10.6m – a £3m odd increase over three years.

The figures, which will go down well with Ken Clarke’s insatiable critics, came from a written question here.

Pensions motion

2011-10-17T10:01:00.001+01:00

After the hoo-ha over MPs’ expenses politicians made a big deal of the fact that the issue of remuneration had been pushed out to an independent body.

So it wasn’t without a touch of irony when the Government, out of political expediency, asked Parliament to reject a pay-rise proposed by that independent body earlier this year.

Having got a taste for meddling, the Government has tabled a rather contradictory motion on MPs’ pensions today.

It starts saying that the Commons, “reasserts its view that the salaries, pensions and expenses scheme for hon. Members ought to be determined independently of this House”.

The motion notes that the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission has recommended a rise and then, without shame, says that the Commons should, “[invite] IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes”.

Should it? If these things are to be done independently surely Commons shouldn’t be taking any view at all, something which the amendment proposed by MPs Christopher Chope and Bill Esterson among others appears to grasp.

Liam Fox's full letter of resignation...

2011-10-14T16:32:00.001+01:00

Dear David,

As you know, I have always placed a great deal of importance on accountability and responsibility. As I said in the House of Commons on Monday, I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my Government activities to become blurred. The consequences of this have become clearer in recent days. I am very sorry for this.

I have also repeatedly said that the national interest must always come before personal interest. I now have to hold myself to my own standard. I have therefore decided, with great sadness, to resign from my post as Secretary of State for Defence—a position which I have been immensely proud and honoured to have held.

I am particularly proud to have overseen the long overdue reforms to the Ministry of Defence and to our Armed Forces, which will shape them to meet the challenges of the future and keep this country safe.

I am proud also to have played a part in helping to liberate the people of Libya, and I regret that I will not see through to its conclusion Britain’s role in Afghanistan, where so much progress has been made.

Above all, I am honoured and humbled to have worked with the superb men and women in our Armed Forces. Their bravery, dedication and professionalism are second to none.

I appreciate all the support you have given me – and will continue to support the vital work of this Government, above all in controlling the enormous budget deficit we inherited, which is a threat not just to this country’s economic prosperity but also to its national security.

I look forward to continuing to represent my constituents in North Somerset.

Yours ever,

Liam

Ripping of the day...

2011-10-13T10:33:00.004+01:00

This segment of last night's Jobs and Growth debate got me chuckling when I read it this morning.

Mr Osborne: There was an absolutely staggering second omission from the shadow Chancellor’s speech, which was any reference — I will take an intervention if I have got this wrong — to Labour’s big new economic policy idea, which was unveiled at the Labour conference two weeks ago. I am referring, in case hon. Members have forgotten, to that great plan to divide British businesses into producers and predators — good and bad — and to levy different tax rates on them. Remember the speech from the Labour leader? Did the shadow Chancellor have any part in writing that speech?

Ed Balls: It was a very good speech.

Mr Osborne: At last there is something we agree on. It was absolutely the speech that we wanted to hear from the Labour leader at the Labour conference. I want to know what happened to this great idea, which was the centrepiece of Labour’s growth strategy for the new economy. Two weeks later it is not even referred to in the motion that we are being asked to debate. It is like the Lord Lucan of policy ideas: we do not know whether it is dead already or whether it has just gone missing for ever. I was really disappointed, because we know that the shadow Chancellor likes to cover all the policy areas in the shadow Cabinet and I was hoping for an explanation from him about how the idea was going to work. Are we supposed to grow our economy by levying new taxes and regulations on companies owned by private equity firms such as Boots, T-Mobile, the AA, Saga, Somerfield, Legoland and Chessington World of Adventures, those well known centres of predatory business activity?

Expenses probe

2011-10-11T09:56:00.004+01:00

Here is the list of 20 MPs that have been investigated for their expenses including Alan Johnson, click to go to the IPSA compliance website for full details:

Anderson, David
Barker, Gregory
Blackman, Bob
Coffey, Ann
Fallon, Michael
Halfon, Robert
Henderson, Gordon
Hendrick, Mark
Johnson, Alan
Johnson, Joseph
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
McGovern, Jim
Mearns, Ian
Michael, Alun
Robertson, Angus
Smith, Henry
Swales, Ian
Twigg, Stephen
Williams, Hywell

Body Armour

2011-10-06T11:33:00.003+01:00

This was that "body armour" quote that got cut out from the main story:

Ken Clarke said: "I expect I will have to wear body armour the next time I meet Theresa. She was at the thing I was at last night but I thought it was too soon to go over and greet her and say ‘it wasn’t my fault’."

Oh to be the proverbial fly when they finally do meet.

Clarke Vs May, Round 2

2011-10-06T10:39:00.002+01:00

Before giving me these words Clarke admitted he'd probably have to wear body armour next time he sees Theresa May. Click on the quote to go to the full story.

"It's not only the judges that all get furious when the Home Secretary makes a parody of a court judgement, our commission who are helping us form our view on this are not going to be entertained by laughable child-like examples being given," said Mr Clarke.

"We have a policy and in my old-fashioned way when you serve in a Government you express a collective policy of the Government, you don't go round telling everyone your personal opinion is different."

That Q and A session...

2011-09-28T19:11:00.002+01:00

ED looked exasperated as yet another person stood to ask a question and declared they were a Labour member.

This was after all meant to be a session in which non-partisan members of the public had come into the conference to “open up politics” – the first time it had ever been done, Ed had declared at the start.

“Please, I’m not being rude, but can we only have non Labour,” said Ed from the front realising that the credibility of the event was being stretched. Well, we’ve had old Labour, New Labour and just Labour, so perhaps non Labour is now the way to go.

Questioner after questioner got up and complained about cuts, complained about privatisation, about the Tories – if there were hard questions in the audience they were hiding underneath delegates’ chairs.

Only one disabled woman really challenged Miliband in the way he wanted, accusing him of perpetuating what she called the damaging rhetoric of “benefits scroungers” that the Coalition was promoting.

Ed dealt with the issue well, but through a bit of irritating organisation the woman had her microphone taken away and passed to someone else and so her possibly articulate follow on questions were not heard in the wider hall.

It’s clear that Ed is more comfortable doing this sort of thing, and the session is only just coming to an end as I write, than giving speeches – especially when the questions are so easy.

But the truth is that many attendees and half of the press that attended the conference left after he gave his speech – it will be that inglorious episode that defines his conference.

Laws gets on the committee...

2011-07-19T12:06:00.003+01:00

Just a note to point out that David Laws made it on to the Financial Services Bill committee despite opposition from some Labour MPs.

Lobbydog revealed last week the opposition to his appointment to the key committee as a result of his being found guilty of breaching expenses rules.

Unusually however the Labour MPs did force a vote in the Commons on the issue last night as a result – Thomas Docherty in particular leading the way.

“This is about probity,” said Docherty. Read the full debate here. Either way, Laws journey to rebuilding his reputation begins here.

A better picture of what's happening with Bombardier...

2011-07-18T11:11:00.006+01:00

Just had a couple of things to say about The Mirror’s story on Bombardier this morning which appeared to suffer from a heavy bit of top spin.

The story concerned a “leaked” document which the paper said showed David Cameron could have given the £1.4bn Thameslink deal to Bombardier instead of German-firm Siemens, thus avoiding job losses at the Derby train manufacturer.

Let’s deal with that word “leaked” first, which is only justified if The Mirror actually meant that the document was leaked to the internet where it has been publicly available here for at least a year, probably two.

Now the substance. The story correctly quotes a disclaimer printed in the invitation to tender (ITT) which states:

“The issue of this ITT in no way commits the Secretary of State to award the [Thameslink deal] to any person or party.

“The Secretary of State reserves the right to terminate the competition, to award the [Thameslink deal] without prior notice, to change the basis, the procedures and the timescales set out or referred to in this document or to reject any or all proposals and to terminate discussions with any or all bidders at any time.”

But there is a significant second piece of context, European Union law, which the story completely ignores. The disclaimer does say the Transport Secretary reserves the right to terminate the competition, but the Transport Secretary is also bound to act within the law.

It’s like saying that a person has the right to walk into the road, without pointing out that they will likely be hit by a car.

There are two courses of action that MPs campaigning on Bombardier’s behalf have put forward – one is that the Government should have taken account of social considerations like supporting employment when it took its decision on who should get the Thameslink deal earlier this year, the second is that the Government should terminate the competition and start again with one that puts Bombardier in a better winning position.

The first suggestion is untenable as demonstrated by the EU Commission document Buying Social: A Guide to Taking Account of Social Considerations in Public Procurement.

It shows the EU actually encourages governments to take account of such social factors, like employment opportunities, but that they must be published at the point the competition begins. It makes clear that if they are not included in tender documents at the start of the process they cannot be brought in at later stages – no such social considerations were included in the Thameslink deal when it was set up in 2007 by the previous government.

The second suggestion that the Government simply rip up the tendering process and start again is also tricky.

Business law expert Professor Chris Bovis from the University of Hull told me: "If they tore the contract apart the Government would become liable for compensation and for any losses incurred by Siemens."

Indeed the EU Commission also confirmed to me that firms who feel they are victim to discrimination in procurement process can use the EU Remedies Directive to extract compensation.

The only way the Government could perhaps tear up the existing tendering process, within the law, would be if they discovered there had been a serious misrepresentation by Siemens of its ability to deliver the product.

One avenue being explored here is whether Siemens’ failure to yet produce a “lightweight bogie” – the chassis that carries trains’ wheels – might negate its bid. It’s true that it was laid out in the original specifications that the carriages should have such a bogie, but it’s as of yet unclear whether this issue in itself annuls the firm’s bid.

