I Agree With Roy Hattersley!

I don't recall ever agreeing with Roy Hattersley on anything. Until today. His article in today's Observer on the dangers of a Hung Parliament is a must read for anyone who cares about conviction politics and ethical government. He concludes by saying...

Cynics will say that, whichever party is in power next year, the nation will benefit from it being kept on the short leash of a hung parliament. The cynics will be wrong. Not only are minority administrations prevented from taking the long view that good government requires, but they are also constantly required to compromise their beliefs.

What our democracy needs, above all else, is the politics of conviction.

Hear, hear.

Mandelson: Make Me Foreign Secretary!

The Sunday Times has a delicious story about Peter Mandelson trying to force Gordon Brown into making him Foreign Secretary. The thing with stories like this is that they can never be proved - until they happen. But this one has the ring of truth about it.

What Jonathan Oliver and Isabel Oakeshott don't speculate on is the reaction of David Miliband to such a suggestion. Might it provide him with a third opportunity to prove that he does indeed possess a political backbone?

The Daley (Half) Dozen: Saturday

1. Devil's Kitchen on the Hockey Stick Illusion.
2. Michael Heaver on the changing rules of the BNP game.
3. Archbishop Cranmer pays tribute to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
4. ConHome on why John Maples believes the opening up of the candidates list has been a success.
5. Antony Little, Tory candidate in Norwich South, denies he is about to defect to Labour. :)
6. Paul Waugh on Baroness Ashton's inner Shriti.

The Law That Shames Uganda

I wonder if my readers will find this as shocking as I do. Imagine that a political party introduces a law which says the following...

(1) a person commits the offence of homosexuality if

(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object of sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing . . . homosexuality.
(2) a person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

The second, more serious offence of "aggravated homosexuality" turns on the notion of the "serial offender", defined in the introduction to the law as "a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences." Anyone who is a confirmed gay man or lesbian and already has a sexual history faces the death penalty, alongside homosexual rapists and child abusers.

This is how the law will work: victims are not to be penalised; they are to be assisted, and their identities protected. Judges may order that the offender has to pay them compensation. In addition, "aiding", "abetting" or "promoting" homosexuality becomes illegal. Perhaps, most importantly, failure to inform the authorities, within 24 hours, of suspected homosexuals is criminalised. The people must turn informants - or risk jail. Lovers must choose between "victim" or "offender"; the former protected and paid, the latter imprisoned or killed.

But that's exactly what the government of Uganda has done, as discussed by Sigrid Rausing in this week's New Statesman.

Consensual homosexual acts between adults are still illegal in as many as 70 countries. Most countries have moved to a liberalisation of those unjust and repressive laws. In Uganda, however, the Hon David Bahati has sponsored an anti-homosexuality bill far more draconian than the already existing code. It begins with principles and threats: the value of traditional family values, the threat of homosexual infection. The logic of the bill is this: "This legislation further recognizes the fact that same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic." But only if sexual orientation is voluntary can a person be held accountable for his or her choice. Science has concluded that sexual orientation is a core personality trait, not a choice. You no more choose to be gay or bisexual than you choose to be left-handed or ambidextrous; it's a morally neutral position.

Consensual homosexual acts between adults are still illegal in as many as 70 countries. Most countries have moved to a liberalisation of those unjust and repressive laws. In Uganda, however, the Hon David Bahati has sponsored an anti-homosexuality bill far more draconian than the already existing code. It begins with principles and threats: the value of traditional family values, the threat of homosexual infection. The logic of the bill is this: "This legislation further recognizes the fact that same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic." But only if sexual orientation is voluntary can a person be held accountable for his or her choice. Science has concluded that sexual orientation is a core personality trait, not a choice. You no more choose to be gay or bisexual than you choose to be left-handed or ambidextrous; it's a morally neutral position.

Britain gices £70 million a year to Uganda in development aid. We are the country's fourth largest provider of such funds. Hopefully the British government is making representations to the government of Uganda about this law and will threaten to withdraw aid if the law isn't reversed.

In Conversation With Vince Cable

In this month's interview for Total Politics, I spent an hour with LibDem Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable. You can read the full interview HERE, but here's an extended extract.

When you first got into Parliament, what was your ambition?

