Isabel Hardman is assistant editor of The Spectator and author of Why We Get the Wrong Politicians. She also presents Radio 4’s Week in Westminster.
It's difficult to know what astonished people more about Michael Fabricant's sacking: that he has lost his job or that he was still in a role that required some semblance of collective responsibility. Shortly after assuming the role of Vice Chair of the Conservative Party, he called for a pact with Ukip. Some of his tweets have raised eyebrows. He said it was 'about time' that Maria Miller resigned.
After excited rumours flew around the Conservative party that she was finally getting a promotion, Andrea Leadsom has been confirmed as the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury. She was on the Number 10 policy board, but should have risen much sooner - had she not offended George Osborne by suggesting that he should apologise to Ed Balls for these comments to the Spectator about the Libor scandal. Offending the Chancellor is the political equivalent of getting a black spot from a pirate. But now Leadsom has the promotion she deserves, having impressed in a number of roles. She co-founded the Fresh Start Project, which visits European capitals making the case for reform of the EU and feeds back to the Foreign Office.
PMQs was very messy for David Cameron. It was never going to be fun coming after Maria Miller's resignation (although it would have been a lot less fun if Miller hadn't gone). But Cameron made things worse in place by making strange comments that seemed to suggest that he thought Ed Miliband should have called for Miller's head. He said: 'I have to say it is rather extraordinary, the right hon. Gentleman now coming here, having not said she should resign and saying she should have resigned. I think it shows all the signs of someone seeing a political bandwagon and wanting to jump on it! He is jumping on this bandwagon after the whole circus has left town.' listen to ‘PMQs: Cameron and Miliband on Maria Miller’ on Audioboo This sounded strange.
Who are the ministers who could replace Maria Miller? Some of the muttering over the past few days has been about the Prime Minister's desire to keep women in the Cabinet, and Miller herself boasted of being the only mother in the Cabinet. [audioboo url="https://audioboo.fm/boos/2059892-maria-miller-on-her-resignation"]Maria Miller: Resigning is ‘the right thing to do’[/audioboo] There are many mothers, fathers, men and women in the Tory party who have bright careers ahead of them. If the PM feels he needs a woman, he could promote Nicky Morgan, currently shining at the Treasury.
Listen: Fraser Nelson, James Forysth and Isabel Hardman discuss Miller’s resignation listen to ‘Podcast special: Maria Miller resigns’ on Audioboo In the past few minutes, Maria Miller has resigned. The issue wasn't going to go away, thanks in no small part to the way that the Culture Secretary and Number 10 had handled the story. A lack of contrition in the Chamber last Thursday coupled with the Prime Minister's 'warm support' for his minister gave the impression that no-one at the centre of the government saw how this would play with voters. It is significant that those MPs who did break cover and criticise her all focused on the nature and quality of her apology in the Commons, not the detail of her expenses claims per se.
Maria Miller's PPS Mary Macleod seems to have been trying to emulate what Jeremy Hunt's former aide Rob Wilson (now PPS to the Chancellor) did for his boss as Culture Secretary in trying to round up support for the minister. The problem is that while Wilson operated below the radar, with his work only surfacing when he got a bit over-enthusiastic and asked them to tweet nice things about Hunt as Health Secretary when his real troubles were long gone, Macleod was rather less subtle and her text messages soliciting support and alleging a witch hunt ended up on Guido's blog quicker than a 32 second Miller apology. The really silly element in MacLeod's message and her subsequent media appearances is that she is accusing the media of a 'witch hunt' over 'Levesen'.
The Commons is in legislative limbo at the moment, waiting for the Queen's Speech, which has just been delayed another day to 4 June. But one thing that could well keep MPs rather well occupied before then is the Immigration Bill, which suffered a defeat in the House of Lords last night - as predicted on Coffee House. The defeat was on Lord Pannick's amendment which proposes setting up a committee of MPs and peers to consider whether plans to render foreign-born terror suspects 'stateless' should go ahead. Peers clearly did think it reasonable, as they backed it 242 votes to 180. The Bill will have its third reading on 6 May, before returning to the Commons for consideration of Lords amendments. This is where it gets fun.
Tory MPs now feel it's acceptable to pile in on the Maria Miller row and offer their views. Mark Field has just told the World at One that her apology to the Commons was regarded as 'unacceptably perfunctory'.
Senior 1922 Committee members are quite surprised by the suggestion that tomorrow's end-of-term meeting with the Prime Minister represents the deadline for the Maria Miller problem to be resolved. But while you won't find a Tory backbencher who thinks the impact on the public of this story is negligible - one tells me that 'whatever happens now, we are losers' - there's an interesting attitude among Miller's own Cabinet colleagues. They had long suspected that she was vulnerable in any forthcoming reshuffle anyway, with one describing her as 'a bit quiet' in meetings and another suspecting that she was 'damaged goods' after Leveson and with the media after her anyway.
As backbenchers apparently gang up on Maria Miller, she's seen Conservative and Lib Dem colleagues trying to defend her - and dampen down Esther McVey's comments - on the airwaves this morning. Boris Johnson told the Today programme that he felt Miller was being hounded (although he didn't give a view on whether she should go): 'I don’t know the facts of the case in great detail, but it seems to me she is being hounded quite a lot and my natural sympathies go out to people in hounded situations – how about that. I feel, there she is, she’s being hounded, I think what you need is [to] sort it out by having a proper independent system of evaluating what is owed and you cannot let the MPs do it themselves. Nemo iudex in causa sua is our motto.