It may also be that the Government does have the power to negotiate at this point that a chunk of Thameslink work, even half of it, be subcontracted back to Bombardier.

Whatever happens, printing a few sentences from a 90 page document and crying foul doesn’t necessarily help the efforts of people who are actually following feasible avenues as to how this thing might be turned around.

Labour blocks David Laws' return...

2011-07-14T11:16:00.001+01:00

I was sitting in Portcullis House yesterday when David Laws moseyed past and it got me wondering why he had not begun his comeback yet.

Both Nick Clegg and David Cameron did at one point suggest they wanted him back as soon as possible, but it seems their efforts are being frustrated.

In May Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyons found that Laws had committed six breaches of expenses rules, in particular claiming for rent paid to his landlord, who also happened to be his partner.

The Commissioner suspended Laws from the Commons for seven days, ordered him to apologise and pay back some money.

It looked like that would rule out an early return to the Cabinet but it hasn’t stopped the Government whips trying to get him started elsewhere.

In particular, Lobbydog has learnt, they have been trying to get him on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee for the Financial Services Bill.

The problem is that Labour is having none of it and has constantly objected to his inclusion, given the expenses misdemeanour hanging over his head.

The committee was meant to be set up before the summer recess, but things have dragged on so much over the issue that it now looks like it won’t be established till September – possibly delaying the overall progress of the Bill.

Hacking Inquiry's full draft terms of reference..

2011-07-13T13:16:00.002+01:00

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR JUDGE-LED INQUIRY

Part 1

1 To inquire into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, including:

a. Contacts between national newspapers and politicians;

b. The relationship between the press and the police;

c. The extent to which the current policy and regulatory framework has failed; and the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous warnings about media misconduct.

To make recommendations:

a. For a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media and its independence from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards; and

b. For how future concerns about press behaviour, media policy, regulation and cross-media ownership should be dealt with by all the relevant authorities, including Parliament, Government, the prosecuting authorities and the police; and

c. The future conduct of relations between politicians and the press.

Part 2

3 To inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International and other newspaper organisations.

4 To inquire into the way in which the police investigated allegations of unlawful conduct by persons within or connected with News International, and the review by the Metropolitan Police of their initial investigation.

5 To inquire into the extent to which the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in such misconduct or in suppressing its proper investigation and how this was allowed to happen.

6 To inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations.

7 In the light of these Inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, and relevant regulatory bodies and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken.

Process

The first part of the Inquiry (1) and (2) will be conducted by a Judge assisted by a panel of experts. It will report within 12 months. The second part of the Inquiry to be considered in light of the ongoing criminal proceedings. It will report jointly to the Culture Secretary and the Home Secretary.

MP calls for clear limits on media ownership...

2011-07-13T10:58:00.002+01:00

Lobbydog chatted with Graham Allen MP a few moments ago to get a bit of background on his amendment to today’s Opposition motion on News Corporation’s takeover of BSkyB. The amendment seeks a broader effort to address media ownership. Here is what he said…

“I think it’s important to go a step further on this issue as there is already Government and Opposition support for the motion specifically dealing with BSkyB.

“The things that are happening now are a symptom, but what is the underlying issue?

“The UK papers and media are in very few hands and that’s why the people that own them have enormous power and that’s what needs to be addressed.

“The amendment is putting a mark down asking that we look at the serious underlying causes, of diversity and plurality in ownership, and consider proper regulation.

“There should be clear limits agreed with the existing owners on the number of newspapers or media outlets they own.”

Labour Uncut’s Dan Hodges correctly commented yesterday that Ed Miliband’s decision to negotiate with Cameron on the main motion today had shown he understood when to “take the win”.

Given that is the case I don’t see this amendment going through today, but – in the same way that political and constitutional reform became significant after expenses – the ownership issue is live and will be the next thing on the agenda.

If you've been hacked, why not become a hacker...

2011-07-12T16:36:00.005+01:00

Those Politics.co.uk boys are great, but I had to chuckle when I saw the website's coverage of today's phone hacking hearings. Check out the ad in the bottom right of the screen grab.

The ad boasts : "Have you ever been curious as to what your children or employees are chatting about on their cell phone? you could now listen in 100% completely undetected."

Hunt the human shield

2011-07-11T17:49:00.004+01:00

Having stammered out the sound “umm”, poor Jeremy Hunt cut the figure of a guilty school-boy just asked the question “have you done your homework?”

Hunt was answering one of a barrage of prickly questions after his statement on the BSkyB takeover and he gave satisfactory answers to few – he did not know, could not say and, on one excruciating occasion, said the knowledge required for the answer was above his “grade”.

This was an occasion that demanded a brass neck, a deep voice and a steely eye, yet Hunt had the demeanour of a man angry that his butterfly collection had been tampered with.

We shouldn’t be too harsh on the Culture Secretary though – he arguably played a horrendous hand as well as it could be played.

For one thing the situation has been changing so fast today that he would have had little or no time to prepare his statement.

But crucially, such is the importance of this issue now that the Prime Minister should have been in the House to take questions.

David Cameron’s absence will be remembered, and it meant Hunt was always going to find it tough against an Opposition Leader with invigorated confidence on the Commons floor.

There is no other event that can possibly have been as critical right now as a debate on the BSkyB deal and trying to suggest that it is Hunt’s portfolio and place to respond, while technically correct, simply made it feel as though the Culture Secretary was being used as a human shield.

Jeremy Hunt's full letter to OFT...

2011-07-11T11:36:00.000+01:00

Jeremy Hunt's full letter to Ofcom chief...

2011-07-11T10:22:00.001+01:00

Yates going in front of committee...

2011-07-11T09:41:00.002+01:00

Home Affairs Committee Chair Keith Vaz has confirmed that Assistant Commissioner John Yates will appear at a hearing tomorrow concerning questionable phone hacking evidence he gave to the same committee in October 2010.

Vaz said: "Following recent media reports I am most grateful to Mr Yates for agreeing to give evidence to the Committee next Tuesday.

"It is important that we establish a timeline as to exactly what has happened with the various police inquiries."

Tory MP breaks ranks...

2011-07-06T10:06:00.003+01:00

Tory MP Pauline Latham stood apart from her peers yesterday to criticise Transport Secretary Philip Hammond over the Bombardier situation.

She rejected the idea that the decision to give the £1.4bn Thameslink contract to Siemens could not be reviewed. Full story in the Derby Telegraph, but here is a snippet...

Other Derbyshire Tories have avoided the suggestion that Mr Hammond could have done more to push the Thameslink contract Bombardier's way.

But Mrs Latham branded a ministerial pledge to see what other work could be offered to Bombardier as "an empty gesture".

She said: "The Transport Secretary has said he will review other available contracts to see if any might be brought forward, but that could take so long that we would lose the skilled workers from this area.

"I have been lobbying the minister and I'm angry that he hasn't listened.

"I accept that the tendering requirements set down may have restricted him and were set up badly, but he should be doing everything he can now to help, because the last thing we need in Derbyshire is 1,400 more people out of work."

Home Office FoI

2011-07-04T10:09:00.001+01:00

Since the beginning of April Lobbydog has been trying to get hold of the numerous responses to the Government’s consultation on elected police commissioners using the Freedom of Information Act.

It’s pretty clear what the Association of Chief Police Officers thought about the idea, but it would be interesting to know what councils, particularly Tory run ones, said of the policy.

The Home Office initially refused the request to release all responses to the consultation saying it would cost too much money and take too much time to comply with.

So I refined my request to just ask for a selection of specific councils. Now they have come back and asked for more time to decide whether the information I’ve asked for is exempt from the FoI Act.

At the moment they are suggesting that it is exempt under section 35 – which in my experience is the exemption used when they can’t make any other exemption fit.

Section 35 exempts information from release if it “relates to the formulation or development of government policy” which could arguably be just about anything.

Watch this space.

Labour's 1922 Committee

2011-07-01T12:06:00.005+01:00

Lobbydog has learnt that as part of the reforms to be debated and voted on by Labour MPs next week, Ed Miliband is planning on setting up an equivalent to the Tories’ 1922 Committee.

The move would be made in conjunction with already reported proposals to abolish elections to the shadow cabinet.

Margaret Beckett was one of the party veterans that Miliband consulted before broaching the issue with other MPs.

She told me: “The origin of the elected shadow cabinet was that they were also the executive of the parliamentary party – but there were complaints about that system because it meant ordinary backbenchers did not have a voice to connect them to the party leadership.

“For example, if you were a backbencher unhappy with the way our education policy was going, you couldn’t go to the shadow education secretary to complain and expect him to go to the leader on your behalf.”

Beckett explained that when Labour was in Government members of the cabinet shed their role as executive of the parliamentary party and a separate executive was elected that could represent backbench voices.

She said: “If the Prime Minister has time to deal the executive when in Government, then why can’t the Leader of the Opposition do it too? Why can’t we continue in Opposition with the same structure we had in Government?

“It would mean creating a separately elected group to represent backbenchers, a bit like the 1922 Committee, separate from the shadow cabinet.

“We also had evidence about the problems elected shadow cabinets have caused – the elections tend to go with popularity which is not always the same thing as ability, sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn’t.”

The 1922 Committee equivalent will act as a sweetener to those backbenchers who feel abolishing shadow cabinet elections reduces democracy in the parliamentary party, while allowing Miliband to take control of shadow cabinet selection, cementing his power as Leader.

At the moment I get the feeling the changes will go through – particularly because there are members of the new intake who think they have ability, but not the established popularity to be in with a shout for a job under the current system.

The issue will be debated on Monday and decided at a vote of Labour MPs on Tuesday.

Battle brewing over train deal...

