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.

The Beast doesn't do e-mail

Nice to know that in these times of uncertain politics and new politicians that some things will never change.

This morning MPs were being given their induction on new rules for expenses, how they can be used and how they must be recorded according to IPSA guidelines.

It turns out that expenses documents will have to be submitted electronically, and electronically only.

At which point the ‘Beast of Bolsover’ Dennis Skinner MP, about as old school as you can get, was heard to say…

“I’ve never sent an email in my life and I’m not going to ****ing start now.”

I know Skinner doesn’t do computers and he doesn’t have any staff in Westminster either.

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if his office was completely bare and consisted of nothing more than a table, a stool and an old wind-up phone – oh, and perhaps a coal fire in the corner.

Bercow having a tough time of things in the Commons...

I just wanted to draw attention to this ammusing exchange between the Speaker and the Beast of Bolsover Dennis Skinner in the House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have operated a very considerable latitude in these brief exchanges, and there have already been several-frankly, too many-references to the issue of party funding. The matter upon which we need exclusively to focus is that of the BA strike. I feel sure that a fine example of that focus will now be provided by Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): In any industrial dispute, it takes two sides to cause a row. Will my right hon. Friend draw the distinction between the clean money that is given by the trade union movement to the Labour party, as opposed to a man who refuses to pay tax on £127 million and bankrolls the Tory party?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has placed his point firmly on the record, but the Minister requires only the- [ Interruption. ] Order. The Minister requires only the briefest of replies.

Mr. Skinner: Why do you only stop me and not these others?

Mr. Speaker: Order. [ Interruption. ] Order. The House needs to let me address this. I must say in fairness to the hon. Member for Bolsover that I did not stop him. He made his point, I have no objection to him doing so. To be fair, I did not interrupt him. He had his say.

Mr. Skinner: You do plenty of interrupting.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do do some interrupting when it is necessary for me to do so.

There was more interrupting from the Speaker to come and more heckling of him from the benches - though the heckles weren't recorded in Hansard.

Knowing that this would be the case the ever helpful Andrew Robathan, deputy chief opposition whip, stood up and put the best heckle on the record...

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the expression "verbal diarrhoea" parliamentary language? I have not heard it used in this House before, and certainly never about yourself or another occupant of the Chair, as it was just now.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the offending expression to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. There is a certain amount of gesticulation now from a sedentary position both from him and from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The written record will tell us all, and I am happy to await it. The hon. Gentleman, who came into the House in 1992, knows-not least from his smile-that what he has just said does not amount to a point of order.

The beast awakens

It seems there may be a backhanded plot to finish off Labour old-timer Dennis Skinner.

The leftie, known as 'the beast of Bolsover', or just 'beast' to his friends, was apparently a bit miffed to discover that work was being done to remove asbestos near his office in the Houses of Parliament.

While other MPs seem to have been evacuated from the area, Skinner was not moved or even told.

All that finger pointing was always going to come back on him one day.

Brown's hero

I think even Alan Simpson (Nottingham South) was shocked that he came to the Prime Minister's rescue in such gallivanting fashion during today's PMQs.

Moments before, the PM had made a humiliating blooper that left his lower lip wobbling like bit of liver.

Brown had meant to say he had saved the banks, but instead – in a monumental Freudian slip – said: "We not only saved the world."

Before he could finish the next sentence the house had exploded and Brown turned to red – the cacophony ringing through the Palace of Westminster.

He was on the back-foot, but Cameron took his time landing the killer blow that could have finished the PM for the day.

Then Simpson was called by Michael Martin: "Actually Mr Speaker it's quite nice to have a Prime Minister who would save the world when we're faced with an opposition who can barely save face."

It was a pithy comeback that gave Labour MPs something to cheer and even seemed to boost Brown.

The significance of the whole affair was pushed aside when an even more monumental blooper was made by Nick Clegg (Hallam) minutes later.

The Lib Dem leader wanted to tell a story about a constituent, but foolishly started by saying that a single mum had come to see him with a young child.

Given his reputation - he once told a magazine he had slept with around 30 women - it's no wonder the house fell about laughing for a full minute.

The lame-duck Speaker didn't even try and control the rabble - Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) sat opposite ‘Clegg-over’ using his fingers to flash up number 31.