Political coverage from Sam Coates on Times Online.
Subscribe to a feed of this blog at:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/rss.xml
It may have been a free vote last night on abortion, but there is no doubt that by the time MPs went through the division lobbies, the issue had become tribal. With David Cameron leading almost the entire shadow cabinet into supporting a reduction to 22 or 20 weeks, "wavering" government ministers were persuaded to hold fire to prevent DC claiming the mantle of "moral leader" if the vote was won.
The notable exception was George Osborne, who voted the other way to Cameron in almost every division, including 'need for a father'. Was this Osborne positioning himself as a social liberal to distinguish himself from DC? No, believe cynical Labour MPs who see it as a deliberate strategy to give them a defence from charges that they had politicised the vote (which - frankly - both sides were clearly guilty of). What was striking about the pro-life arguments however was how disorganised they were. Nadine Dorries, the de facto leader, was argued that the science supported a reduction to 20 weeks - but also then voted for a reduction to 12 weeks. This allowed the opposition to claim she was simply an anti-abortionist (which she denies) and was not interested in science.
I wonder, however, whether the vote could have been won if the pro-life lobby had focused all their efforts on just one target - say 22 weeks - rather than holding multiple votes and juggling sometimes overlapping arguments. Labour MPs certainly fear a more organised attempt next time may be successful.
And there will be a next time.
It's difficult to remember hearing Alan Johnson, the health secretary, sounding so rattled on the radio before in the face of persistent questioning from Evan Davis. The new Today presenter effectively homed in on the problem, however. Today's element of the government fightback - re-examining social care for the elderly - is flagging up a problem (£6 bn funding gap) rather than a solution.
Gordon Brown will today talk about his desire help people to save for old age in a way which "insures them and protects their houses and their inheritance", while Johnson hinted that co-payment may be the answer. We are told this is very important for the Prime Minister.
But it's all very vague and all that's on the table is a six month consultation, leading to a Green Paper next year - the first stage in the legislative process. A solution is clearly a long way off. All very laudible, except the government is trying to use this consultation get good headlines now - to get it out of a short term PR hole. And it's hard to make this sticking plaster fit.
Court 2, 10.30am tomorrow on the Strand sees the next stage of the battle to get details of MPs' expenses released. The High Court is due to hear the House of Common's appeal against a ruling by the Information Tribunal that every receipt for 14 MPs' £23,000 Additional Costs Allowance should be made public. The Speaker is - inevitably - resisting.
The assumption had been that this ruling would create a legal precident and, in time, would apply to all MPs. Not so.
Apparently if they lose, the House of Commons Commission is considering publishing the details for the 14, but fight any FOI requests submitted about other MPs "from scratch". Apparently there is a belief that the legal team representing the Commission made such a hash of it that they could fight the same fight again - and win.
Seems unlikely - how can this not create a precedent. But what is clear is that details of how MPs spend public money on themselves must be protected at whatever cost.
Lembit Opik has been caught out, again.
He was named during a select committee hearing by Luther Pendragon's Mike Grannatt (of Speakergate) as an occasional employee of his lobbying firm (which represents Boeing, the Diocese of London and the Association of Healthcare Industries) as "a freelance presentation trainer, largely to help train younger staff on the skills required, for example, during a pitch".
But PR Week spotted that there was nothing about this in Opik's entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Challenged why there was nothing registered, he told the Western Mail: "I did not consider that the work I did for Luther Pendragon had any bearing on my role as an MP."
But he adds: “On reflection, I have now decided it was appropriate to register the payments, and last week I sent a letter confirming they had been made to me." Just as well, since the rules say that the obligation on MPs to report their outside earnings is "absolute".
We know less than ever after this weekend's political coverage. For those that missed it, here are 20 new and renewed questions to which we don't know the answer. If you have answers, feel free to post 'em... 1. Whether Vince Cable could beat Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson if he stood in the London mayor contest, as suggested on Saturday (nominations have not closed yet).
2. What else Lord Digby Jones has been saying in private meetings with businessmen, apart from "I'm half a bulimic: I eat a lot but I don't throw up."
3. Whether the Government is too weak to push through voting reforms in the Commons. Jack Straw is said to favour the alternative vote system to coincide with the abolition of the House of Lords.
4. ... and ... which "senior Liberal Democrats" say they might be able to accept alternative voting as long as it was presented as a staging post to a bigger reform. Chris Huhne is chairman of Make Votes Count, an organisation briefed on the plans.
5. What will happen to Deborah Mattinson, Mr Brown's long-serving polling adviser, who was reported in the Mail on Sunday to face demotion "after claims that she has failed to get to grips with voters' main concerns".
