Scandal

If two things fuelled the rise of the BNP last year, then they were probably the mainstream parties’ reluctance to talk about immigration and a general disillusionment with Westminster politicians in the wake of the expenses scandal.  There are tentative signs that the parties are getting their act together on the first.  And, now, Nick Griffin  may have undermined his own party when it comes to the second. After coming under fire for not being transparent about expenses since becoming an MEP, Griffin has now published a very loose account of them on his website.  The bottom line is that they add up to over £200,000, but here’s some detail

Whisper it quietly, but there is a sense that the Tory campaign is getting back on track. The Tories have had three good days in a row, have Labour on the back foot over Unite and the polls appear to be moving in their favour. Certainly, Tory morale is better than at any point since the start of the year. One thing raising Tory spirits is Cameron’s own performance. As Iain Martin points out, on Sunday Brown met the voters and was incapable of finding the right tone. Cameron, by contrast, is at his best among ‘real’ people as Monday’s event demonstrated. Another thing bolstering Tory morale is their campaign

I’m aghast. I never imagined that even Griffin and Brons would fall at the first, and eminently negotiable, jump. The Telegraph reports that Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons have given insufficient detail of their expenses, worth nearly £500,000. All other parties provided detailed returns. Griffin stood on an anti-sleaze ticket last June, and successfully exploited the widespread contempt for mainstream politics. Griffin has abused those disenfranchised voters’ trust. For which we should be grateful, but there is a possibility that some will respond by completely disengaging with politics and embracing deeper extremes; mainstream parties must ensure they do not and take the opportunity they have been presented. Griffin cannot save

The four members are before a magistrate, attempting to clear their names. I’m not sure if it’s more preposterous than it is shaming to claim that conventions protecting free speech apply to false accounting. If only Enron’s lawyers had been as ingenious. In addition to Morley et al’s abuse of parliamentary privilege, Alan and Ann Keen have been fined £1,500 today, which, as Paul Waugh notes, is lenient compared to the Parliamentary Privileges and Standards Committee’s damning verdict. Expect to hear more on that decision as public anger over expenses remains unabated. Some time ago, I thought the expenses scandal would only be resolved by the catharsis of a General

Previously, there were rumblings that Lord Paul was considering quitting the Lords to keep his non-dom status. Today, he has confirmed that he will end his non-dom status and remain in the Lords. If you were being cynical, you might think that there’s been a change of heart so that Labour can ramp up their attacks on the Tories over Lord Ashcroft. But surely Brown & Co. would want to keep their focus on the “serious business” of government, wouldn’t they?

Well, the Chancellor’s not for budging. Alistair Darling stands by not “some of” but “all of” his “forces of hell” comments. Martin Bright wrote the politics column in this week’s mag, arguing that opponents are intimidated by the political mobsters surrounding Brown, and who Brown encourages a la Henry II. Martin names Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride as the goons, and Ed Balls is rumoured to be the consigliere.   Peter Watt claimed that Douglas Alexander admitted that most senior Cabinet ministers loathed Brown and his vicarious emotional terrorism, a sense reinforced by Darling’s comments. If that’s the case, why has Brown not been removed? Cowardice is an unpleasant but

‘Any closer and they’ll start kissing,’ said Cameron. The PM and his beloved chancellor were seated side by side at PMQs today, chatting showily throughout. Their rhubarb-rhubarb conversation was intended to quell the rumours of civil war in Downing Street. The ploy misfired. Two men conversing don’t both speak at each other simultaneously. But that scarcely mattered. The session was the rowdiest and least illuminating of the year so far. At times it was noisier than the Pamplona bull-run. Cameron began by trying to elicit answers about the appalling mortality rates at Staffordshire Hospital. Brown adopted his cenotaph grimace and reeled off a list of inquiries, investigations and disciplinary sanctions

The question tonight is: which piece of bad news will make the biggest impact?  The bad news for the Tories, or the bad news for Labour? Let’s take the second one first.  I’m referring, of course, to the first installment in Andrew Rawnsley’s revelations about Gordon Brown.  ConHome have already published some snippets – click here – and they give you plenty of juice for your buck.  Not only are there the expected allegations about Brown hitting his staff (much of which seems to have been covered in the Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago), but Rawsley also reveals that the Cabinet Secretary, Gus O’Donnell, investigated and reprimanded