Andy burnham

The Legal Aid Bill limps back to the Commons this afternoon, having had a rough ride through the upper chamber where the Lords inflicted 11 defeats on the government. And it looks like its next stint in the lower chamber might not be much smoother. As Paul Waugh reports, a group of MPs have tabled a new amendment to the Bill (actually, an amendment to an amendment tabled by the government on Friday) to continue to provide legal aid advice (but not representation) for reviews and appeals of benefit cases. What’s significant is that the amendment is signed by seven Lib Dem MPs, including party president Tim Farron, and four of Labour’s frontbench Justice spokespeople, including shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan.

Lib Dem Spring conference is turning out as the leadership would have wished. The support of Shirley Williams for the Health Bill seems to have been enough to reassure delegates that they should back the bill in its amended form; they’ve already voted to debate the leadership friendly motion tomorrow morning not the ‘Drop the Bill’ one. In a question and answer session with activists just now, Clegg — to huge applause — urged the party to side with Shirley Williams not Andy Burnham. This appeal to Lib Dem tribalism seems to be winning the day on the health issue. Clegg, as he always does at conference, used the Q&A session to take a lot of shots at Labour.

If you didn't know that it's the Lib Dem spring conference this weekend, then you will after a quick rustle around the political pages. The yellow bird of liberty is splattered everywhere today — and in some instances it's causing trouble for the coalition. Take Exhibit A, Tim Farron's article for the Guardian. Farron is, of course, not one of the most Tory-friendly Lib Dem MPs out there, and neither is he a member of the government — but he's still rarely been quite so provocative as this. ‘We are in power now, sharing government with a party that unashamedly favours their people, the millionaires,’ he writes, ‘It's a serious business, so it's time we focused on our people — the millions who are not millionaires.

The row about which email account special advisers use for which emails is, I suspect, of very little interest to anyone outside SW1. But today’s FT story certainly has set the cat amongst the Whitehall pigeons. At the risk of trying the patience of everyone who doesn’t work within a mile of the Palace of Westminster, I think there is something here worth noting about our political culture. Christopher Cook’s story in the FT this morning is about an email that Dominic Cummings, one of Michael Gove’s special advisers, sent urging various political people not to use his Department of Education email. In this case, the email was perfectly proper. Ministers and special advisers aren’t meant to use official resources for party political activity.

Quite some claim from Ed Balls, writing in the Sunday Mirror today. "Let's be clear what George Osborne's game is," he blusters, "he's trying to pick a fight about pensions, provoke strikes and persuade the public to blame the stalling economy on the unions." And it is a charge that Andy Burnham repeated on Dermot Murnaghan's Sky show earlier. I was on live-tweeting duty, and lost count of how many times the shadow education secretary used phrases such as "provocation," "confrontation," "playing politics," and "back to the 1980s." This, clearly, is an attack that Labour are determined to push as relentlessly as possible. George Osborne is politicking, they are saying, at the nation's expense. It is, at the very least, an intriguing gambit on Labour's part.

Ed Miliband came to PMQs hoping to turn the House into a rape crisis centre for the Justice Secretary. Quoting from Ken Clarke’s tricky Radio Five interview earlier he criticised him for distinguishing between ‘serious’ and ‘other categories’ of rape. Would the PM distance himself from his minister? Cameron claimed not to have heard the interview – conveniently enough – and pointed out that the policy is still at the consultation stage. His priority was to correct a system in which all but 6 per cent of reported rapes result in no conviction at all.

As I wrote on Friday, there is a sense that some on Labour's benches want to soften the party's education policy. It seems that the first subtle shift may have come over the weekend. Total Politics' Amber Elliott reports on a Fabian Society meeting where Andy Burnham apparently dropped his blanket opposition to free schools. Amber writes: 'Speaking at the Fabian Society conference at the weekend, Burnham signalled that he is not against free schools such as the one former-No10-strategist-turned-teacher Peter Hyman is setting up. Labour blogger Anthony Painter tweeted from the conference: "@andyburnhammp supports Peter Hyman's free school as a Labour alternative to the Tory concept. But also says whole system matters #Fabians.

There are intriguing manoeuvres on the education front today. Michael Gove has written a letter to Andy Burnham, calling on his counterpart to guarantee to protect the Academies programme. There’s nothing unusual in this: politicians are always writing pointless letters to each other. But the timing of this one is quite significant, coinciding as it does with former Blair spinner Peter Hyman’s decision to create a free school, with, it is understood, the tacit support of Andrew Adonis. As I’ve written before, Burnham has forsaken his reforming instincts. Convinced that Gove is a weak link, he has not seen the need to leave ‘old Labour’s’ comfort zone on education. Now the mood seems to be turning against him.

Michael Gove has just finished announcing to the Commons his proposed replacement for Educational Maintenance Allowance. The new scheme is more targeted than the old one that went to 45 percent of those who stayed in education post-16. Interestingly, it will be administered by the schools and colleges themselves. Gove’s argument is that it is these institutions that are best equipped to know which student needs how much money to support them staying in education. This drew predictable opposition from the Labour benches which wanted a top down, national scheme. On top of this discretionary fund, every student who is receiving income support will receive £1,200 a year.

It was predictable that Labour would use the outcome of the judicial review last Friday to try and re-heat the Building Schools for the Future row. Andy Burnham was in florid form in the House of Commons on the subject. He demanded that ‘Michael Gove apologise to the communities who suffered from the devastating effects of his disastrous decision making.’ Burnham is now writing to the PM to demand that Gove recuse himself from the judge required review of six BSF projects. In truth, most of Gove’s problems in cancelling BSF projects have been a result of the shambolic and wasteful way in which the programme was run. As Gove himself pointed out, one consultant made a million in one year from the project.

One of the more depressing sights in politics at the moment is how Andy Burnham is leading the Labour party back to its comfort zone on education. Burnham, who The Spectator once named minister to watch, seems to have jettisoned all of his Blairite reforming instincts. He now wants to draw as many dividing lines as possible and side with the vested interests and the status quo at every turn. In last night’s education debate, Barry Sheerman, who chaired the education select committee during the Labour years, pointed out that Gove’s education plans are building on the last government’s incomplete reforms. As Sheerman put it, “I am going to be honest: much of the Bill could have come from the previous Labour Administration.

Andy Burnham crossed a line today in using Sarah Vine, Michael Gove’s wife, to take a pop at the Education Secretary. Burnham, mockingly citing a recent Vine column, argued that the fact that the Goves have a cleaner ‘raises further questions about whether he is living in the same world as the rest of us.’ Now, by this logic I suspect that the majority of his shadow Cabinet colleagues are not living in what Burnham thinks of as 'the same world as the rest of us'. This ungallant attack seems particularly unpleasant when you consider that Sarah Vine came to Frankie Burnham’s defence when she was attacked for the outfit she wore to an unveiling of a statue of the Queen Mother.