6. How Gordon Brown and Geoff Hoon will "accommodate" Des Browne, Ruth Kelly and Paul Murphy’s difficulties with the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill?
7. Which colleague of Stephen Carter told the Observer: "He says he sat in on one Cabinet meeting and it was like being French in a roomful of Belgians: he couldn't understand what was being said." And told The Sunday Times: "Carter may have been given a free rein to do what he wants, but we all know that a rein can quickly become a rope. And ropes are what you hang yourself by."
8. Is Stephen Carter still favourite to win the battle for the soul of Downing Street?
9. We still don't know the author of the ditty "At Downing Street upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't Blair. . ."
10. Who will win the London mayoral election and whether Gordon Brown is preparing an emergency plan for stopping a huge parliamentary revolt in the event of a rout on May 1.
11. The identity of the anonymous Labour MP who is reportedly saying that Mr Brown should be asked to retire on 'medical grounds' because of problems with his eyesight.
12. Whether David Cameron's new personal trade union envoy, Richard Balfe, a former Labour MEP, will secure the Tory leader an unprecedented place on the TUC platform?
13. After Hutton and Blears’s remarks of the past fortnight, what is the next stage in the Blairite revival?
14. Who the former minister was that told Treveor Kavanagh that when he was alone with the Prime MInister, Brown demanded: "Why have you always got it in for me?" "But, Gordon," replied the startled MP, "I thought you'd always got it in for me."
15. If a 2010 election, rather than a 2009 one, is now inevitable given the economy and the opinion polls.
16. Whether Lord Levy will damage Gordon Brown if, as expected, he alleges Brown was aware that Labour was funding the 2005 general election campaign with secret loans, something the Prime Minister has always denied.
17. If ministers are briefing that Douglas Alexander and Gordon Brown have "a high level of estrangement between them" (funny phrase, that) and Alexander has been sidelined - then how long will he last?
18. What Jonthan Powell meant when he said: "Actually I think you need a great tension between No 10 and No 11. The Tories were at their most fruitful when there was tension between Thatcher at No 10 and Nigel Lawson at No 11."
19. Did Harriet Harman really tell Gordon Brown nobody understands what he means by his "opportunity" agenda. And did Ed Balls really criticise Brown's judgment in resisting the Police Federation's pay demand?
20. Was Wendy Alexander, the leader of Scottish Labour, right to suggest handing some powers back to Westminster, including contingency planning?
 Chuka Umunna, 29, has been selected to fight the solid Labour seat of Streatham (7,466 majority) after winning the battle to take over from Keith Hill, MP since 1992 and Blair's former PPS, who is standing down at the next election.
Articulate and well-liked, the employment lawyer and online magazine editor is to the left of the leadership (he was a strong Cruddas-supporter and is now a leading anti-Boris campaigner). He is likely to gain a reasonably high profile quite quickly.
Inevtiably (and depressingly), he has already been labelled Britain's answer to Obama. There are similarities: mixed race, lawyer and also lost his father at an early age.
But in an early sign of hubris, he is already talking about the comparison ("Obama's so high profile - it's not that much of a surprise comparisons are made," he told his local paper). Probably unwise.
The Public Administration Committee, without the guiding light of its well-respected chairman Tony Wright, who is absent, did not cover themselves in glory this morning in their session on lobbying.
In their questions to Peter Bingle, from Bell Pottinger, and Mike Grannatt, from Luther Pendragon, several of the left-leaning MPs seemed unable to see through their instinctive hostility to make useful progress.
Paul Flynn, once dubbed the thinking man's Dennis Skinner, read out lists of their clients as if representing large companies were a crime in itself. Gordon Prentice (chairing) dropped in, apropos nothing, that Bell Pottinger had represented McDonalds at the height of the BSE crisis. He also asserted that MPs were involved with lobbying companies (which would be against the rules) but gave no detail.
They also missed the story. Bingle alleged, at one point, that some members involved in the voluntary self-regulation body, the Association of Professional Political Consultants, hid some of their clients by creating separate PR companies that are not covered by its full disclosure code. No one followed this up to ask who.
At one point the committee members started bickering among themselves when Tory Charles Walker upbraided Flynn for criticisng Bell Pottinger for representing BAE Systems. He pointed out that Downing Street "rolled out the red carpet" for the company. At other points, the MPs stared desperately at their green notes trying to work out what to say.
There are plenty of issues for the lobbying inquiry to probe: should lobbyists offer specific payments for meetings with ministers? Should Whitehall award lobbying contracts only to firms that publicly declare all their clients? Should the rules on appointments be tightened? But today's session felt more like a lightweight smear operation from people who had not properly thought about the issue. For one of Parliament's most senior watchdog committees to present themselves in public like that does them little credit.