2011-06-28T11:21:00.007+01:00

Labour’s business and transport teams are going on the full offensive over the Government’s decision to award the £1.4bn Thameslink train-building contract to German firm Siemens over British based Bombardier.

John Denham and Maria Eagle will tomorrow visit Bombardier’s Derby factory which would have made the trains had the contract been won.

I revealed the decision a fortnight ago and ever since Labour MPs from the area have been attacking the Government for letting the chance to boost UK manufacturing slip through its fingers.

Missing the opportunity to give the contract to Bombardier puts 3,000 jobs at risk in Derby and thousands more in the supply chain and, the MPs say, that all runs counter to the Coalition’s stated aim of promoting a private sector recovery.

There are a couple of things to remember however. One is that a few years back a Labour government also failed to give Bombardier the larger Intercity Express Programme (IEP) contract, worth £7.5bn at the time though it was later downgraded, which perpetuated the financial troubles the UK based manufacturer has experienced.

On that occasion Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon said his hands were tied by EU regulation which meant he could not favour UK based industry – the same reason that current Transport Secretary Philip Hammond gave when he confirmed that Siemens would win the Thameslink deal on June 16.

The question is how binding can these EU rules really be when both the French and German governments somehow manage to award almost all their train building contracts to home-based producers.

Labour MPs have suggested that the Government can, at the point of making a final decision, interpret the EU rules as they wish and therefore award the contract to who they wish.

Derby MP Margaret Beckett admitted to me that Labour made the wrong call on the IEP deal and should have given the work to Bombardier adding that the incident should also have diverted the new Government from 'making the same mistake again' with Thameslink.

But senior Government figures tell me the way to rig the tender a lá France is to fix the conditions to favour home-based manufacturers right at the very start of the process.

That of course would mean Bombardier’s loss of both IEP and Thameslink, the tender for which was set by Ruth Kelly back in 2007, were problems created by Labour.

With the Tories now ensconced in the DfT with access to the documents that tell the full story, or at least the part of it they want to tell, Labour may be walking a dangerous path by trying to pin the Thameslink decision on the current Government, then again they really have very little choice but to try.

A Miliband takes an effective line...

2011-06-28T10:09:00.005+01:00

Was flicking through Hansard and noticed Miliband managing to attack the Government, while not betraying his progressive politics – David that is.

"It is nice to be able to speak in the House in full and enthusiastic support of the manifesto on which I was elected, and consistent with my previous votes in the House for 100% election and 80% election to the Lords, in 2003 and 2007. I look forward to getting the chance to vote on the matter again.

"I wish first to dispose of three very bad arguments against proceeding towards an elected House. The first is that we need to sort out the functions of the House of Lords before doing so. The truth is that there is agreement on that point. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber not equal to the House of Commons, prevented by statute from pre-empting the supremacy of this House and established by law and by practice to persuade and restrain this House.

"The second argument is that the public have got other things on their mind. The idea that the Government have a bad economic policy or health policy because they are distracted by House of Lords reform is frankly risible. We are elected to this place to debate the big issues of the time, and I do not believe that it is sufficient to say that this is not people’s main preoccupation.

"The third bad argument is by far the most tempting. It is: because the Deputy Prime Minister is in favour an elected House, is sponsoring the debate and will sponsor the Bill, it must be a bad idea. That view has many supporters in both main parties, as we will discover, and one can see the force of the point.

"When the right hon. Gentleman said before the election that he wanted to unite the nation, he could scarcely have imagined that people of all shades of opinion would come together so quickly to agree that he is not a very lovable rogue. However, although that is a tempting argument, I hope that my colleagues, especially Labour colleagues, will not fall for it. The right hon. Gentleman needs no help from either of the two so-called main parties to administer his fate, and there is a much bigger game here than the temptation to kick a man when he is down. The roadblock to reform is not, in this case, the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government’s puppetmaster, the Prime Minister. We should not be diverted by the temptation of kicking smaller fry."

A win for one, but not a defeat for the other...

2011-06-15T16:20:00.003+01:00

There’s always a gaggle of hacks around Gabby Bertin after PMQs, but today it expanded into a swarm that surrounded the Prime Minister’s spokeswoman.

That almost all the questions were about cancer patients’ stood testament to Ed Miliband’s fighting performance at PMQs, in which he managed to successfully dictate the course of the session. He chose a subject that was incredibly difficult for the PM to argue against, stuck to his lines and even improvised to make jeering Tory MPs look like the nasty party.

But while Cameron failed to turn the debate to questions around the Labour leadership, it is difficult to say he was “defeated” as such.

It is always hard to defeat an opponent at PMQs on the technicalities of a policy. And as long as Cameron puts his side of the technical argument forward while looking confident and without saying anything that cuts his wiggle room later, as he appeared to today, it will be difficult for Miliband to impose outright defeat – which broadly defined is when a leader embarrasses his opponent.

There may be people out there who don’t like that classification of defeat, who think it should be defined in terms of whether a person’s argument is more factual than their opponent’s.

But, right or wrong, PMQs doesn’t work like that. Victory in the bear-pit is a more visceral thing – a feeling of who came out on top.

There is another deeper issue here too. While more accomplished Miliband performances based on complaining about particular cuts, like today’s, will see the Labour leader cement his position and put pressure on the Government, they still come back to the argument on the economy.

That debate was won months ago after the Government managed to convince the country there was a big deficit and that cuts were necessary.

If it wants to argue against cuts Labour will still have to purge those demons wailing that they were in charge when the deficit was built and will have to be more specific about cuts they would make in the future.

For now though I don’t think Labour backbenchers will begrudge their leader a day to appreciate a much improved performance.

Cranky Dr shouts at PM's media circus...

2011-06-14T17:46:00.001+01:00

Hat tip Paul Waugh

"Massive Deficit" at 16/1

2011-06-14T13:11:00.005+01:00

Bookie Paddy Power has launched a new weekly Prime Minister's Questions betting market called the PMQs Punt which allows people to bet on the first phrase/cliché to be uttered by the PM during his Wednesday grilling.

This week “David Miliband”, “plotting against your brother” and “soap opera” are all in the running to be the first retort from the PM at 12/1, with “brotherly love” at 8/1 and “bitter feud” at 6s.

Of the agenda-led phrases “National Health Service reform” is favourite at 4/1 with “vaccine” and “IMF” both at 6/1. Meanwhile “Big Society” is 8/1 to be the first phrase heard from the list.

The full list follows – I reckon “Massive Deficit” at 16/1 isn’t a bad shout.

4/1 NHS reform/National Health Service reform
6/1 Bitter feud
6/1 Vaccine/vaccines
6/1 IMF/International Monetary Fund
8/1 Brotherly Love
8/1 Boardroom pay
8/1 Big Society
9/1 Libya
10/1 Benefits cap
10/1 U-turn
12/1 David Miliband
12/1 Plotting against your brother
12/1 Soap opera
16/1 Massive deficit
20/1 Labour's mess
25/1 I love the NHS/I love the National Health Service
25/1 Superinjunction
25/1 We're in this together
25/1 Victims of crime
66/1 Hug a hoodie

Post-code lottery on MS drug...

2011-06-14T11:01:00.003+01:00

There are some interesting figures out today showing the post-code lottery that constitutes the prescription of Sativex, the drug for multiple sclerosis patients.

The medicine, derived from cannabis, is administered as an oral spray and is used to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms (more info here).

The Department of Health figures show that 128 out of 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) prescribed the drug between August 2010 and March 2011.

But out of those, 45 PCTs prescribed less than five items of Sativex in the entire period. Meanwhile the likes of Cumbria Teaching PCT prescribed 68 items and Hampshire, 70 items.

Many PCTs say the drug, which costs £11 a day, is not worth the costs, though doctors claim it’s the only medicine that can help some people.

Financial challenges facing the NHS are bound to exacerbate the situation.

Miliband's tittle tattle

2011-06-13T16:24:00.001+01:00

AS a woman from the audience at Ed’s press conference rambled on, the Labour Leader’s eyes lamented that he’d needed to ask “normal people” for questions.

But he had needed to. He knew that if “normal people”, most of whom I imagine were Labour inclined, were not there to ask about “issues” then he would have only got questions on his leadership and the party’s direction (or lack of it) from scheming journalists.

From the start of the Q and A session Ed tried to show how much more important “normal people” and “issues” were to him, as opposed to journalists and Westminster “tittle-tattle” about whether he’s still going to be leader this time next year.

Such “tittle-tattle” isn’t relevant to people’s lives and the public aren’t interested in it, said Ed, twice reciting that old defence that was constantly trotted out by Gordon Brown before he went on to lose an election.

The problem is that while Ed may dismiss it as tittle-tattle, he knows that the speculation about his leadership is a serious problem. The public are interested in it to the extent that they will not vote for him if they don’t think the people closest to him have confidence in him.

Ed can say he only wants to talk about issues, the night sky, god and the universe – it won’t matter because the public won’t heed him, and journalists won’t stop asking questions, until concerns about his leadership are resolved.

They will linger unless Ed can prove himself to be an inspirational and captivating leader to the extent that it gives people something else to talk about.

It is not hacks, but an understanding among Labour MPs of that challenge, as well as a gnawing fear Ed’s not up to it, which is causing restlessness.

Thieves hit Parliament

2011-06-09T11:23:00.001+01:00

A couple of weeks back someone wondered into the office of the chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Keith Vaz, and nicked a laptop and an iPad.

Now the House of Commons Commission has revealed more details of all thefts on the parliamentary estate over the last few years.

Vaz’s incident was part of a spate of crimes in April and May this year in which there were 25 thefts reported on the estate – almost as much as there were over the entire previous 12 months.

In the past four years odd items that have been nabbed include a bunch of flowers, an orchid, a bottle of whiskey, a set of golf clubs and a “charm” – whatever that is.

