Peter Hoskin

Back pain, the unions and social-networking

So how do you explain the postal strike when it makes little-to-no business sense whatsoever?  That's the question which Danny Finkelstein sets about tackling in his superb column today.  I won't set out his full answer here - you should read the full article for that - but suffice to say that it involves back pain in East Germany and the latest research into social-networking.  Overall, it makes a very persuasive case, and one which has clear implications for policymakers.  As Danny concludes: "If the Royal Mail dispute were about individual postal workers and their economic interest, it would be easy enough to solve. It could be ended in a conciliatory way with most people better off. Unfortunately things aren’t that simple.

Tracks through the wasteland

Sex, and plenty of it. That’s certainly what Bunny Munro — the titular protagonist of Nick Cave’s second novel — wants. And, in a roundabout way, he gets it. In the very first chapter, he’s cheating on his wife with a prostitute; in the second, it’s a hotel waitress; in the third, he’s given to fantasies about Kylie Minogue; in the fourth … well, you get the picture. Throw in the fact that Bunny is a travelling cosmetics salesman in Brighton, and it starts to sound like one of those dreadful Robin Askwith comedies from the 1970s — you know, Confessions of a Window Cleaner. But The Death of Bunny Munro isn’t actually a mindless, priapic romp. Far from it.

The BNP responds with hate mail

On Thursday night, we will most likely see a restrained performance from Nick Griffin - one which, in itself, gives little clue as to some of the disgraceful tenets of his party.  But, as Sunder Katwala points out over at Next Left, Griffin's official response to the letter released by military figures today leaves no room for doubt.  Here's a passage from it: "Those Tory generals who today attacked the British National Party should remember that at the Nuremberg Trials, the politicians and generals accused of waging illegal aggressive wars were all charged — and hanged — together.

Women only shortlists

Now this is going to stir up some trouble.  Addressing today's Speaker's conference, David Cameron has said that the Tories still don't have enough women candidates, and, as a result, he may impose women-only shortlists on those constituencies which are yet to pick a candidate for the next election.  Putting aside the many persuasive arguments against "positive discrimination", you imagine this will just fuel more questions about the amount of central control that the Tory leader wields.  Cameron & Co. clearly believe that those questions are a price worth paying for the modernisation of their party, but I have my doubts.  I'm sure CoffeeHousers do too, so your thoughts please...

Are we about to see a double-act?

It's Tuesday, so it's time to sift through Rachel Sylvester's column for juicy quotes.  In her latest, she saves the best for last: a Cabinet minister saying that "It’s up to the brotherhood now".  No, not that brotherhood – but the brothers Miliband, Ed and David.  The intimation being that they need to take over from Brown – and sharpish. There's been plenty of speculation about the Milibands recently, so this latest titbit shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.  But, to my mind, it's interesting how this minister packages Ed and David together – as the "brotherhood".  It has generally been assumed that one or the other wouldn't run for the leadership if the other one did.

When will they learn?

Why argue your case when you can smear your opponent's name? According to this morning's Telegraph, that's the approach that a group of MPs are taking over the Sir Thomas Legg letters. The plan they're apparently considering is to use parliamentary questions to find out details such as Legg's pay, his team's expenses and how much they've spent on media advice. One Tory MP tells the paper that there are "legitimate questions" about these things.  Hm. It's not only a pernicious strategy, it's also stupid.  Even if MPs manage to uncover some sort of hypocrisy on Legg's part, do they really think it will divert public anger away from them?  And do they not see that they could end up with egg on their faces if Legg comes out squeaky clean?

Introducing Susan Hill

I'm absolutely delighted to welcome Susan Hill to Spectator.co.uk's pantheon of guest bloggers.  Susan is, of course, a celebrated writer - the author of numerous works of fiction and non-fiction - but many of you will know her as an incisive commenter around these parts, as well as a frequent contributor to the print magazine.  As she herself puts it, her new blog will cover "what people do and talk about, how they think, local politics and local opinions, Westminster and the media as seen from a distance, country life, belief," and, I'm sure, much more besides.  So do head over there, and let's have a rousing welcome for this latest addition to our online family.

Those strange post-conference polls

So what's the deal with the opinion polls we've been seeing in the newspapers recently?  There was some hubbub in Tory circles yesterday over the fact that two weekend polls – YouGov for the Sunday Times and ComRes for the Indy on Sunday – had Labour either gaining ground on the Tories or a maintaining boosted level of support around the 30 percent mark.  What had happened to the 19 percent lead that the Tories enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of their conference?  Had the Labour conference really been more successful than the Tory one, despite all appearances?  I've heard these, and similar questions, doing the rounds over the past couple of days. I rather suspect that there's some volatility involved in all this.

A few honest men

Right, wrong, or somewhere in between?  I imagine that a few people who were fervently behind the Legg letters started having second thoughts when Frank Field announced his opposition to them over weekend.  After all, it's one thing when the usual, venal suspects start whining, but quite another when Field – one of the decent men* of Westminster – starts to murmur.  If you haven't read his blog post on the subject, then I'd suggest you do so here.   And it's also worth reading through Bruce Anderson's related article in the Independent today.

Sheerman on the offensive

Just what was in Barry Sheerman's coffee this morning?  So far today, the schools committee chairman has used a couple of media appearances to a) call Ed Balls a "bully", and b) criticise all three party leaders – including Brown – for their "cowardly party leadership" over the Legg review.  Punchy stuff, which makes you wonder whether he'll be the de facto "Get Gordon Out" candidate for PLP chairman, after all.

Brown the Reformer: er, good luck with that

Brace yourselves. According to the Guardian, Brown is about to sell himself as a Great Reformer: "Brown, the cabinet sources say, decided in the past few weeks to adopt a tougher pro-public sector reform stance, in order that his defence of the state in the face of recent attacks on big government by David Cameron does not become confused with complacency about the current performance of the public sector." Despite the sensibleness of the reform argument, I can't imagine that Brown will make much headway with this. For starters, he has that "Roadblock to Reform" label, and Labour's patchy record on public service reform, hovering over him like the proverbial albatross.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brown’s strange position of strength

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?