Westminster

A muddle and a cock-up. For all the talk of parliament reasserting itself, last night's vote on Syria showed a parliament that voted, twice, to oppose actions it actually supports. David Cameron has been humiliated but this was hardly a banner day for Ed Miliband either. The House of Commons has, for now, cut off its nose to spite its face. Perhaps surgery can repair the damage. Perhaps it can't. Because the longer and more deeply one contemplates yesterday's events the more evident it seems that there were no winners. The government motion was defeated. So was Labour's amendment. Since these motions were, in essence and in most practical respects, identical one wonders what on earth has happened.

I have never quite understood Ed Miliband's appeal. He always reminds me of Cuthbert Cringeworthy from The Bash Street Kids. I find it hard to imagine him becoming Prime Minister. Something just feels wrong about that. I'm not alone in wondering about this. Brian Wilson, the former energy minister, wrote yesterday that Miliband still has a kind of credibility problem. People just don't think he's quite ready for the top job. They may not be able to say exactly why they're unimpressed by Miliband; they just know they are. Not so fast my friend, responds John McTernan today. Ignore all the chattering and blethering about Labour's slide in the polls and focus on the core picture: Miliband is still likely to be leader of the largest party after the next election. Everything is fine.

Mike Hancock last night resigned the Lib Dem whip to fight a court case that includes serious allegations about his conduct. He resigned after a meeting with the chief whip and the party's deputy leader Simon Hughes about the claims, which he strenuously denies. A party spokesman said last night: 'Mike Hancock strenuously denies the allegations made in the civil case and intends to clear his name in court.' But as The Spectator reported, the party has been aware of allegations about Hancock's behaviour for a number of years.

So, just so we're clear about this: people pretending to be lobbyists appear to be able to persuade parliamentarians to do their bidding (for cash, natch) and this therefore justifies introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. You need no diploma in cynicism to perceive that this is aimed at protecting stupid and greedy politicians rather more than it is a serious attempt at "regulating" lobbying or access to politicians. It's a means of helping MPs avoid embarrassment. Now they can check to see if the people paying them are real lobbyists! Result! Which is fine (and the coalition gains bonus Urquhart points for using the measure to stiff the Trades Unions too). But let's not pretend that it's actually about "cleaning up politics".

‘Red Ed’ invited the great and good of the media into his Westminster den for hummus and natter last night. No one knew what they were celebrating. Poor local election results? His rescue of a cyclist? Christmas? Who cares; no hack ever passed up a free drink. Ed glided through the room, flirting with friend and foe in an easy manner that does not translate to television. And, unlike Cameron and Clegg, Ed is not one for an early bed. He stayed right to the bitter end, even after the wine and beer had dried up, just as he did at last year's Spectator summer bash. Incidentally, the Labour leader has a soft spot for The Spectator. There, on his is desk, in pride of place, was our Parliamentarian Award.

And lo, the battle for British Gay Marriage was in fact a rout. True, half the parliamentary Conservative party voted against the measure. True too, this is now being considered further evidence that David Cameron's leadership skills - or, rather, since they are not the same thing - his party management skills are less than they might be. But, for once, I think focusing on Tory divisions misses the rather bigger, simpler story. Nearly half the Conservative parliamentary party endorsed gay marriage in the House of Commons. And they did it on a free vote. That is quite a thing.

The benefits debate in Westminster will rage on long after today’s vote in the Commons. It’s not just a straight row between the government and opposition over who is really on the side of hard working people, nor is it just a debate within the two governing parties. It seems that divisions are now opening in the higher echelons of the Tory machine over just how hard to push the rhetoric. More outspoken MPs — like Dr Sarah Wollaston — have taken to the airwaves to decry the term ‘scroungers’ and ‘skivers’, but most surprisingly even Lynton Crosby, who Labour are desperate to paint as a rather rash and extreme antipodean, is calling for things to be toned down. Or at least that’s what someone told the Fiancial Times.

If you only have time to read one full length newspaper piece today, read this one by George Bridges, the former backroom Tory guru and CPS director. It is a brilliant, scathing meditation on the damage caused by the professionalisation of party politics. And, of course, it is a humble confession. If I had to pick one quotation from it (and there are many possible choices), it would be this one: ‘Opinion research is critical in politics, but only if it is used to tell a politician how to communicate, not what to believe – a point Lynton Crosby, the election guru who will advise the Tories’ 2015 campaign, repeats ad infinitum. It provides a map and a compass, but the leader must set the direction.

Let me salute Nadine Dorries's principled ambition to bring I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here to a wider audience. For too long this edifying documentary series, which sheds light on the concerns of real voters, has been closed to Westminster’s lumpen commentariat; but no more: by inviting Nadine on the show, ITV has signalled its intention to stop treating MPs, lobbyists and political hacks as if they don't exist. We do exist and we'll be following our plucky heroine as she meets the challenges of the rainforest. We'll be voting as well. (Many times, of course: fixing polls is one of our specialities.

Monday morning in dreich late October. What more appropriate moment to ponder the questions of corporation tax and Northern Ireland? The question of whether the Northern Ireland Assembly should control the rate of corporation tax payable in the two-thirds of Ulster for which it is responsible won't go away, you know. Nor, despite the fact that the London press has paid little attention to it, is this some local matter of no importance to the rest of the United Kingdom either. On the contrary, David Cameron's decision on this seemingly-arcane or merely local matter is more important than it seems and, in fact, one of the more significant questions demanding his attention right now.

A big-tent turnout on Saturday evening for the fourtieth birthday of Conor Burns, the Tory MP for Bournemouth West. Burns, fresh from his heroic rebellion against Lords reform, packed the State Rooms of the Palace of Westminster with a big crowd of rising Tory stars and some old stagers including Lord Lamont and Sir Mark Thatcher. Burns is a close friend of Baroness Thatcher; and although the great Lady was unable to join, she did some send some pearls of wisdom in her place. Burns reported that when he had told Lady Thatcher that his friend and speech-giver Thomas Docherty, who has been Burns' voting pair since they both arrived in Westminster in 2010, sat on the opposition benches she replied: ‘Good, it means you can trust him.’ Sound words, as ever.

Last night the BBC aired a brilliant horror-movie (viewable on iPlayer) called ‘Young, Bright and on the Right.’ It followed two young men, one at Oxford the other at Cambridge, trying to make their way in student Conservative party politics. One of the stories – of a young man from a one-parent family in Yorkshire whose father had been in prison – was genuinely interesting. Rather than being happy about himself and his background, he had become someone else. Though he presented this as being essential in order to get on in Conservative party politics, I am not certain he was right. Having never been involved I can’t say for certain, but it does occur to me that William Hague, for instance, never lost his accent.