More shockingly is that there have been 25 laptops taken in 2011 so far.

Crucial crime fighting services may "drop into the ether"...

2011-06-08T10:34:00.002+01:00

Chief constables are fretting over the introduction of the National Crime Agency (NCA) which Theresa May announces today.

The problem is that as well as replacing the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the NCA will also replace the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), which provides services including managing several national crime databases – one of which was used by police to bring about the arrest of a man for the murder of 25-year-old Jia Ashton earlier this year.

However, while ministers will abolish the NPIA in 2012, the NCA will not be up and running till 2013 – leaving crucial functions unsupervised for a year.

The NPIA manages the Dangerous Persons Database, the National DNA Database, the UK’s Fingerprint Database and the Missing Person’s Bureau.

Meanwhile it also trains serving police officers in everything from mobile phone forensics to ‘strategic firearms command’.

The agency then provides operational support to the UK’s 43 forces – accrediting financial experts, for example, to help forces arrange what to do with the proceeds of crime they confiscate.

Chief Constable of Derbyshire Police Mick Creedon told a select committee a couple of weeks back: “We face an issue that there are critical services provided by the NPIA, absolutely critical services, that at the minute have a date which is going to drop off, with nowhere to go.”

He said the NPIA’s services could simply “drop into the ether”.

The Government is yet to formalise plans for what organisation will take on the agency’s functions in the intervening period.

We won’t hear much talk of that bit today from the ministers of course.

Will there be a Tory backlash to boundary equalisation?

2011-06-07T11:50:00.003+01:00

Coverage of the Democratic Audit report on constituency boundary equalisation yesterday focussed on how Lib Dems will be hit. Apart from a passing mention of Priti Patel, there was little on other Tory MPs who might suffer.

I haven’t had a chance to look at the complete data set but so far there seem to be a whole bunch of the new Tory intake that will be adversely affected.

Some are those who won constituencies formed at the last election like Pauline Latham in Mid Derbyshire. But others are MPs who fought hard battles to win key seats from Labour.

These include the likes of Anna Soubry in Broxtowe, Karen Bradley in Staffordshire Moorlands (pictured), Mark Spencer in Sherwood, Nigel Mills in Amber Valley, Nicky Morgan in Loughborough and Andrew Bridgen in North West Leicestershire.

If the review pans out in the way Democratic Audit suggests, all of these will either have their seat effectively scrapped or face a much tougher Labour challenge as a result.

“If” is the operative word of course, given the speculative nature of yesterday’s report. But I wonder if Cameron and co have factored any sort of backlash into their plans?

Gove goes to Supreme Court

2011-05-27T16:06:00.003+01:00

Michae Gove is preparing to take the Shoesmith decision to the Supreme ourt. This from DfE.

A DfE spokesman said: “The Government thinks that it was right in principle for Sharon Shoesmith to be removed from her post as Director of Children’s Services.

“The High Court thought that the decision was taken in a fair way. The Court of Appeal said today that they thought it was not sufficiently fair, and was therefore unlawful.

“There are questions of constitutional importance involved in this case, beyond the specific question about whether Ed Balls should have had a further meeting with Sharon Shoesmith before removing her.

“Our initial application to appeal has been turned down by the Court of Appeal. We intend to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court."

The story behind the collapse...

2011-05-25T19:48:00.002+01:00

There was a right rigmarole during Barack Obama’s speech earlier after an MP collapsed half way through – but the incident ended up with another MP getting a private moment with the most sought after politician on the planet.

Like the thousand or so other members of the audience, Stafford Tory Jeremy Lefroy (pictured) had been waiting hours in Westminster Hall for Obama to arrive and speak.

But at about 5pm his colleagues standing around saw the poor chap suddenly drop to the floor. Mid Derbyshire MP Pauline Latham and others were on hand.

While the President carried on, Latham and co carried Lefroy out of a side entrance, but initially couldn’t rouse him.

She told Lobbydog: “It was quite frightening and pretty dramatic because we had no idea what was wrong. But in the end he had been a little ill before hand and had just become dehydrated over the day.”

The group arranged an ambulance and rushed to and from his parliamentary office attempting to find his medical history for paramedics – it was only when they arrived that Lefroy woke up and became alert again.

With her colleague from Stafford safely on his way to hospital, Latham returned to hear the second half of the President’s speech only to find it had finished and Obama was now being swamped by politicians eager to shake the golden-boy’s hand.

Unable to get back in she milled about outside, but then by coincidence happened to bump in to Obama as he left and was able to engage him in conversation with hardly anyone else around for a good few minutes.

That was an opportunity many of the MPs inside, and no doubt some of my lobby colleagues would have done a lot for.

She said: “I hadn’t expected to get a proper conversation with him, but he was suddenly there and I told him what had happened.

“He said he hoped that I’d enjoyed the first half of the speech that I’d seen and sent his best wishes to Jeremy, he was a very charming man.”

The Stafford MP was taken to St Thomas’ hospital on the other side of Westminster Bridge, but is fine and is expected to go home tonight – a happy ending for everyone.

Clarke in the news again....

2011-05-25T19:29:00.002+01:00

When faced with undeniable accusations that you fell asleep during what was arguably the most significant political speech of the year there is really only one thing to do – make light of it.

That is what Rushcliffe MP Ken Clarke did earlier this year when he fell asleep while George Osborne tried to set out his strategy for economic growth during the Budget Day speech.

He laughed off the jeers from the Labour benches, even when Ed Miliband said: “Indeed the Justice Secretary fell asleep during the Chancellor's speech, his growth strategy was so compelling."

So it was no surprise that the official line coming from Clarke’s office after he was caught nodding off during Barack Obama’s speech was just a little tongue in cheek.

“He was not asleep, it seems he was just living the American dream,” a spokesman told me earlier. Classic.

That embarrassing toast between Obama and the Queen

2011-05-25T10:20:00.000+01:00

Mid-sentence blip...

2011-05-24T16:46:00.002+01:00

With all the arguing in the sentencing story about whether it’s worse to give criminals 50% off their prison term than it is to give them 33% off, something quite important has been under played.

The way the story has been told so far is that currently if a person charged with a crime gives an early guilty plea, they will get their sentence reduced by a third (a 33% “discount”).

But, according to the political dialogue, the Government wants to increase the discount to 50% in a bid to offer a greater incentive for people to own up.

The thing is, as pointed out by the increasingly noticed Anna Soubry in this week’s justice debate, judges can already give a 50% discount if they want to.

In 2009 the Labour Government introduced the 33% discount as a guideline only, but it was still up to judges if they wanted to offer a 20% discount, a 75% discount or nothing at all for a guilty plea if they saw fit.

If the 50% discount were introduced chances are it too would be a guideline and it would be up to judges to implement it or not, just like they could have chosen to do before the Government’s Green Paper came out.

It is true that more 33% discounts popped up after the Government introduced the guideline in 2009, but with the final decision still down to a judge it makes all the political fuss in the Commons feel a little empty.

The Tory EU dilemma...

2011-05-12T11:58:00.000+01:00

It’s true that normally the words “interesting” and “European tax regulation” don’t go.

But last night there was a telling Commons exchange over EU Commission plans to set up a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) – honestly, don’t stop reading, it gets better.

At the moment companies operating in different EU member states use different calculations to work out their taxable profit.

So the EU wants to set up a CCCTB which would see all member states complying with one EU-wide system - the advantage being that a company working across the EU would not have to carry out 27 different calculations to work out their taxable profit in each state.

The actual tax rate would still be up to the member state to set, but the way taxable profits were determined would be uniform.

Predictably the Tory right have stomach pains at the mere thought of it – as Amber Valley MP Nigel Mills put it “this whole thing has to be seen as a drive towards a single European Union, a single federal state”.

But the Government is having difficulties defining its position. It claims it doesn’t want anything that diminishes the UK’s power to determine its own tax policy.

It is a statement of position which has led Tory Eurosceptics to ask the Government why it doesn’t just veto the proposal and say no to the whole thing.

But ministers aren’t willing to do that, pointing out that the UK should be involved in negotiations on a plan other states might adopt, even if they don't, because it still might affect the UK indirectly.

Some might say the Government is taking this stance because they're purposefully trying to debunk the CCCTB, and the EU, from the inside – an argument put beautifully by Sir Humphrey Appleby in this video.

But I’d suggest it actually indicates the fundamental difficulty and contradiction in Government, particularly Conservative, EU policy.

They don’t want CCCTB to happen, but they can’t bear to be outside the negotiations just in case something happens without them that might affect them, that might tie them in even closer.

In other words they have to be in, because they want to be out.

Attempting to stir a Coalition split, Shadow Treasury Minister Chris Leslie suggested last night that it was the Lib Dems that was stopping the Tories from vetoing CCCTB outright.

But I suspect the bigger coalition partner would have the same problem were it in government alone.

IPSA shake up?

2011-05-11T10:13:00.001+01:00

It seems that both Labour and Tory leaders are having problems getting the troops in line to oppose Adam Afriyie MP’s backbench business motion tomorrow.

The motion calls for the Government to get on with an overhaul of IPSA – the body that administers the MPs expenses system. It reads:

That this House regrets the failure of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to introduce a simpler, cheaper and less discriminatory scheme of office expenses and Members’ allowances in accordance with the resolution passed by this House on 2 December 2010; calls on the Government to fulfil its commitment by making time available for a Parliamentary Standards Amendment Bill to implement a scheme which fulfils the criteria of the resolution; and instructs the Leader of the House to make time available no later than 19 July 2011.

Its appearance marks MPs’ more strident aggravation at IPSA which they say leaves them thousands of pounds out of pocket before the grinding system reimburses them for everything from office costs to their second home allowance.

