Uk politics

Thursday

David Blackburn

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

From our UK edition

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 

From our UK edition

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

From our UK edition

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

From our UK edition

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

From our UK edition

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?

From our UK edition

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 

From our UK edition

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

From our UK edition

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

From our UK edition

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.

David Blackburn

Legg Commission: full Shadow Cabinet details

From our UK edition

The damage to the Shadow Cabinet caused by Sir Thomas Legg has been published. All in all it’s not too bad for the Tories. Ken Clarke tops the list with £4,733 on gardening and cleaning expenses. In terms of comparing figures between the parties, an arresting and emotive issue to the public, the Tories are once again ahead, a point that reinforced by the fact that far from all of Labour's and the Lib Dem's frontliners have declared their exposure. However, there might be problems for the Tories in the future. David Cameron and George Osborne both need to produce more information about their mortgage claims. Overall though, the Shadow Cabinet has escaped embarrassment and the public’s ire. Whether Cameron will convince his backbenchers to follow suit remains to be seen.

David Blackburn

Under these criteria, the legal case against the repayment of expenses is unanswerable

From our UK edition

Sir Thomas Legg’s statement is yet to be published, but I’ve trawled through the internet and made some calls to discover its contents. It is plain that Sir Thomas has imposed rules retrospectively. His remit was to enforce the ‘rules and standards in force at the time’. The Green Book, however badly written, should have been his sole source of reference; instead he cites the ‘fundamental principles of propriety’, defined by him, as criteria for passing judgement. His reason for doing so is obvious: these claims were outrageous. But that is a moral judgement, not a legal argument to enforce repayment. He states that the Commons Fees Office allowed ‘disproportionate claims that must be judged to have been in breach of the rules’.

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s strange position of strength

From our UK edition

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: the email exchanges between Danny Finkelstein and Philip Collins over at Comment Central are one of neatest features in the political blogosphere - always worth a read.  They've got a new one up today, discussing how Brown should go about handling the Legg letters.  Does he force Labour MPs to cough up, and risk drawing their anger?  Or does he fold and allow them to fight Legg, to maintain some degree of their support?

James Forsyth

Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice

From our UK edition

The Guardian is reporting that, “Within the last hour, Trafigura's lawyers Carter-Ruck, abandoned an attempt to prevent the Guardian from reporting proceedings in parliament which revealed its existence.” This is welcome news. It is not hyperbole to say that the injunction threatened British democracy; the people must be able to know what their representatives are doing. It was, to my mind, quite incredible that a newspaper could be prevented from publishing a parliamentary question. One hopes that the injunction will focus attention on whether the right balance is being struck in our libel laws. MPs now have a chance to stand up for the dignity of Parliament which has been so tarnished by the expenses scandal.

Mark Bathgate

Deconstructing David Blanchflower

From our UK edition

What with his new column in the New Statesman and his articles for other outlets, David Blanchflower – a former member of the MPC – really does seem to enjoy laying into the Tories.  Problem is, much of what he says fails to convince – so much so, in fact, that I thought I'd bash out a quick fisk of his Guardian article from last Friday.  Here's the full article with my comments in bold: We are in the midst of the worst recession most people alive have ever experienced, or will probably ever experience. It is already worse than the 1980s and it isn't over yet. The only comparison is to the 1930s (my parents, now in their 80s, can remember how bad it was).

Andrew Lilico

Ongoing deflation

From our UK edition

This morning the inflation figures were released for September.  They show that the economy is in ongoing deflation, as it has been since March 2009, with the annual change in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) standing at -1.4 percent.  At the same time, the policy index used by the Bank of England to determine its interest rate and quantitative easing policies – the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) – saw its annual rate of inflation fall to 1.1 percent from 1.6 percent. Some press commentary suggests that the fall in CPI inflation to 1.1 percent suggests there is now a threat of outright deflation next year.  This is wrong.  The country is already in deflation.  The CPI is not a measure of the cost of living in the UK.

David Blackburn

Widdecombe defies Cameron over the Legg letters

From our UK edition

The Tory leadership’s line on Sir Thomas Legg’s expense repayment demands is clear. Mr Cameron told GMTV: “Repay or you cannot stand as Conservative MP”.   The public’s justified outrage at expenses is such that party leaders must take a stand and discipline MPs, deemed to have transgressed rules or to have exploited the second home allowance. But, as I wrote yesterday, the Legg Commission exceeded its remit, acting as judge rather than auditor. As such, MPs are right to resist Sir Thomas’ demands: Parliament urgently needs reform, but there is a clear problem that reform will be inaugurated by a commission that ignored its terms of reference. This is an unpopular viewpoint, deeply unpopular.

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Brown told to repay £12,415.10 of expenses

From our UK edition

Here's the statement from the office of the PM, courtesy of Sky's Cheryl Smith: Mr Brown received a letter from Sir Thomas Legg this afternoon. Sir Thomas Legg has issued his provisional conclusions to MPs, asking for further information where necessary before concluding in December. Mr Brown has always supported this process and will cooperate fully and make the necessary repayment. Mr Brown's expenses have always been cleared by the House Authorities as entirely consistent with the rules. He has not claimed the maximum level of expenses. The Review says its findings "carry no implication about the conduct or motives of the MPs concerned".

Peter Hoskin

The costs that come before savings

From our UK edition

It's a simple fact of politics that many measures which would save money in the medium-to-long term incur costs in the short term.  Normally, this point is brought up in relation to public service reform - e.g. Gove's Swedish Schools agenda.  But today's FT highlights a similar effect in relation to public sector redundancies. The important fact is that "civil servants aged under 50 can receive up to three years’ pay if made compulsorily redundant, and those who joined before 1987 more than six years’ pay".  This means that there are actually massive upfront cash costs to cutting jobs across the public sector, whatever the potential savings further down the line. To their credit, the government are currently trying to cap these redundancy payments.

James Forsyth

Repairing the broken society

From our UK edition

One line from the Sunday papers is still haunting me today. In the Mail on Sunday, Phillip Blond wrote that, “one million children have alcohol-addicted parents”. Think about that for a minute. What hope can these children have growing up in these kind of households? How can we as a society ensure that these children have a decent chance in life despite such a challenging start? There are no easy answers to these questions. Considering the state’s appalling record with children in care, taking these children away from their parents is not the answer. But then what is? It seems that the only answer is to deal with the problem at source, to ensure that there are fewer alcoholic adults and that people take the responsibility of being a parent more seriously.