Red Box - Times Online's Westminster blog

David Miliband vs David Cameron

Round one took place in April 2005, in a joint interview with Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thompson, when one was the Labour schools minister and the other drawing up the Tory manifesto. And the theme: similarities not differences.

Tony Blair went to Miliband's wedding (at which Alastair Campbell played the bagpipes). Michael Howard and William Hague were both guests at Cameron's marriage. In person, the two Davids are eerily similar. Both are 6ft tall, with dark hair and similar ties. ``That's a smart suit,'' says Cameron, who is the head of policy co-ordination for the Tories. '`Only pounds 158,'' says Miliband, the Cabinet Office minister in charge of the Labour manifesto. ``Mine was pounds 150,'' says Cameron. At 38 and 39, they are a year apart in age. Both have artistic wives -- a painter and a musician -- and small children. Miliband adopted a son four months ago, and Cameron has two children under four, one of whom is severely disabled. Although the Tory MP was at Eton and the Labour politician attended Haverstock comprehensive, both went on to Oxford, taking a first in Politics, Philosophy and Economics in successive years. ``Did you do all three subjects? I couldn't do philosophy,'' says Miliband. ``I hated logic -- I did ethics; a bit of Kant, a bit of Descartes,'' Cameron replies. The two Davids are their parties' eggheads -- thoughtful, decent and moderate. In many ways, they seem closer politically to each other than to the extremists in their own parties.

Labour on London....

Labour say London too close to call. After the close of polls, they are seeing some signs for optimism. We are post close of polls, so there's no point in them saying this unless they mean it at this stage. No sign of a tacit concession at 11.30pm then. But they need something to cling on to. They are repeatedly saying they have done very badly around the country.

Getting hold of the Frank Field amendment

Here is the "Frank Field" rebel amendment, which calls for the scrapping of the 10p rate to be delayed (even though it's already been introduced). The Treasury says this is a wrecking amendment and asks for money that is not there. Undoubtedly support for it is changing hour by hour.

But on a slightly different point, why is it so fiddly to get hold of the text of the amendment and the signatures? I had to pick up this piece of paper from the Frank Field's office, which I've scanned in. After some searching, I later found it was available online, though it is deeply complicated to track down what you want.

Tom Steinberg, of the TheyWorkForYou / My Society websites, is running a commendable campaign to get Parliament to release the text of amendments online in a format which can be easily reproduced by his group of websites and others. This would allow for amendments to be searched by author, and people interested in particular subjects will be informed automatically by e-mail when changes are proposed. This will undoubtedly aid transparency and help demystify Parliament, which everyone has agreed is A Good Thing.

Steinberg estimates it will cost £10,000 for the software to make this happen. Doesn't sound like a lot to me.

I asked someone senior in Parliament what they thought of the proposals. The reply wasn't overly encouraging:

A project is underway which has already significantly improved the parliamentary website. Improving access to information on Bills is an important part of this. The pages on Bills have progressively been enhanced and the changes made have been welcomed by users of the site. Our priorities are guided by tests carried out with users and we are continually reviewing the list of future improvements we can take forward. More improvements to the information on Bills are currently being scoped and planned. The My Society proposal was not one of the ones we decided to pursue when it was sent to us.

So they think they've done enough. Oh dear. On days like today it seems absurd that important information is so hard to obtain.

MPs agree to forgo the wine waiter

Parliament has finally embraced reform. At the last meeting of MPs on the Administration Committee, they raised:

"The assignment of a member of staff as a dedicated wine waiter, which Members felt was a waste of resources"

The Speaker and Parliament's lack of transparency

The issue of the Speaker has become deeply tribal over the past three days, and having received the public support of Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, Michael Martin seems safe for the moment. We still, however, await the outcome of the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who will take a view on what Mary Martin's taxis were actually for. Despite lofty dismissals by Labour MPs, the issue still remains whether being ferried around town on shopping expeditions is an appropriate use of public money.

One issue has been niggling away, however. LIke other journalists, I was aware that Mike Granatt, who resigned at the weekend in a halo of glory, was the senior spokesman to answer questions about Parliament. However I did not give a second thought about his other interests or clients (my failing).

But it was still a surprise to discover in the Mail on Sunday that he is a partner for Luther Pendragon, a major lobbying/pr outfit. They promise on their website "reliable political intelligence", and other clients include the health insurance industry and "Committee on Radioactive Waste Management".

I say surprise, not because there is any suggestion that Granatt or the company have done anything improper or wrong, but because search as I might, nowhere does Parliament seem to declare this interest. In the interests of transparency, it probably should have done. I can't even find a mention of Granatt's role on the Parliament website.

Perhaps this, or even the wider issue of Granatt's involvement with the Speaker, will come up when Luther Pendragon comes before the Public Administration Committee lobbying inquiry on March 6. But will MPs have the bottle to ask?

Parliament - a new approach

A small piece of Parliamentary tradition is about to disappear. Until now, visitors to Parliament have used St Stephen's Entrance - the approach to the Central Lobby of the Palace through St Stephen's Hall from St Stephen's Porch at the southern end of Westminster Hall. In a fortnight's time, everyone but passholders will be banned from entering this way.

According to a e-mail sent to Parliamentary staff and seen by Kerron Cross, the Visitor Reception Building (long awaited and at great extra expense) is finally opening for business. All visitors will now enter Parliament by going down a ramp and through a modern hut, where they will be met by "greeters" and searched. Even those meeting MPs or on other official business will be barred from entering through St Stephen's, although they will enjoy a special "business class" lane. The black huts, currently used to screen visitors, will be removed.

This is, we are told, to introduce a "more welcoming approach".