New MPs in particular feel aggrieved, having played no part in the expenses scandal throughout 2008/09.

David Cameron is getting whips to lean on his troops to vote against the motion but a number are apparently determined to back it.

Labour apparently also wants to whip the vote but doesn’t want to do so if its MPs are going to back the motion anyway.

Both Cameron and Miliband apparently fear that it will not look good to the electorate, feeding the “they just don’t get it” mindset, and they are probably right.

Gov to back PNR database?

2011-05-10T09:44:00.000+01:00

Later today the Government will make a statement on an EU directive relating to Passenger Name Records (PNRs).

PNR data-systems were established so that when a passenger made several changes between airlines to travel to a single destination, their details could be passed between the airlines with more ease.

The records show the passenger's name, address, DoB, passport details and how they paid for their ticket.

The EU's directive demands that member states require airlines to transmit this data to the relevant authorities in their country "for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious crime."

In a statement today the Government may well back the directive, given that it has already been in talks with the EU Commission and other leading member states on how to bring about the change.

The concern is that this effectively creates an EU wide database holding sensitive details of millions of people - access to which is granted to the authorities in all member states.

I feel a certain churning when the UK Government appears to encroach on data privacy, let alone other states who are not accountable to citizens here.

Lobby Briefing 9/5/2011

2011-05-09T11:49:00.003+01:00

With the new chumminess ban in place there was decided ambivalence toward any attempt to mark the one year anniversary of the Coalition at the Lobby briefing this morning.

The PM’s spokeswoman made clear there were “no plans for a press conference” and no specific event planned for the day itself (Wednesday), instead the cabinet would celebrate by “ensuring [they] are continuing to deliver on the Coalition programme”.

With the NHS reform debate looming today the spokeswoman added that the "listening exercise" designed to consult on the planned changes would finish next month, but declined to reveal details of what would happen when it did.

The Guardian’s Nick Watt cheekily asked whether the exercise's panel would be listening to the Health Secretary at all. Much of the briefing, however, focussed on details around the impending referendum on Scottish independence.

The PM has made clear that he will not block a referendum, and that he opposes independence. What isn’t clear is whether independence can be ratified without legislation being passed in Westminster.

That raises a whole bunch of questions for the PM over whether he would oppose such legislation or not, whether the rest of the UK would have a say in Scottish independence at that point.

Predictably the spokeswoman was not prepared to speculate.

NO2AV take on Huhne

2011-05-04T17:50:00.001+01:00

Lobbydog hears the NO2AV campaign plan to do tomorrow what Ed Miliband should have done today – attack Chris Huhne over his cabinet meeting outburst.

Miliband seemed to completely forget about the whole issue at PMQs giving it only a passing mention, when it should have been his most powerful attack line of the day.

The whole situation is a complete gift which could have made Clegg look very silly in the Commons on the eve an election – another one of Ed’s missed opportunities.

Anyway, the NO2AV campaign will send an open letter to Huhne dismissing his claims that they have specifically targeted Nick Clegg and run a dirty campaign against him.

I doubt they’ll go quite as far as accusing Huhne of using the issue to position himself as a potential Liberal Democrat leader, someone should though.

Old Labour wounds open over AV…

2011-05-03T16:34:00.006+01:00

Margaret Beckett sounded rather frosty when I chatted to her earlier about Neil Kinnock’s comments in the Independent today regarding her and other Labour No2AVers.

In the piece Kinnock said: "I simply cannot understand how experienced colleagues can mistake the lessons of the last 60 years – that the Tories have profited massively from divisions in the continual anti-Tory majority.

"They must recognise the implacable truth – that first past the post is the Tories' lifeline."

He went on: "They haven't been able to explain why they're doing it, to me – they just give me knowing smiles and say first past the post helps us. Well, first past the post almost permanently put the Tories in power for the last 40 years."

But hitting back, Beckett (pictured below with Tory Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin) told Lobbydog the reason the "anti-Tory majority" had not prevailed in recent history was that it had not existed.

The former Labour Foreign Secretary said Kinnock was guilty of “wishful thinking” if he thought the voting system was the only thing that had kept Labour out of power in 1983, 1987 and 1992.

She wouldn't be drawn on it, but it's hard not to ignore the fact that these were years in which Kinnock was leader.

She said: "When people go into an election they know that they are risking a particular outcome. They know what risk they are running.

"In the 80s and early 90s the people decided that the risk of returning Margaret Thatcher and John Major was less than the risk of returning us – it's sad to have to admit.

"But it's very wrong to suggest people didn’t know what they were doing when they made those decisions, but that they suddenly did know what they were doing when they voted Labour in 1997."

Beckett added that Kinnock had never asked her about her views on AV, but said she would be happy to explain them to him "any day of the week".

Labour needs to realign its attacks on NHS...

2011-04-13T16:29:00.008+01:00

At this morning’s press conference Ed Miliband faced accusations that he was “jumping on the bandwagon” by criticising the Government over its NHS reform.

The press conference was certainly conveniently timed to coincide with the day the Royal College of Nursing passed a motion of no confidence in Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

But coming to the debate late is not the party’s problem. There’ve been Labour people firing attacks against the reforms for months – in particular Liz Kendall, the junior minister (pictured below) behind the Opposition’s assault on key ‘competition’ clauses of the legislation.

The problem is with the substance of their attack and the position from which they’re attacking. Firstly, and this is admittedly quite a tough one to avoid, they are mired in the detail.

Most people in the country don’t understand the structure of the NHS, they don’t know what commissioning is, they don’t know what the reforms mean and so they can’t hope to understand a critique of them.

When journalists think their readers will not take an interest in something that is overly complex – like an Opposition opposing Government legislation in highly technical terms – they will not write about it.

Hence it has taken severe opposition from the medical profession to give hacks something to write about, and a way into the story.

The second issue is the uncertainty about where Labour’s own plans for the NHS would have ended up.

Many on the left of Labour opposed Blairite marketisation of the NHS because they believed it would lead to privatisation – the charge now levied at Cameron’s reforms.

And let’s not forget (the Tories certainly won’t let us) that Labour's 2010 manifesto also states “patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs”.

Labour is not against a degree of marketisation in the NHS and it would be wise for the party to be true to its manifesto and acknowledge that if they want their attacks to have credibility.

What they really need here is a degree of triangulation – a dirty Blairite word in Labour circles. They need a plan that proposes reform to the NHS, but in a uniquely Labour way.

Their line should be ‘the Tories want to privatise the NHS, unions want to leave things as they are – we want measured change to get efficiency, but only if the services most dear to people are protected' i.e. kept under state control.

Flesh out a little detail and maybe they’ll have a chance of being seen as a party that’s ready to jump into Government, rather than a party that jumps on to bandwagons.

Shameless MP

2011-04-13T14:53:00.002+01:00

I know this came out last night, but I couldn’t let it pass.

I can’t quite believe how shameless Labour party members have been in exploiting Gillian Duffy, an old woman, for political gain – and not even that great a gain, a mere passing headline.

First Gordon Brown calls her a bigot and then goes asking her to forgive him and save his political career.

Now Labour MP Simon Danczuk uses her as a rotten tomato to chuck at Nick Clegg.

Danczuk should be ashamed of himself – accordingly he is promoted to Lobbydog’s growl victim for a week.

Put that on yer leaflet...

2011-04-08T11:16:00.002+01:00

GEDLING MP Vernon Coaker freewheeled about the Commons jabbing a finger at every Tory and Lib Dem daring to meet his eye.

"Put that on yer leaflet," Labour's shadow police minister repeatedly hollered in a captivating if not slightly maniacal way.

Read the full column at the Post's website here.

Health journeys

2011-04-07T09:58:00.003+01:00

Here’s an interesting bit of information on how the ministerial team at the Department of Health spends taxpayers’ pounds on travel.

It turns out that Simon Burns is the most prolific user of his ministerial car.

According to data released in a parliamentary question asked by Maria Eagle, Burns used his car to travel to his Chelmsford constituency 154 times between May 2010 and March 2011.

Ministers are only permitted to make the journey to their own constituency if they are carrying confidential papers.

Anne Milton meanwhile went to her Guildford constituency in her car 134 times. Paul Burstow used his to go to his Sutton and Cheam constituency just 29. Andrew Lansley went to South Cambridgeshire just 12 times.

I can’t help but wonder why health ministers seem to carry the kind of confidential papers that merit ministerial cars far more often than the Secretary of State.

Anyway, out of the four, Burns also used up more public money for his travel between May 2010 and February 2011 – £41,384 on his car, £653 on trains and £3,603 on air travel. A total £45,640

Anne Milton spent £39,344 on the ministerial car, £1,705 on trains and £336 on air travel – £41,385 in total. Andrew Lansley spent £35,762 on the ministerial car, £1,850 on train costs and £2,610 on air travel. A total of £40,222.

Earl Howe spent £28,069 on his car and £726 on train, £28,795 in total.

Paul Burstow spent just £25,853 on the car and 314 in trains – £26,167 in total.

Golden Goodbyes

2011-04-06T14:08:00.005+01:00

After months of gruelling email exchanges with the Commons Authorities, and having to get the information commissioner involved, the data I requested on MPs' resettlement grants was finally released to me last Friday.

I’d originally put in a request to find out which MPs had taken grants because I wanted to know whether Patricia Hewitt had.

Hewitt had held several high paid jobs in the private sector even while she was an MP, and she had no need of a £50,000 grant to help her "readjust" when she left Parliament.

The Commons typically refused for weeks but eventually backed down when I referred the case to the commissioner – hence the Leicester Mercury, Hewitt’s local paper, got the exclusive story.

