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

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...

If you didn't catch it yesterday...



Uploaded on to Youtube by TAofMoridura

How will Cam be treated back in the UK?

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.

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

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.

Cameron's letter to Sepp Blatter

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.

Where is Tory support for marriage?

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?

Liam Fox's full letter of resignation...

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

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

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.

Hunt the human shield

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.

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

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...

Hat tip Paul Waugh

"Massive Deficit" at 16/1

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

Will there be a Tory backlash to boundary equalisation?

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?

IPSA shake up?

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.

Lobby Briefing 9/5/2011

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.

Cameron zones in

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

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.

Bill of rights woes...

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.

Cam speaks up on homosexuality row...

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.

What is Big Society? Maybe debate will tell us.

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.