Uk politics

'Tis the season to bash a banker – or it is if you're a Lib Dem, at least. After the stresses of last week, Nick Clegg lets off steam with an aggressive interview in the FT. "They don't operate in a social vacuum," he says of the City's moneymen, before seething that, "it is wholly untenable to have millions of people making sacrifices in their living standards, only to see the banks getting away scot-free." He even suggests that the government should consider a one-off bonus tax, like that introduced by Labour last year.   Will anything come of it? On the evidence so far, probably not. The coalition – from Vince Cable to George Osborne – has certainly not shied away from tough rhetoric on lending and bankers' bonuses.

When you talk to MPs about the new expenses’ regime there are a whole variety of grumbles you’ll hear, many of them reasonable. For example, it does seem silly that all MPs buy their own printer ink cartridges rather than the Commons buying a job lot and using bulk ordering to obtain a discount. But one of the things that really bothers them is that IPSA will publish all the refused expenses’ requests in February. Now, I expect that most of you think this is reasonable. But MPs do have a point that the way IPSA logs these things means that any enquiry about what you are or are not allowed to claim comes across as an attempt to claim.  David Cameron is being pulled two ways on expenses. His MPs wanted the system changed—and fast.

Up, up, up! It was the only way he could go. For the last couple of months Ed Miliband has arrived at PMQs like a hapless fag with his bottom ready-stripped for a ritual flogging from Flashman. Today he made a proper fight of it. This was his best PMQs performance since his debut. He’s been studying the old masters. Long-term followers of PMQs will have recognised William Hague’s favourite battle-plan today. In football it would be called ‘pass-and-go’. You ask a question. Then dismiss the answer as inadequate. Ask a second question. Dismiss the second answer as inadequate. Move to a third question while pointing out, in parenthesis, that your interviewee is making a habit of not giving proper answers.

Political Betting carries this table on the breakdown of the tuition fees vote. English Lib Dems were noticeably more loyal than their Celtic counter-parts (only 16 of 43 voted against the bill), which reflects the left-wing political focus in those regions and perhaps the divide in the Liberal Democrat party itself. But, clearly, the West Lothian question is at issue here. Personally, I’m swayed by the argument that the new fees arrangement will affect applications to Scottish universities and therefore it is the business of Scottish MPs. That higher education was devolved in the first place is another, more interesting debating point. The comments section is yours...

Each time politicians fight regulation, regulation normally wins. So far it seems like this coalition government is no different. John Redwood has been busy tabling parliamentary questions asking each department how many regulations have been introduced, and how many repealed. Rather than “one in, one out” in turns out that two regulations have been introduced for every one revoked. Eric Pickles emerges as the star, having revoked twice as many as he introduced. But the rest? Here’s the league table: I don’t think that the “guilty” ministers have been lax. It’s just that the system is out of control.