As well as Hewitt, this was the first time we could confirm that the likes of Geoff Hoon and even the disgraced MP Derek Conway had taken their grants.

The Independent’s High Street Ken reported the story today and gave the Mercury a mention, and then the BBC’s Emma Griffiths put this piece on their website.

The Telegraph's story.

The Mirror's follow up.

The information is now fully available at the House of Commons website here.

UKIP MEP fooled...

2011-04-05T12:20:00.003+01:00

A UKIP MEP sent over an excited press release to one of my desks this morning detailing how those damned bureaucrats in Brussels were fiddling around in our lives again.

Incensed Mike Nattrass, West Midlands MEP, copied and pasted an article from the “Classic Cars for Sale” website into his email which told how “EU Directive 2011/35/T” was going to destroy people’s ability to own and drive classic cars.

The article said the directive would mean anyone wishing to keep a car over 20 years old would have to register it as “off road” permanently and would then need to apply for a special license to drive to classic car events.

This licence would need to be applied for three months before attending any event and a maximum of 5 licenses will be granted per year – how dare they!

But while Nattrass noticed all of this, he failed to notice that the article had been posted on April 1 – the day on which fools get taken in.

If that was not enough of a clue there were several other posts on other car websites pointing out exactly what the story was, including one featuring a big laughing cat and the caption “April Fools Day bwahahaha!”

Last year Nattrass wrote a letter to UKIP members criticising his party’s leader Nigel Farage as a “control freak” who tried to steal all the party’s publicity. If this is the start of his attempt to get some back I suggest he gives up now.

Stoke's lessons to AV...

2011-03-29T13:46:00.001+01:00

I was told by an MP from Stoke on Trent this morning that he was absolutely sure the AV referendum would be won by the ‘Yes’ camp. When I asked why, he gave me a handy insight from his patch.

A bit of background first – Stoke on Trent used to have a mayor and, to cut a long story short, it was a total disaster.

A city which already had major social problems suffered from stagnation, potential corruption and the far right strengthened a foothold in local government there.

The city was starved of investment as leaders became incapable of levering cash into the city and deprivation spiralled.

It got so bad that a group wanting to scrap the mayoral system won the chance to hold a referendum asking people whether the city should get rid of it.

There was an excruciating 19% turnout – just 35,800 voters out of 186,700 putting their mark on a ballot paper.

Despite this being a question that was crucial to the city’s future in a very real way, people just weren’t interested.

But the side that won, the ‘scrap-the-mayor’ camp, was the side that had pushed for the referendum in the first place and, therefore, were more passionate and able to turn out more individuals.

Everyone else, including many people that might have actually backed the mayor, just didn’t see it as a big issue and didn’t bother to show up.

At a briefing yesterday the NO2AV campaign claimed the Yes camp was trying to avoid debate about the referendum – if Stoke’s story is anything to go by why wouldn’t they.

Cameron zones in

2011-03-24T10:22:00.000Z

David Cameron is going to be wondering about Boots in Nottingham today where he’ll announce the location of four of the new “enterprise zones”.

There still seems to be a fair bit of confusion about what they are and how they’ll be different from the zones that Maggie Thatcher brought in during the eighties.

“No one thought they were a howling success the first time round,” said Margaret Beckett to me last night, who has been around long enough to know.

The key difference this time seems to be the “longevity” – local authorities will have the power to keep business rates from the zones for over 20 years.

That means it’ll be in their interest to develop them, promote them and get as many businesses into them as possible.

But the other problem with Thatcher’s zones was “displacement” – i.e. that businesses that were already in the area all jumped into the zone to get tax breaks leaving the area around the zone baron and robbed of its enterprise.

It’s still not clear how they’re going to get around that problem, which is basically intrinsic to the nature of any “zone” scheme.

Perhaps one of the bright sparks in Nottingham will put it to the PM today.

The underlying vagueness of UNRes1973

2011-03-21T17:52:00.001Z

Normally interventions by Dennis Skinner MP, known as the Beast of Bolsover, are gnarly political points delivered with the thrusting vocal of left-wing days gone by.

But the Beast highlighted an issue with deft precision in the Libya debate, still on-going, that I thought the PM did not give an apt answer to.

He asked what the circumstances would be that would see us and coalition partners able to withdraw. In other words, what is success?

The PM fell back on United Nations Resolution 1973, talking about protecting civilians. But while that may be the objective of the resolution it does not spell out what success looks like.

After all, at what point can we consider civilians to “be protected”. Is it when Gaddafi stops his advance and sits still and says he will no longer attack rebel held cities?

Assuming he held to that, it would mean civilians, at least those in rebel held areas, were no longer under threat from him – so we could then withdraw and dismantle the coalition operation.

But of course it would be ridiculous to assume Gaddafi would not then start attacking again. Going on his past record, in fact, Gaddafi will not stop fighting to keep power.

And while he does, civilians will remain under threat, and so British forces will have to remain engaged open-endedly. That is, unless Gaddafi dies at the hands of our forces.

That may be the only way civilians are protected from Gaddafi in the ‘full-stop’ way the Government demands – in which case are we not practicing regime change here?

That is the underlying vagueness masked in the apparently clear wording of the UN resolution – and it contradicts the comfort given by the resolution’s caveat that there should be no occupying force in Libya, a caveat which ensures some support in the Arab world.

It has been legitimate for western powers to get involved in Libya, but people should not kid themselves about the very real possibility of a protracted engagement as long as Gaddafi remains alive.

Fewer judges at European Court, says Clarke

2011-03-18T10:49:00.005Z

The Government has already indicated it will use its presidency of the Council of Europe later this year to try and bring about changes to the European Court.

While chatting with Lobbydog recently, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke hinted at the kind of reform they’ll pursue.

He said: “We could probably do with fewer judges and we need to have a look at the quality of the judges and how they are appointed.

“They are reasonable, but there are some that have not sat as judges before going to the European Court, they are academic lawyers.

“They sit on panels and it might make things better if we reduce the size of those panels.”

This comes on the back of recent problems over the European Court’s ruling that gives British prisoners voting rights.

By law the Government must comply, even though Parliament rejected the ruling in a non-binding vote last month.

Ministers have instead said they want to go back to the European Court and work with it to see how the issue can be resolved.

Perhaps a threat to reform the court will prove a handy stick in any talks.

Clarke also said the court needed new powers to deal with trivial matters quickly to cut back on a backlog of cases.

He was reluctant to make any big promises on when changes would be delivered, pointing out that any reform would have to be agreed by 47 countries.

Clarke did say that the UK had some good allies in their desire for reform though – the UK’s goal will be “to move the issue along significantly” rather than achieve solid reform within its presidency period.

Bill of Rights Commission out...

2011-03-18T10:16:00.004Z

The Government has managed to talk Sir Leigh Lewis KCB into chairing their commission into the British Bill of Rights.

He steps in after the previous candidate for chair pulled out at the last minute.

Lewis, a former Permanent Secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions with a 'long career in public service', is perfectly positioned to see that this issue remains unresolved well in to 2012.

Full membership: Sir Leigh Lewis KCB, Jonathan Fisher QC, Martin Howe QC, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Philippe Sands QC, Anthony Speaight QC, Professor Sir David Edward QC and Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky.

Bill of rights woes...

2011-03-15T16:52:00.001Z

THE Government has had to delay announcing the membership of a commission to explore the case for a British Bill of Rights after the person selected to chair it backed out at the last minute.

Those on the Tory right had hoped that a Conservative pledge to bring in a British Bill of Rights would allow the UK to legally trump decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – unlikely.

But because of Lib Dem support for the ECHR, the Coalition agreed only to set up a commission to look at the case for introducing the Bill.

So the commission’s very existence is already irksome to Tory righties, and now further delay.

Membership of the body was all but set and could have been announced this week, but the person originally tasked to lead it pulled out saying she would be “too busy” to take up the role.

The Government is now trying to get another member locked into the job, but I’ve a feeing the commission is going to be more trouble than the PM ever knew.

Balls capitalises on fuel duty...

2011-03-14T09:34:00.003Z

So far Labour has managed to use its Opposition Day debates to pretty good effect.

The tuition fees debate capitalised on protests outside Parliament, while debates on cuts to school sports funding and the now-abolished plans to sell-off woodland preceded full on u-turns.

So it's no surprise that the week before Budget day, March 23, the Opposition is targeting fuel duty.

Ed Balls will use his party’s debate this Wednesday to call for fuel to be exempt from the most recent rise in VAT.

The Government has already been hinting that some sort of action on the price of fuel would be taken in the Budget.

But none the less if George Osborne does make any concessions now then Balls will say it's another sign of Government back peddling in the face of Labour pressure.

Cam speaks up on homosexuality row...

2011-03-08T09:49:00.004Z

We all remember Alistair Campbell’s famous remark about how New Labour did not “do God” – even if Tony Blair eventually did. But the current PM is not so shy about his beliefs.

Cameron was even content to speak openly on the story about a Christian couple barred by a judge from becoming foster parents after saying they’d refuse to tell a child that homosexuality was ok.

When Lobbydog asked him about it yesterday he said: "This matter was decided by a court in the appropriate way and I think we should rest with the judgement that was made.

"I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded."

A spokesman for the couple in question later said the PM's response was "lacking in any understanding of the critical situation and conflict between the two groups involved".

UPDATE: Daily Mail follows up the story.

Victory on expenses

2011-02-28T12:01:00.002Z

Last year Lobbydog attempted to find out which MPs had taken their resettlement grants on leaving the Commons at the election, and which had not.

The reasoning behind the request was that there were some MPs who held very well paid private sector jobs and had no need for a hefty taxpayer hand-out to “adjust to non parliamentary life” – the rather spurious reason for the grant.

