Uk politics

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

Tax-free troubles

And so it gets even messier. Today's Telegraph reports that HMRC are conducting formal investigations into the tax affairs of 27 MPs. You see, expenses claims are only supposed to be tax-free provided that they're wholly necessary for Parliamentary work. And, as we all know by now, quite a few of our, ahem, honourable members haven't been following that requirement - so they may owe some cash to Her Majesty's tax collectors. It probably won't be enough to fill the black hole in the public finances. But it's a start. They'll be something deliciously perverse about this if any of those MPs investigated are also among those who claimed for tax advice at the taxpayers' expense.

Friday

David Blackburn

Evidence relating to the incarceration of Binyam Mohamed will be published

The High Court has ruled that a summary of US intelligence, relating to Binyam Mohamed’s allegations that he was tortured, will be made public. David Miliband expressed his “deep disappointment” at the ruling and issued the following statement: ‘The Government is deeply disappointed by the judgment handed down today by the High Court which concludes that a summary of US intelligence material should be put into the public domain against their wishes. We will be appealing in the strongest possible terms. The issues at stake are simple, but profound. They go to the heart of the efforts made to defend the security of the citizens of this country.

James Forsyth

Cameron would intensify No. 10’s spin operation

One already hears grumblings from members of the Shadow Cabinet about how much power has been concentrated in Norman Shaw South, the suite of offices where Cameron and Osborne and their teams sit in Parliament. But judging by a report in The Times today the leadership is thinking about centralising power even more when in office. Jill Sherman writes that: 'Cabinet ministers have traditionally had two special advisers with another 25 in Downing Street. But Mr Maude is said to be thinking of giving ministers one each, supplemented by a separate pool of advisers, who would be based at No 10. Only advisers from the central pool would be authorised to speak to the media, “spinning” policy proposals and giving David Cameron control over the message going out to voters.

David Blackburn

The Tories’ Laffer-style radicalism

In contrast to David Brooks’ optimism about Conservative economic policy, is Oliver Marc Harwich, former Chief Economist at Policy Exchange, who described George Osborne’s plans as “timid and unimaginative”. In a speech to the Centre for Independent studies, Dr Harwich remarked: “To be fair to the Tories, at their last party conference in Manchester George Osborne finally spelt out that a future Conservative government will be cutting public spending. But even the £23 billion over the next five years that Osborne announced amounts to little more than a rounding error in Britain’s public finances. Even in the face of the greatest economic crisis that Britain has experienced in decades, Tory policy remains timid and unimaginative.

James Forsyth

The Cameron project is more intellectually interesting than we appreciate

David Brooks is the most influential American newspaper columnist and his column today is a paean of praise for George Osborne. He praises Osborne for offering not just pain but a “different economic vision — different from Labour and different from the Thatcherism that was designed to meet the problems of the 1980s.” He goes on to argue that Cameron and Osborne’s responsibility agenda is something that the Republicans should copy. This isn’t the first time that Brooks, who Tim Montgomerie identified as a guru for Cameron back in 2007, has applauded the Tories.

David Blackburn

Bercow defends the Legg letters

The BBC reports that John Bercow will defend Sir Thomas Legg’s commission in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow. The Speaker makes two points. First, it is vital that the public are satisfied that MPs have “got the message” on expenses. And second he defended Sir Thomas’ retrospective charges on the grounds that there must be “consequences for past claims if they are shown to be wrong or extravagant.” Of course, the Speaker could hardly say anything else, lest he provoke a public march on Westminster, but the difference between the Speaker’s stance and that of Harriet Harman indicates that Bercow will not lie down and allow overbearing government or disgruntled MPs to walk all over him.