Esther McVey is known as a plain-speaking Tory. That ability to avoid mincing her words might propel her into the Cabinet one day - possibly as a replacement for Maria Miller, the way things are looking. But tonight her plain-speaking nature hasn't been that helpful to her ministerial colleague. McVey has told ITV's The Agenda: 'I can honestly say it wouldn't be how I would have made an apology. But different people have different styles and do things in different ways.' Asked whether Miller should go, McVey said: 'David Cameron has the final say on this. He's standing by her.' On the programme, to be broadcast at 10.35 tonight, the minister did also remind the audience that 'this couldn't happen now' because the expenses system had changed.
Iain Duncan Smith's speech today setting out the moral mission behind his welfare reforms (his series of interventions doing this was previewed in the Spectator at the start of this year) has attracted the usual criticism from Labour for having 'nothing to say about the cost-of-living crisis' and a programme 'in complete disarray'. The opposition has a point about the delivery of the reforms and the detail in some cases - it would be a fib to say Universal Credit has enjoyed a smooth ride, although some of its most nervous critics in government currently seem a little more optimistic - but what Labour does struggle to do is give any sense of a distinctive overall reform programme.
There are always all sorts of bizarre petitions calling on politicians to do this, that and the other. By and large, politicians tend to ignore them. But the petition calling for Maria Miller to pay back £45,000 in expenses claims or resign has managed to garner 70,131 signatures since it was set up on 4 April. Again, politicians could ignore this. It's just a bit more difficult to do so when it was David Cameron himself who said that his chief whip should use a 'smell test' to see whether the expenses claims were justifiable in the court of public opinion, as well as to the letter of the rules. Thus the court of public opinion should carry a bit more weight. As James said earlier, some MPs have been surprised and dismayed by the way this court is currently passing judgement.
The Prime Minister's position on Maria Miller has shifted a little in the past few days - but only on the wider issue of self-regulation. At this afternoon's lobby briefing, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'There are I'm sure a number of ways in which Parliament can consider this, I'm not going to try and pre-empt what they may be but as you've heard the PM himself say in the clip earlier, he is, he's very open to considering changes that Parliament may consider. 'He's very much open to looking at particularly sort of how Parliament may want, what changes Parliament may want to make, how that may happen, I'm not going to try and pre-empt that.' The spokesman said this was a matter for the House of Commons.
Mark Wallace has a fascinating post on ConHome reporting that Andrew Bridgen has written to the Prime Minister withdrawing his letter calling for a leadership contest. Bridgen, if you remember, is the only MP to publicly confirm that he has written a letter to 1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady calling for a contest, and while he was flayed by the whips at the time, his letter stayed firmly in Brady's desk drawer until this week. One letter doesn't make a happy party, of course, but that it is Bridgen who has withdrawn the letter is significant. As I mentioned last week when covering his latest HS2 mischief, this is an MP who knows how to corral colleagues into troublesome rebellions.
The papers are trying to keep the momentum going in the Maria Miller row this morning, with a fresh angle in the Telegraph. Such is the seriousness of an adviser's threat that a valid investigation into a politician's expenses could restrict the freedom of the press, and such was the inflammatory nature of her non-apology apology that the press will be very keen to keep the row going until some sort of conclusion or concession from the Tory leadership. Likewise, David Cameron is sufficiently stubborn on these matters that he will continue waiting until the row dies down. Last night a group called Conservative Grassroots called on Miller to go with immediate effect.
From tonight's Evening Blend - a free round-up and analysis of the day's political events from the Coffee House team. Subscribe here. 'I think that we should leave it there,' said David Cameron when asked by reporters today about Maria Miller. Of course, the press won't leave it there as many suspect that there is something about this that doesn't quite meet the 'smell test' that a leader of a party in opposition once set out. Why has the Prime Minister been quite so warm and supportive towards a minister who failed to co-operate with the investigation into her expenses? Why was she allowed to make such a recalcitrant apology?
The response of both parties to the Maria Miller row has been very strange. Labour has waited until today to make a comment, with Chi Onwurah saying in the last half an hour that David Cameron's 'weakness and double standards on the issue of Maria Miller's expenses are totally unacceptable and completely out of touch'. Labour is warning that 'we must have the very highest standards in public office' and 'there can be no going back to the bad old days of expenses'. But why did it take 24 hours to come up with that response? As for the Prime Minister, why did the man who made political capital out of the expenses scandal in 2009 by responding so forcefully to it give his 'warm' support to Maria Miller this week? Why not insist on contrition in the Commons?
Every politician who engages in major reform ends up with scars on their back. Tony Blair famously complained about those scars from grappling with the public sector, while Michael Gove mostly relishes his tussles with the education establishment that he likes to call the 'Blob'. But the education world isn't the only one with a big, scary blob wibbling about with rage whenever a minister embarks on reform. In my Telegraph column today I look at the justice 'Blob', which has scored a pretty impressive scar on Chris Grayling with a campaign about a ban on books for prisoners which isn't quite as it seems. Books are a useful weapon for the Blob, but other fights are taking place in the justice world at the moment.
After all the excitement of Nick vs Nigel and the endless mutterings in the Tory party about uprisings following the European elections, you might be forgiven for thinking that the European elections are the only game in town in May. But there are 4,161 local council seats up for election on the same day - and the main parties are quite keen to make big efforts to secure a good result in those polls. The Conservatives have been holding campaign days in London, where many of the seats up for election are located, and making those local council seats a focus for the parliamentary party, which descends on different areas to canvass and deliver leaflets on set days. The whips hold their campaign days on Tuesdays and take a band of MPs along with them.