But the Commons Authorities, despite having just been through the trauma of the expenses scandal, refused to reveal the information claiming it would breach data protection law.

We complained to the Information Commissioner and after the watchdog’s intervention the Commons have now backed down.

They are in the process of informing all former MPs who took the grant that their names will be released in a list to come some time in early April.

It’s good the information is finally coming, but sad we had to drag it out of the Commons given everything that’s happened.

Read the full story here.

Cabinet Office receive complaint against Defence Minister

2011-02-28T11:25:00.002Z

BRITISH nuclear test veterans fighting a legal battle against the Government have made an official complaint after a defence minister misled Parliament about their court case.

The veterans were present when the UK tested atomic bombs in Australia and the South Pacific in the 1950s and 1960s and complain that exposure to radiation has damaged their health.

The Ministry of Defence has refused to take any responsibility for their illnesses and so veterans have taken the Government to court in a bid to win compensation.

The case is yet to come to full trial but last month defence minister Andrew Robathan incorrectly told Parliament that judges had ruled there was no link between the tests and the veterans' ill health.

Veterans' representatives have now written to the Cabinet Office – which oversees ministers' professional conduct – arguing that Mr Robathan breached the ministerial code.

Read the full story here.

What is Big Society? Maybe debate will tell us.

2011-02-28T11:14:00.004Z

The battle for the heart and soul of the ‘Big Society’ and what it means will be fought out during today’s backbench business debate in the Commons.

The first motion on the order paper talks about the Big Society as “seeking stronger communities and decentralising power”.

Those are fairly vague aspirations which leave open the possibility of Government spending and social programmes – accordingly the motion has won support from the likes of John Cruddas, Bob Russell and Tristram Hunt as well as some Cameroons.

Meanwhile the proposed amendment is far more prescriptive – suggesting such “stronger communities” should be facilitated by “increased individual and collective responsibility and freedom and reduced dependency on the state”.

In turn this amendment has won the support of the likes of Bill Cash, Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh.

Such a spat over what the Big Society means isn’t going to help David Cameron at a time when he’s already struggling to define the concept to the wider public.

Dear readers,

2011-02-15T17:12:00.001Z

Have to go abroad for a week, don't go away.

LD

Abuse of Power...and language

2011-02-15T09:54:00.005Z

There was an odd section in Michael Gove’s speech yesterday in which he sought to play down the term “abuse of power”.

Gove was accused of doing just that by a High Court judge last week after cutting funding earmarked to rebuild schools. But when Andy Burnham brought it up Gove replied…

“He will be familiar with the fact that ‘abuse of power’ is a judicial term that has been in use since 1603 and, in particular, has been applied in judicial review cases since 1985.

“It has been applied to Cabinet Ministers on both sides of the House.

“It is a matter of open debate that judicial review is there to ensure that decisions taken by Cabinet Ministers can be reviewed in the Court.”

Gove’s intention was to negate the significance of the term by suggesting in the first sentence that it has been used for years, in the second, that it is something lots of politicians have been accused of, and in the third, that the courts shouldn’t even have the power to say such things.

Let’s take those sentences one by one. It’s rather banal to point out when “abuse of power” first came into use. After all, the terms theft, adultery and murder have all been around for longer, but have no less meaning for it.

I’m not comparing Gove’s abuse to murder of course – simply saying that offences do not ‘go off’ like milk or cheese, they do not become less important over time.

The second sentence is a political defence. He’s saying to Burnham – “Labour politicians abused power when in Government too”. Maybe they did, but the public will think “it’s you who’s doing the abusing right now”.

In the third sentence, it is as though Gove knows that directly questioning the judge’s power to review ministerial decisions is pushing it. So his words are carefully chosen and rendered a little inane.

That it is “open for debate” as to whether judicial review can be used in the way it has is neither here nor there. After all, everything is “open for debate”.

The fact is that judicial review has been used in the way it has. Gove’s decision has been overturned. The judge says an abuse of power has been committed.

So what does that term "abuse of power" really mean? Improper use of authority by someone who has that authority because he or she holds a public office.

That is the single fact that Burnham and Labour should have pushed home last night, they should not have strayed from that point.

As it was at times they played into Gove’s hands by getting into a debate about whether BSF was a good programme or not. That meant the Education Secretary got off lightly in what could have been a highly damaging encounter.

A dead weight

2011-02-14T11:05:00.003Z

The Post's Lobby correspondent column from last week...

If you were to ask a coalition party press officer what the Big Society is, they would probably tell you it is "communities doing it for themselves" i.e. charities, volunteers and social enterprises working to solve society's ills, instead of direct state action.

But if you were to ask me, I would tell you the Big Society is a huge lead, deadweight of a phrase that Cameron will one day regret ever coining.

Click here for the full version.

What Burnham got wrong and what he missed...

2011-02-11T13:39:00.006Z

Andy Burnham has made a key mistake in his reaction to the decision at High Court today relating to cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme.

At around 10.30am a judge said that Michael Gove’s decision to withdraw funding for school rebuilding projects in six council areas was “unlawful”.

In a piece on the Labour website the shadow education secretary writes: “The ruling calls into question every school building scheme cut by Michael Gove.”

That is not the case and the judge specifically said so. In fact Mr Justice Holman said: “The decision [to cut funding] is now over seven months ago, and in my view any other authorities would now be far too late to apply for judicial review.

“I do not mean to trivialise so important an issue, but it may be said that fortune has favoured the brave.”

In other words – if you’ve brought you case, well done you for having the gumption, but if you haven’t the door is closed.

I’ve already heard of councils thinking this case means something significant for them. It doesn’t, and it’s unfair of Burnham to stir hopes in the way he has.

What he has missed in his statement is that the case does open up the fundamentals of Government education policy to a clear line of political attack which will play very well with Labour supporters.

This case was brought by councils – big education authorities who had the financial and legal clout to push the Government back to the drawing board.

Would a free school set up by parents, or even a city academy run by education professionals, have the power to do the same? What would one free school be able to do if the Government decided to cut off its funding?

So this case says something very significant about the balance of power between local and national government and how that balance may shift massively if councils lose overall control of education.

A couple of things to say on prisoners voting...

2011-02-11T09:56:00.003Z

Many people blamed the expenses scandal on the Government’s eternal fiddling and playing politics with MPs’ pay deals and terms.

Meanwhile many thought the fact that MPs were not respected anymore was because Parliament as a body which held the Government to account had lost its teeth.

So a wider consequence of the scandal was a movement to wrestle power away from the Government (the PM, cabinet and ministers) and bring it back to the House of Commons (backbench MPs).

This was a cause that transcended partisan politics, because rather than being ‘Labour against Tories’, it was legislature (MPs of all colours) against executive (Governments of any colour).

It was a big victory when the Government agreed to allow a backbench committee to be formed and given power to schedule debates and votes on subjects of its choosing in the House of Commons.

All those things backbenchers wanted to debate, but were too politically prickly for party leaders to discuss on the Commons floor, would no longer be swept under the carpet but would find their way into open dialogue.

Last night was a great example of that – a backbencher forced the issue of prisoners’ voting rights on to the Commons floor and Parliament’s will now has to be taken into account in any future decision.

The problem is that last night’s vote, and the entire concept of backbench business, was undermined by the fact that hardly anyone turned up to take part.

The vote passed 234 to 22. That means 256 out of 646 MPs voted – less than 40% (not taking account of positive abstentions) a figure which calls into question whether the decision really reflects Parliament’s view.

Some MPs said it was only a backbench debate, others that it was only a one-line whip and so they decided to work in the constituency instead.

But surely if you only vote when it’s a Government/Opposition motion, you’re saying backbench business doesn’t matter. If you only vote when you’re whipped then aren’t you just a sock puppet for your party?

After such a long fight to wrestle control from the executive, it seems the legislature is neither willing nor able to take up its new powers.

Turning Europe

2011-02-10T14:21:00.001Z

MPs will soon finish their debate on prisoner voting, but it seems clear that the motion – preventing inmates from taking part in elections – will be approved.

The real question is what happens after that. One school of thought among legal minded Tory backbenchers is that the Government will be able to take Parliament’s decision back to the European Court and persuade it to change its mind.

It’s not a plan based on the hope that the court will simply give way because the Mother of Parliaments has spoken – though some Tories would like to think that’s what should happen.

The MPs believe there is a powerful grouping of judges at the courts who actually oppose the idea of prisoners voting, and who were only narrowly defeated first time round when the original decision was passed.

Overturning the decision may therefore not be as difficult as thought, plus it holds out the prospect of the Government being able to stop prisoners voting and adhere to the court’s ruling.

It would also mean achieving something that Labour never even thought of doing.

He's not the deputy leader, he's a very naguhty boy

2011-02-10T10:50:00.005Z

The war between Nottingham City Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government took a bizarre twist last night when Eric Pickles made the following speech.

We've altered Mr Pickles picture to look like the mother from The Life of Brian to help you get a feel for it...

"The deputy leader of Nottingham city council is a gentleman called Graham Chapman, which is obviously the same name as the late and long-missed member of "Monty Python's Flying Circus". It seems to me that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) should get on the phone to that gentleman and tell him, as his namesake's mother did in "Life of Brian", that he might be the deputy leader of Nottingham City Council, but he is a very naughty boy. If it is necessary for me to use the powers that I have to force Nottingham, I will, but why should this process be held back by one obdurate council that simply wants to play politics with transparency?"

Councillor Chapman , seen here in character, and Council Leader Jon Collins are still refusing to comply with Mr Pickles demand to publish all expenditure above £500 on-line.