David Blackburn

The government’s greatest failing is ignoring advice

On matters of mechanics, I take my mechanic’s advice; there would be little point in paying him if I turned around and thought: ‘Who needs brake pads, what does he know’. The government labours under the misapprehension that it is omniscient: the final extension of ‘nanny knows best’. But 12 years of Labour government has increased the gulf between rich and poor and educational standards have regressed. Advice that suggests an alternative path from that which was pre-ordained is dismissed, as if it were an unwanted cappuccino. Today sees the publication of a report into primary school education.

Thursday

David Blackburn

Speaker Bercow asserts himself

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.

Peter Hoskin

Put up or shut up?

One of the main questions arising out of the Legg controversy is whether MPs should put up or shut up.  Like John Hutton, I tend to think that they should just pay what's asked of them, hope that restores some public faith in the political class, and get on with reforming the expenses system for the future.  But there is room for nuance in all this.  For instance, we shouldn't expect those MPs who are the genuine victims of errors and inconsistencies to automatically take the path of least resistance.  The problem, of course, is working out which ones really are the "genuine" cases. But there's no nuance necessary when it comes to this story highlighted by the Guardian's Deborah Summers.

Peter Hoskin

What can the Tories learn from Boris’s fare dilemma?

Oh dear.  Boris has just had to announce a bunch of inflation-busting fare increases for public transport in London.  From January, the congestion charge will be up by 25 percent, Oyster card fares will have 20p added to them, 7-day bus passes will cost just under £3 more – and so on, and so on.  To be fair, we shouldn't be too surprised at these kinds of hikes.  This is a recession, after all, and City Hall are currently struggling to deal with the black hole in the transport budget left over from the Livingstone days.  Boris himself sets out a persuasive defence of the measures in today's Evening Standard. You wonder what on-looking Cameroons are making of it all.

David Blackburn

The Equalities Commission plays straight into Griffin’s hands

The BBC reports that Nick Griffin is to put an amended constitution before his party that will abolish the ‘White only’ membership clause. This is the result of legal action brought by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, who proved that the clause was at odds with equality law. John Wadham, of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, told the BBC: "We are pleased the party has conceded this case and agreed to all of the Commission requirements. Political parties, like any other organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people." On the face of it, this should be welcome news, but the opposite is true.

David Blackburn

Ironically, Cameron can only deconstruct the state by manipulating central patronage

If it remains a mystery that, 12 years after describing the House of Lords as an “affront to democracy”, Labour have not attempted wholesale reform, then look no further than the fact that Labour is the largest party in the upper chamber. As Ben Brogan notes, this causes Cameron a problem: ‘For the first time, a Conservative leader faces coming to power with an Upper House that will not reflect the outcome of the election. All those People's Peers created by Mr Blair have made Labour the biggest party on the red benches, with 213 to the Tories' 192. Add in 71 Lib Dems, and the unpredictability of 183 crossbenchers, and you see why Mr Cameron must as a matter of urgency redress the balance, or endure seeing his programme stymied by a Labour rearguard action.

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Labour’s future 

Sky’s Jon Craig has the scoop that a rump of Blairite MPs and former ministers have formed a group called Labour Future. Headed by Charles Clarke and featuring Malcolm Wicks, Nick Raynsford, Denis Macshane, Parmjit Dhanda, Hugh Bayley, Meg Munn and crony-in-chief Charlie Falconer, this club's terms of membership are intense anti-Brown sentiment, and I wonder what the Foreign Secretary makes of this daring little coven? Craig’s informant has loftier ambitions: “It’s about setting out our agenda for the future and showing that Labour is not intellectually dead”. The underreported story of the summer was the suppression of Blairite thinking from Labour’s public discourse.

Janice Warman

Hammond emphasises the Tories’ temporary commitment to 50p tax

Sit Philip Hammond in front of our very own Fraser Nelson, and you know that one topic's bound to come up: the Tories' commitment to the 50p tax rate.  And so it was at this morning's DLA Piper and Spectator Business Breakfast Debate at the Merchant Taylors¹ Hall in Threadneedle Street. Fraser chided the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, claiming that this Tory policy would leave the restaurants in Zurich "doing very well," as our entreprenurial class potentially leaves these shores behind.  "If the rich are going to suffer, are they going to stay?" Hammond's response? That he didn't think the tax would make people move abroad, and that the Tories would ensure it's only a temporary measure. So that's that, then.