 In an utterly shameless bid for publicity in a quiet week from another arm of News Corp, Adam Boulton and the Sky team have conducted a poll of the most fanciable MPs for Valentine's Day. They have, ahem, changed their polling methodology from last year from a (rigorous) "consultation process" to "a poll of MPs" - meaning dramatically different results.
At Sky, the press release has been too polite to say who has been dropped. We on Red Box are more fearless. The answer is Caroline Flint (who came 2nd last year), Theresa May, Dawn Butler, Angus Macneil, Nadine Dorries and Ed Vaizey. No doubt the British Polling Council will be called in to verify.
1 (-) Jeremy Hunt, 41 (pictured). Surrey South West, Conservative
2 (1) Julie Kirkbride, 47. Bromsgrove, Conservative
3 (-) Julia Goldsworthy, 29. Falmouth and Cambourne, Lib Dem
4 (-) Jenny Willot, 33. Cardiff Central, Lib Dem
5 (-) Lynne Featherstone, 56. Hornsey and Wood Green, Lib Dem
6 (-) Edward Garnier, 55. Harborough, Conservative
7 (-) Jo Swinson, 28. Dunbartonshire East, Lib Dem
8 (3) Nick Clegg, 40. Sheffield Hallam, Lib Dem
9 (-) Angela E. Smith, 49. Basildon, Labour
10 (5) Shahid Malik, 40. Dewsbury, Labour
Continue reading "Is this Britain's most attractive MP?" »
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Derek Conway's cash'n'bonuses-for-sons affair is that the public has no right to know who MPs employ. This is because in 2006 Michael Martin, the Speaker, employed his extraordinary power to block this information from being released, arguing that "disclosure of the names of MPs’ staff would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs".*
The Liberal Democrats said this morning that they would publish details of all members of staff employed by their MPs, putting pressure on others to follow suit. The Conservatives were less equivocal and said that they were committed to "greater transparency". No word from Labour.
But lawyers are now questioning whether the Speaker's baronial power to block any FOI related to Parliament could be overturned. The details of MPs' staff was being sought by the celebrated FOI campaigner Heather Brooke, who charted her battle here. A partner at the legal firm Field Fisher Waterhouse wrote to her suggesting that the Speaker's decision could be challenged in court. Lets see whether MPs do the sensible thing and put the information in the public domain before it is dragged out of them.
* That the Speaker has such a power is itself astonishing: when it was inserted into the Freedom of Information Bill during its passage through Parliament, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor, commented: “Obviously the draftsmen decided, just in case something escaped and there is one last fish in the sea, let us get it with a grenade; and this is the grenade." Hat tip Heather Brooke.
Conservative Home has posted a well-argued piece about parliamentary "bed blockers" - MPs who hold on to their seats beyond their usefulness. It doesn't name names (understandably - the piece is anonymous) but urges CCHQ to give local associations more power to oust lazy or ineffective MPs. The current parliamentary party has probably 30 members whose time is up. They will never hold office, they are unlikely to chair a select committee and there can only ever be one Speaker, should [he] get the push. You can add the 10-15 who do not fit in and probably should never have been selected in the first place.
In the comments, London Tory says: "I could name you 20 without even blinking" while MHDH adds: "The reason that MPs are less likely to retire is two-fold: (i) there's no longer the high chance of a peerage and (ii) City firms like mine of major plcs no longer see the relevance of MPs, so they're much less likely to land a plum non executive directorship after they retire to boost their (already generous) final salary pension."
Hanging around the Members' lobby last night, in between votes on the railways, MPs had loftier matters on the mind - their pay. Talk was of unfairness, rebellions and pressure being bought to bear on their respective front benches to allow a free vote. They want 2.8 per cent -- but the parsimonious Gordon Brown wants to keep it below the symbolic 2 per cent which he has imposed on the police.
Interesting, then, to compare notes with a BBC colleague who was trying to do a piece on MPs' pay but found it hard to get anyone on camera to talk about the issue.
This has now been brought into sharp focus by the Financial Times, which came across a footnote on MPs' pensions in the public accounts which could undermine backbenchers' demands. This reveals the cost to the taxpayer of MPs’ pensions could be £16.5 million - more than double the £7.8 million official Treasury estimate. Officially the cost to taxpayers is 18.1 per cent of an MP’s salary – one of the world’s most generous pension schemes. But using private sector accounting assumptions rather than the government actuarial estimate, this jumps to 38 per cent.
If what is chillingly described as "more realistic longevity assumptions" are taken into account, the annual cost to taxpayers to be £20.5m - 48 per cent.
|