But the Government is now making moves to force them to do so. This week it published a "code of conduct" for councils to follow on the publication of financial data - including guidance on publishing expenditure and the salaries of civil servants,

Under a piece of existing legislation introduced in the 80s by Margaret Thatcher, Pickles now has the power to issue an order to require councils to follow that code.

So are the naughty boys at Nottingham City Council about to get their punishment?

Millions to settle convicts' cases

2011-02-08T10:12:00.003Z

With one eye on the prisoners’ voting debate later this week, there are some interesting figures from the Ministry of Justice this morning.

The Government has forked out almost £6.4 million to convicts in the last three years to settle litigation cases.

An answer to a written parliamentary question showed that £1,452,309 was paid to settle cases in 2007/08, £1,648,045 in 2008/09 and a whopping £3,257,892 in 2009/10.

And these figures don’t even include the associated legal fees and compensation paid through the internal complaints procedures of prisons.

The case of Soham killer Ian Huntley springs to mind – last year he began suing the Government for up to £95,000 in damages after he was attacked in jail.

But Huntley has nothing on those who will sue the Government if MPs decide on Thursday not to let prisoners vote in elections.

After all, they have a European Court ruling behind them – something for MPs who are saddling their high horses ready for Thursday to think about.

The Government have made a dog’s dinner of this one – if they thought it was going to be tricky to sell to Tory MPs they should have done what Labour did and kicked it into the long grass (again).

But once they started down the course of compliance with the European Court they should have had the conviction to see it through with a whipped vote and avoid what is going to a politically damaging and messy show on Thursday.

Missing in action...

2011-02-02T11:19:00.001Z

Figures on the number of computers lost and stolen were announced by the MoD rather quietly last night.

Over the year 2010 there were 12 computers lost and 9 stolen, 45 laptops lost and 76 stolen, 47 USB sticks lost and 3 stolen.

That’s a wopping 192 incidents in which potentially secret information went astray.

Don't have a cow man!

2011-02-02T11:04:00.002Z

A piece of business on a controversial issue slipped through the House of Commons last night without being noticed.

It was a motion innocuously entitled European Union Document, but in fact it related to the use of genetically cloned animals for food production in Europe.

The nub of it is that the EU Commission has written a report recommending a ban or temporary suspension on cloning, the use of clones and the marketing of food from clones across Europe.

The Commission says this is needed because of “possible risks as regards food safety and the health and welfare of animals”.

Meanwhile the report says there are still issues to be sorted out in relation to the “ethical dimension, trade implications and the consumer's right to be informed about the production process”.

But last night’s motion, which passed through unopposed, saw Parliament supporting a Government call that any sort of ban would be “disproportionate”.

In other words both the Government and Parliament now officially agree that it should be all systems go on using clones in food production – reckon there may be a few MPs out there who aren’t so sure about that.

War breaks out bewteen central and local gov

2011-02-01T09:45:00.006Z

With local and central government both manoeuvring to avoid the blame for service cuts, open conflict between the two has been simmering for sometime.

The bullish Tory Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is the key player from the Government point of view and then there are several Labour council leaders setting themselves up to be the Derek Hatton of 2011.

One of them is Nottingham City Council’s Jon Collins who recently fired off a stunning attack at Pickles and Housing Minister Grant Shapps.

Collins’ outburst came after Pickles and Shapps pushed the council to publish details of all its expenditure above £500 on line – and in doing so highlighted several examples of council waste, taken from newspaper stories and FOI requests, which they said might have been avoided.

Refusing the demand, Collins said: “Grant Shapps is a fool. He’s risking his already risible reputation and fast becoming as big a buffoon as his boss Eric Pickles.

“Only such a fool would think he can attempt to discredit us with nothing more than half-witted and inaccurate headlines from the ever more partisan newspapers and selective extracts from FOI requests and expect to be taken seriously.

“He’s even more of a fool if he’s had civil servants trawling the internet to find these stories for him because that would mean he’s using public money and civil service time to help him make cheap political points – which is illegal - when he should be focussing on the housing brief that is, after all, his job.”

Don’t think Pickles is the type to take that kind of abuse lying down.

Cameron's statement

2011-01-21T11:51:00.001Z

The Prime Minister said today:

"I am very sorry that Andy Coulson has decided to resign as my Director of Communications, although I understand that the continuing pressures on him and his family mean that he feels compelled to do so. Andy has told me that the focus on him was impeding his ability to do his job and was starting to prove a distraction for the Government.

"During his time working for me, Andy has carried out his role with complete professionalism. He has been a brilliant member of my team and has thrown himself at the job with skill and dedication. He can be extremely proud of the role he has played, including for the last eight months in Government.

I wish Andy all the very best for his future, which I am certain will be a successful one."

Telegraph changes tune...

2011-01-21T09:50:00.004Z

Just as I was getting bored with Westminster politics – what with it being a while now since the hung Parliament, first coalition in decades, Miliband brothers’ psychodrama, biggest ever cuts thing – Alan Johnson livens things up.

Everyone will have noticed the various lines around in the papers this morning, the difference in what is alleged in the Mail and what was alleged in the Telegraph, along the lines of the Guido bit from last night, is stark.

The thing is, the Mail story seems to be stood up by the fact that Scotland Yard has launched disciplinary proceedings against Paul Rice, Johnson’s bodyguard when he was Home Secretary.

And yet the Telegraph’s print piece doesn’t seem to name any other sources for its story except Guido. It does say Labour insiders told the paper Johnson’s marriage was on the rocks, but that does not stand up the overall line.

Now we see on the Telegraph website that they have changed their story to one more along the lines of the Mail’s piece.

Interesting to see if the Telegraph is challenged over its original print story and is forced to rely on Guido to come to the rescue with its sources – dead tree and digital stand together.

The new shadow cabinet

2011-01-20T17:36:00.002Z

Leader of the Opposition
Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development
Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP

Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
Rt Hon Ed Balls MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP

Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department and Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities
Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP

Chief Whip
Rt Hon Rosie Winterton MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Election Coordinator
Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform)
Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Rt Hon John Denham MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Health
Rt Hon John Healey MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Defence
Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP

Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Angela Eagle MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
Meg Hillier MP

Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
Maria Eagle MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Mary Creagh MP

Fraudsters get the vote

2011-01-12T10:27:00.003Z

Figures have been published this morning showing just how many different types of prisoner would have got the vote last year had the new electoral rules, announced by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, been in place.

Under the proposals prisoners serving up to four years in prison will be able to vote in general elections by proxy or by post in their normal constituency of residence.

Some of the stats were mentioned in the House yesterday but seeing them all brings the issue into stark focus.

The figures show 1,742 sex offenders, 2,484 robbers, 4,144 burglars, 3,484 thieves, 1,060 fraudsters, 4,306 drug offenders and over 5,000 other more minor offenders would have all got a say in who runs the country.

In total 28,770 prisoners would have been able to vote under the new rules – a new focus group for the party strategists to account for.

More holes in UKBA

2011-01-11T10:37:00.001Z

KEITH Vaz called for senior Home Office civil servants to be denied bonuses this year after a report from the select committee he chairs revealed failings at the UK Border Agency (UKBA).

The report’s findings were compounded, however, by this little snippet of information that popped out surreptitiously this morning.

Between May 1 and October 31 2010 176 failed asylum seekers did a runner after being served with removal directions.

By December 2010 only 42 had been found and detained. UKBA is currently “in contact” with an additional 15 (whatever that means), and a further two were removed from the UK without being served removal directions.

That leaves 122 who are in the UK illegally. Another point for Vaz’s committee to look into.

Treasury officials' bonuses

2010-12-17T14:47:00.001Z

There we were, wondering whether the Treasury would introduce restrictions on bankers’ bonuses, when all along they were tucking something away for themselves.

Figures from the Treasury show that 736 bonuses of some sort were awarded in 2006/07 – totalling £1.1m.

Amounts then rose to 2008/09 – the year in which the recession kicked in – when 990 bonuses totalling almost £1.4m were handed out.

In 2009/10, a higher number of bonuses, 1,273, were awarded albeit with a lower overall total of around £1.3m.

In total over the four year period up to 2009/10, over £5m was handed to Treasury officials.

You might think that when the overall annual cash figures are divided among the number of bonuses given out, that each bonus doesn’t seem that big.

Take 2008/09 for example… £1.4m / 990 bonuses = £1,414 per bonus.

But the truth is that bonuses varied in size and the top bonuses in each year ranged between £15,000 and £22,000 – not far off the average basic annual salary in the UK.

The amounts are not like the sky-high bonuses bankers get, but some of these officials may well bear responsibility for the regulatory system which contributed to the banking collapse.

Interesting to see whether Osborne has taken out his axe over the issue by the time the 2010/11 figures come out.

Losing a grip on prisoner voting...

2010-12-16T15:49:00.001Z

Lobbydog was chatting to a member of the previous administration earlier about Government measures which will allow some UK prisoners to vote.

The Coalition says the measures must be taken because of a ruling by the European Court that denying all prisoners the vote is unlawful.

Any time a Labour MP attacks the Government in the House on the issue, the minister hits back saying that a Labour Government would also have had to follow the court’s ruling.

The previous government did nothing to resolve the issue whereas the Coalition, goes the Government line, is now taking the hard decisions Labour could not.

I asked the former minister whether it wasn’t a bit rich of them to attack the Coalition when all Labour had done was to hold two consultations on the issue without ever getting to grips with it.

“Of course we never got to grips with it,” said the former minister.

“That was the whole point. We couldn’t go against the court, but giving prisoners the vote was wrong. So our view was that we should just kick it in to the long grass.

“Then, when we got to it again we took the view that we should kick it into the long grass again and we would have kept doing so.”

I get the feeling that there are probably quite a few Tories who would support such a strategy.

Watch Ed Balls work his magic on Lorely Burt

2010-12-15T16:35:00.001Z