Having got in aged 54, I didn't see it primarily in terms of climbing a greasy pole to the top. Like most newly elected MPs with small majorities, my ambition was to get re-elected, so during most of my first term, as well as caring for Olympia, my other preoccupation was doing local things and being a good constituency MP. I wasn't looking at all beyond that. It was only in the second term that I started getting a profile. Charles Kennedy had already appointed me as our trade and industry spokesman. I made a bit of a splash with one or two issues like abolishing the DTI [Department of Trade and Industry]. I got a headline I was rather proud of. It was Richard Littlejohn identifying what he described as the first Liberal Democrat policy he'd ever agreed with [laughs]. But my profi le was overwhelmingly local and it was only in the second term that I started doing more stuff that got national attention. I went into the last election campaign as our Treasury spokesman. I wasn't thinking about ambition in terms of leadership and the rest of it. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I was a) in Parliament, and b) had been re-elected with a big majority and was starting to get national attention for some of my ideas. Although I admit I am an ambitious person, otherwise I wouldn't be where I am, I guess.

Does it frustrate you that, being in a third party, power is fairly elusive?

Why we're here ultimately is not just to have views and make speeches but to actually try to do something. So yes, in that sense, but I'm not thinking of it just as an individual. My ambitions are for the party.

In the event of a hung Parliament, wouldn't going into a coalition with one of the parties be a good thing for the Lib Dems?

Well it might be, and we're not ruling that out. But the point we emphasise is that it's not our call ultimately. If you get a government with a minority then they have a choice. They can run as a minority government, or they can turn to other parties and ask for help. The spirit in which we approach it, and I don't mean this in a pious way, would be to act in the national interest, because we still do have an emergency situation. It's their call, it's not our call.

If the day after the election there was a hung Parliament and you got the call saying: "Vince, the country has more confidence in you than anybody else to sort us out, we want you to be Chancellor of the Exchequer." You'd find that a bit difficult to turn down wouldn't you?

I wouldn't, because I've made it very clear from the outset that I'm not acting as a freelance individual. It would be up to the party leader and our team to decide what they do, and I'm part of that, but I'm not going off on my own. That's very clear.

Do you see the Liberal Democrats as a centreleft party?

No, I don't use that description. I know some of my colleagues have in the past. There are some areas where we are, to use the jargon, centre-left progressive. A redistributive approach to taxation is obviously one of them, but there are other respects in which we are genuinely liberal, which puts us on the other side. Lots of the writing I've done on economics is very much about a liberal approach to economic policy, free-trade and open markets. I don't use that term because, although some of the things we say can be very clearly put in that box, in other respects, we are economically liberal. I think the other thing is, a lot of the things we're about have nothing to do with the traditional left/right spectrum - localism, environmentalism, civil liberties, you can argue these from either a libertarian or a leftist perspective.

I was going to say, you sound like David Cameron there for a second [laughter].

Did I? Hopefully that's a compliment.

What do you make of him? Do you have much to do with him?

Not on a personal level, no. He's very professional, and he's obviously done a lot to decontaminate the Tory brand, and as a political professional, one observes that. I think there are some problems with the position he's got. It isn't entirely clear how deep and sincere all of this is. We've moved a long way from hugging huskies, the environmental stuff has gradually sort of disappeared, and I suspect it isn't all that deep. They've got themselves into this problem recently with these loony European parties, which suggests he does feel he has to give his right-wing red meat. It may indeed be that's what he believes. So, I think they have a bit of an identity problem. He's taken them so far that some of the nasty Tory stuff has been neutralised, but I think there is a genuine issue now about what he really believes, and the way he really wants to take them. I see locally, also, the old nasty Tory stuff, that quite a lot of it's still there at grass-roots level.

Does Nick Clegg have a problem with David Cameron in that he's seen as a 'Cameron-lite'?

Well, he's the same generation but I don't think they have much else in common. I suppose they are both nice-looking, youngish leaders, but politically I don't think there's much in common. This was said of Nick when he fi rst became the leader, but he's trodden a separate path. He's now got a very clear sense of identity. He's come well out of the last year and on a whole series of issues he's carved out a distinctive position - on expenses and the Gurkhas, for example. He's now much more publicly identified than other leaders we've had at the same stage, and the image is a positive one.

Did you regret not standing for leader?

No, I didn't. You probably know the story. It was never actually an option in the circumstances where the issue arose, when Ming Campbell stood down in a hurry. I just got on with the job.

