Parliament

And so the expenses scandal rumbles inevitably on.  If you want the latest on all the dubious claims our, erm, honourable representatives made in 2008-09, then I'd recommend Andrew Sparrow's live blog over at the Guardian - and Guido's got a good round-up here.  But, behind all that, there's a u-turn which is almost as embarrassing for the government as all those dodgy, dodgy receipts. Remember when Gordon Brown neglected to mention MP's expenses, or the Kelly reforms, as part of his legislative agenda in the Queen's Speech?  The decision was immediately launched on by Sir Christopher Kelly himself, and set up some juicy attacks for the Tories.

Does Cameron fluff PMQs on purpose? Some theorists say he lets Brown off the hook in order to keep the weakling in his job. I don’t buy that. A politician’s natural instinct makes him want to win every session, every question. But Brown sometimes sneaks through intact because Dave rarely varies his tactics. He doesn’t prepare ambushes. He never ponders what Brown wants to hear least. Today the Tories had a great opportunity. Brown’s recent flip-flop over the training of TA soldiers for Afghanistan was inspired, in part, by Dave himself, who raised the issue a fortnight ago. But Dave’s tone was wrong. He thought he was the point - not the soldiers.

An intriguing item in today's Telegraph, which suggests Brown is planning to offer MPs a pay-rise to stem backbench anger over both the Legg and Kelly reviews into expenses.  The idea is to boost the standard MP's salary by about £3,000 and pay for it by cutting ministers' salaries – so there'd be no further cost to the taxpayer.  But you imagine even that fact won't rally much public support for this idea. As I've written before, proposals to raise MPs' pay shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  But it's dispiriting that these latest plans are all about saving Brown's hide, and have come about without consulting voters.  It's also indicative of the position our PM finds himself in.

Why argue your case when you can smear your opponent's name? According to this morning's Telegraph, that's the approach that a group of MPs are taking over the Sir Thomas Legg letters. The plan they're apparently considering is to use parliamentary questions to find out details such as Legg's pay, his team's expenses and how much they've spent on media advice. One Tory MP tells the paper that there are "legitimate questions" about these things.  Hm. It's not only a pernicious strategy, it's also stupid.  Even if MPs manage to uncover some sort of hypocrisy on Legg's part, do they really think it will divert public anger away from them?  And do they not see that they could end up with egg on their faces if Legg comes out squeaky clean?

Despite the circumstances of his election, Speaker Bercow is showing scant regard for the party who secured his election. First, he recommended that ministers who sat in the House of Lords, particularly the Lord Most High, should be cross-examined by MPs, and today he gave Battlin’ Bob a severe dressing down in the Commons. The very damning Gray report was debated today, and Ainsworth can hardly have been anticipating this event with generous thoughts and easy gaiety. To avoid total disaster, the cunning Defence Secretary played the ‘George Carmen card’ – that is, release the evidence an hour before the debate so that none of the participants have the time to read it. But this Speaker stands firm against the executive's skullduggery.

It's worth reading Iain Dale’s interview with Ann Widdecombe in the latest issue of Total Politics. Widdecombe is, of course, standing down at the next election, and much of the interview concerns her future plans: she wants to appear on Strictly Come Dancing, for instance, perhaps as the feminine answer to John Sergeant. But, naturally, the outspoken MP makes some forceful points about the current state of British politics. Her conclusion?  That things are so bad she’s had enough. First, she attacks Cameron’s ‘A-list’ candidate selection policy: ‘We have gone for category rather than ability. We're looking for more women.

It's worth following Andrew Sparrow's typically excellent live blog of the Commons culture committee's first public hearing into the recent NotW "phone-hacking" claims.  So far, the biggest revelation has come courtesy of Nick Davies - the Guardian journalist behind the story last week - and it's one which will please the Tories: "Davies says he has the names of 27 journalists from the NoW and four from the Sun who used a private investigator to get information. Some of the requests were legal, like electoral register searches. But many were not. Davies says he does not want to name the names. "I'm a reporter, not a police officer." But there are a number of senior editorial executives on the list. One was Greg Miskiw, the assistant editor, news, at NoW.