Conservative party

There has been an understandable, and justified, outcry about the Law Commission’s proposed changes to secrecy legislation. The current proposals present a serious threat to investigative journalism and whistle blowers. But Theresa May’s Number 10 is very keen to point out that this review was something commissioned not by them, but by David Cameron’s Number 10. ‘This is a consultation by an independent body instigated by the previous Prime Minister’ is how one May aide describes it—which is a clear attempt to distance the current Prime Minister from this whole business. I am told that it is highly unlikely that the proposals will be implemented in their current form.

The government has no majority in the House of Lords and a majority of peers were pro-Remain. But despite this, the Article 50 Bill will get through the Lords I argue in The Sun this morning. Why, because the reason that we still have an unelected chamber in the 21st century is that the House of Lords has a strong self-preservation instinct: it knows its limits. If the Lords were to try and block something that had been backed in a referendum and had passed the Commons with a majority of 372, then it would be endangering its very existence. Indeed, I understand that the Labour front bench have already made clear through the usual channels that they won’t try and block the bill. There will, of course, be attempts to amend it.

The Tory backbencher James Duddridge has formally tabled a motion of no confidence in the Speaker John Bercow. Duddridge’s attempt to remove the Speaker follows Bercow’s outburst against Donald Trump from the chair on Monday, which further called into question his impartiality and his judgement. Duddridge’s motion is unlikely to succeed. The SNP and nearly all Labour MPs will back Bercow while the government has no appetite for getting drawn into this fight. The vote, though, will be an embarrassment to the Speaker. There’ll be a sizeable number of Tories who vote for it, 150 is the number being talked about tonight, and it will show how Bercow has lost the confidence of a section of the House. But Bercow is not the type to be embarrassed into standing down.

The drink will be flowing in the government whips’ office tonight. For the Brexit Bill has passed through the Commons unamended and with an absolutely thumping majority at third reading of 372. This means that a clean bill will go to the House of Lords. This will strengthen the government’s hand there as peers will be more reluctant to make changes to a clean bill and one that has passed the Commons with such a large majority. Despite all the talk of knife-edge votes, the government’s majorities tonight were pretty comfortable—30 or above on all the amendments.

Parliament is the cockpit of the nation, but MPs have been on autopilot rather a lot in the past 40-odd years. Ever since the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, more and more powers have been passed away from Parliament to Brussels and its institutions. Brexit will see these powers come flowing back to Westminster. So it was appropriate that the Supreme Court has decided that Parliament must legislate for the triggering of Article 50, the two-year process by which this country will leave the EU. For MPs to vote against Article 50 would be to vote against the referendum result itself; it says nothing about the terms on which Britain will leave the EU.

‘No negotiation without notification’ has been the EU’s mantra since 24 June last year. Its leaders have been determined that there’ll be no talks before Britain has formally submitted its Article 50 letter, starting the two-year countdown to this country leaving the union. Even now, after Theresa May has set out her Brexit plans with a decent amount of detail, the EU is sticking to this line. Why? Because it wants Britain to be negotiating against the clock. Despite this, there have been informal conversations over the past six months that have helped forge the Brexit strategy that May set out on Tuesday.

Curbs on executive pay, restrictions on foreign takeovers and workers on boards. Not Jeremy Corbyn’s plan for Britain, but ideas raised by Theresa May and put forward for discussion at her cabinet committee on the economy and industrial strategy. Not for 40 years have the Tories had a Prime Minister so firmly on the left of the party. May joined the Tories before Margaret Thatcher became leader and in many ways she represents a bridge back to the pre-Thatcher era. That is why comparisons between Britain’s two female prime ministers don’t reveal much — they come from very different traditions. Since Thatcherism took over the party, many Tories have looked to the United States for intellectual inspiration. But May is more of a continental-style Christian Democrat.

'Populism' is a useless word. By definition, anyone who wins an election is more popular than his or her opponents are. According to this logic, John Major and Barack Obama must have once been 'populists', which does not sound right at all. When we use 'populist' today, we should mean something more than popular. The label covers movements of the nationalist right, which claim to speak on behalf of 'the people' against immigrants, cosmopolitans, and multinational institutions. Their most distinctive feature is their contempt for the checks and balances of complicated democracies. From Law and Justice’s Poland to Trump’s America, they attack judges, journalists, opposition politicians and parties as 'enemies of the people' – a 'people,' of course, only they represent.

While getting the Tory leadership contest out of the way quickly was good for the country following the EU referendum, it did mean that Britain gained a new Prime Minister without much idea of what she believed or wanted to do with her time in office. Theresa May did set out some principles for her government when she stood on the steps of Downing Street on her first day in the job, and in her autumn conference speech, but how she plans to help the ‘just managing’ and how much she really intends to do by way of domestic reform when Brexit is such a big distraction - and potentially a convenient excuse. But as I say in the magazine this week,  the Tory leader is keen that Brexit isn't the only thing by which her premiership is judged.

The Copeland by-election will be a fascinating test of whether Brexit can open up more votes for the Tories in the north – the topic of my Daily Telegraph column today. Labour is slowly abandoning its working class voters, with their unfashionable views on human rights and immigration. This was happening under Ed Miliband, and the forces wresting traditional Labour voters away from the Labour Party were laid out in detail by a strikingly prescient report by the Fabian Society entitled 'Revolt on the Left'. It identified the various groups of voters moving away from Labour: typically the low-waged and less prosperous pensioners. Those in work tended to resent those who were not. They resented Labour for losing control of immigration and the abuse of welfare.

Jamie Reed, the Labour MP for Copeland, has announced he is stepping down from Parliament from the end of January 2017. He is leaving to work at Sellafield, which is in his constituency. Reed is a well known critic of Jeremy Corbyn, and though his resignation letter is warm and polite, it makes frequent and pointed references to the need for a Labour government. It closes with Reed wishing Corbyn well in his endeavours to become the next Labour Prime Minister, something the MP has made pretty clear in previous statements that he thinks is impossible. [caption id="attachment_9717962" align="alignnone" width="702"] Jamie Reed's resignation letter[/caption] So why is he leaving? Reed's constituency is now a marginal seat, with a majority of just 2,564.

It would be extraordinary if a row about a pair of trousers had continued into a second week - if the row were just about a pair of trousers. As I wrote last week (when I thought the fight over Nicky Morgan’s comments about Theresa May owning a pair of £995 leather trousers was starting to fade), it was a curious intervention for a female politician to make about one of her sisters, especially when Morgan is an MP on a salary three times the national average anyway. But what this row is really about, as well as an ill-judged act of personal revenge from Morgan for being dispatched from the Cabinet by May, is about the way Number 10 and the Conservative Party is now being run.