So you don't do what Ming Campbell used to do every morning when he was shaving and think: "God, I wish I'd stood against Charles Kennedy?"

No, absolutely not, I genuinely don't. I quite enjoyed the 'acting leader' period, and did quite well, but I've got a very full role. I have a dual role. One is the economics stuff, which I enjoy and have a competence in, and I wouldn't, frankly, have been able to do it if I'd been the party leader. I wouldn't have been able to write that book which has, I think, been quite influential. I also get round the country for the political stuff. Every weekend I go off to some exotic place. So I get the high level politics and the economics, and without a lot of the stresses that you have in a leadership role.

Do you feel that there's sometimes a danger that you slightly overshadow Nick Clegg in some ways? I wonder whether sometimes he's frustrated by that?

I've never sensed that and it's helpful to the party, and to him, and to me in a way, that we're a team. The Tories are putting themselves forward in a presidential way whereas we're presenting it much more as a team approach and that goes down well. But he's very clearly the leader now. That image has been very clearly marked. He's got some distinctive issues that he's done very well on. People did say that a year ago but I don't think it's an issue now. It's an inevitable consequence of the fact the economy has been at the top of the agenda.

There's five months before the election will be called. What do you think is the overwhelming priority for the Liberal Democrats in those five months?

If it all has to be done in five months then that's difficult. But there is a hinterland of policy and record which is what we're building on, so it isn't starting from scratch. There will be clear dividing lines with the Tories over fairness in taxation. We're very distinct from the Labour government in our approach to radical reform of the banking system and economic institutions, and on their centralisation of power and contempt for local government. We'd certainly argue that we were greener than the other two major parties. But these are things that haven't just come out of nowhere.

Can you imagine going into the next election campaign saying: "We think we should pull out of Afghanistan?"

We have to be very careful about how the whole issue of withdrawal is dealt with, because it's different from Iraq - Iraq was an illegal war. We all supported intervention in Afghanistan. It's quite different in that sense and a lot of British troops have already been sent and died there for this cause. But certainly, we have raised and will continue to raise the basic question of how much longer can you send British troops to die for a cause when there's no strategy at present and where the government we're trying to protect isn't defensible politically. Where that leaves us in six months' time I can't speculate on, but Nick's been very clear.

What was Susan Kramer's response to your mansion tax plan?

She was critical of it.

Because she could lose her seat in Richmond Park?

No, I don't think so. Our position on the mansion tax is that we think it's a good idea that people with large amounts of personal wealth should pay a bit more in order to cut taxes for people at the bottom. We've taken it through our party's federal policy committee that determines policy, so it will be there. But how exactly it applies is something we're working on. Obviously we have to be sensitive to the concerns people have raised.

That sounds a bit like backtracking.

No, I think you'll find it will be in our electoral manifesto.

But you will know from your own constituency, particularly in London, there are lots of houses that have a high value, but the people who live in them are not cash rich.

Yes, there are some in that category.

But how do you differentiate between them and the people who are genuinely rich?

Well that's an issue that arises at the moment in the council tax system, which the Tories bought in. We've expressed unhappiness about it and that affects every single household in London. We're talking about a very minor subset of an existing problem, which is for people who have very large assets but don't have very large incomes. We've suggested that if people have retired, we would roll up the tax payments, which is what councils are already doing if people have very large commitments and residential home fees. There are ways of dealing with it, but we are looking at the details of how you would deal with that genuine, practical problem.

Wasn't that announcement a victim of the fact that you needed a big announcement at conference and you actually made it a bit too quickly? A lot of your colleagues were incandescent with you about it, weren't they?

One or two of them were concerned.

Your local government spokesman [Julia Goldsworthy] didn't even know about it!

It was a national tax policy, but as I said at the time, she should have been told more about it. I actually raised it two years ago at one of our party conferences and got predominantly positive reactions to it, so the concept was already out there and had already been floated.

I was watching the interview you did with Andrew Neil, which you didn't look particularly comfortable in. Did you get the feeling that that was the start of people trying to chip away at the reputation of Vince Cable as an economic guru?

Like everyone else you get some things wrong but I think I've been predominantly right. I don't think that's been in anyway changed. I had two interviews with Andrew Neil, one of which went perfectly well, the other of which there were a couple of areas where he got selective quotes of things I said, but in so far as I recall I had perfectly good answers to. But it's quite right that over a period of years you take a different position on things.