David Blackburn

500 more troops to Afghanistan

Gordon Brown’s Afghanistan and Pakistan statement was virtually identical to the joint statement he gave with Battlin’ Bob in August. Once again, the government are pinning their hopes on a tactic called “Afghanisation” – by which they mean conducting operations alongside Afghan forces and police, and the steady extension of Kabul’s authority into the localities. I’ve debated this before, but I doubt that an Afghan police force that is drug tested because its officers consume opium prodigiously can be relied upon to even hand out parking tickets; and, more importantly, Nato’s strategy rests on the contestable assumption that ordinary Afghans believe that Afghanistan exists as a political entity and that they want a stake in it.

Lloyd Evans

A sombre scene and a shift in power

Poppy day came early to Westminster today.  Brown began proceedings by reciting the names of the 37 men killed in Afghanistan over the summer. This took two minutes. The house was silent, funereal, almost awe-struck with the solemnity of the occasion. Brown looked like a man deeply moved by personal grief as he worked his slow way through the deadly list. Ann Winterton punctured the mood with the first question, suggesting that once the Lsibon treaty is ratified the government's first duty will be 'to further the objectives of Europe in preference to those of Britain'. Brown denied this again referenced the Afghan conflict in response. When his trun came, Cameron had no choice but to add his sympathies and to engage constructively in the debate about the war budget.

Peter Hoskin

What do the Legg letters mean for the Kelly Review?

As the Legg controversy continues along its unedifying course, I can't help but wonder what it all means for Sir Christopher Kelly's review of the expenses system, due for publication in a few weeks' time.  The plan is that the government will go through its recommendations, adopt any it likes, and then put them to a vote in the Commons.  But will Brown now back away from the more radical proposals, from fear of aggravating the Parliamentary Labour Party even further?  Will MPs now be more tempted to dismiss Kelly's ideas out of hand?  This is, after all, yet another independent review, commissioned by Brown, which will contain suggestions you imagine will be less-then-popular with our political class.

David Blackburn

Only the catharsis of a general election can end the expenses saga 

I've just had a novel and very disturbing experience: I agreed with Harriet Harman. This was no Pauline conversion, but the Leader of the House's suggestion that it is the Commons, not party leaders, that must rescue parliament's reputation and restore public trust is self-evident: only parliament can renew itself.  Of course party leaders have an input and direct the debate, and have much to gain in being seen to expunge the rot. But the disquiet of backbenchers, even virtuous reformers such as Martin Salter, Ann Widdecombe and Norman Baker, illustrates that only MPs can change the rules that govern them: as they will resist what they see as unfair.

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

A goatherd by necessity

In his recent interview with Fraser, David Cameron said that he's keen on bringing in outside talent to the government – the so-called "Goat" strategy, which has been a feature of Brown's premiership.  In her ever-excellent column, Rachel Sylvester makes the point that this may be as much from necessity as by design: "According to Anthony Wells, of UKPollingReport, at least a third of the House of Commons are likely to be novices after the next general election — the highest proportion since 1945. A perceived house of whores, whose members would sell their souls for a bathplug, will soon be replaced by a virgin Parliament, untouched by the John Lewis list. The implications are huge.

Peter Hoskin

The right decision

There's little more to add to Alex's take on the news that Geert Wilders has won his appeal against the Home Office decision to bar him from the UK.  While there's much about the Dutch MP which makes me feel uneasy, preventing him entry to this country always struck me as a needless and potentially inflammatory move.  Now, happily, that wrong has been righted, and there's just one question left: will Jacqui issue yet another apology?* *Ahem, of course she won't.  The Home Office is already saying that it may fight today's ruling.