But he pointed out that you've changed your position on quantitative easing.

No, I haven't actually. He got that wrong. I'd probably been a little bit too clever in an article by using irony.

Always dangerous!

It is always dangerous, and I said that potentially large scale printing of money could lead you down a hyperinflationary route and it was said in a kind of semijokey way. But from the very outset I have argued very strongly in support of what the Bank of England was doing, and it clearly is a very necessary part of the monetary response. There was no inconsistency; you'll find a passage in my book which is very supportive of it.

In September 2008, you said the government must not compromise the independence of the Bank of England by telling it to slash interest rates. A month later, you urged the Chancellor to write to the Governor of the Bank demanding a large cut in interest rates.

Yes, that is true and like a lot of other people, I realised in the autumn of 2008 that we were on the verge of a completely catastrophic failure of the system - a once in a lifetime experience. The whole banking system was in danger of going down and this was a system for which the Bank of England had not been prepared. The mandate of the independent Bank of England, which I supported, was not just concerned with those issues, it was concerned with a broadly stable environment. I had supported the independence of the Bank of England and I still do and I think its role will be increasingly important in future years when we get a lot of inflationary pressure. But that moment in September and October when they had to do something dramatic and where their existing mandate was simply about responding to and anticipating inflation rates, this was not actually the primary concern. And I was certainly the first person out of the traps saying that, although it was a departure from the line I had been giving before.

Do you think in retrospect that it might have been better to let one bank go under? Wouldn't that have made the bankers 'get it'?

When the Northern Rock crisis broke, my view was that that probably should have been what happened - the government should have rescued the depositors and let the bank go. That was how I responded to it for precisely the reasons you implied. But once the government had decided to put in taxpayers' money, it seemed inevitable and right that you had to take it over, because you then had the problem of the public taking the risk and the private donors taking the profit. But the moral hazard argument was and is a powerful one. The problem with it in practice is that in the panic environment you had last year, any sense that our government or the American government were just going to back off a major institution would have just fuelled the run. And we all know what happened with Lehman's. The principle of moral hazard is this: if a bank has got itself into trouble through chronic mismanagement then the senior management and directors and shareholders have to take a big hit. And that's the principle. Whether or not the institution is then taken over by the state or run down - there are different techniques of dealing with it.

You can read the whole interview HERE. Next month: John Bercow.

To subscribe to the print edition of Total Politics every month., click HERE.

20 Years of MPTV - Tonight on the Parliament Channel

Tonight at 9pm on the Parliament Channel David Wilby presents a special programme taking a look at how Parliamentary life has changed since letting TV cameras broadcast its daily business.
The autumn of 1989 was the culmination of years of arguments in Parliament; was it a necessary feature of a modern democracy for the public to watch their elected representatives at work? Or would the TV cameras destroy the sanctity of Parliament, with broadcasters manipulating the pictures and mischievous MPs using the cameras for self-publicity?

The programme will have details of a survey for BBC Parliament which reveals that more than three-quarters (77 per cent) of MPs think televising has made Parliament more transparent, while 93 per cent of MPs think that a Parliament closed off to television would now be "unthinkable".

But concerns about the broadcasting of Parliament remain, with 21 per cent of MPs claiming that televising the House of Commons has undermined its dignity.

That may be so, but would anyone seriously argue that the cameras should be withdrawn? Most of us would argue for the idiotic restrictions which prevent certain shots being shown whould be completely lifted.

The Daley Dozen: Friday

1. Mark Pack explains why Conservative candidates are the happiest!
2. PJC Journal on the politician who is unelected, illegitimate and unwanted.
3. TP Party Lines blog on the Top 100 Political Journalists.
4. Letters From a Tory feels sorry for Harriet Harman. Really.
5. John Redwood explains how to cut the deficit.
6. Liberal England explains why Irfan Ahmed has closed down his blog.
7. Quaequam Blog explains why the LibDems "got lucky" over Michael Brown.
8. Matt Atkinson on the old author v publisher battle.
9. Paul Waugh on Brown, Cameron and the unveiling of Lady T's portrait.
10. Michael Heaver says Turkish EU membership is dead in the water.
11. Conservative History Journal publishes a hitherto unplublished interview with the late Professor John Ramsden.
12. Gaby Hinsliff reckons she has too much information.

The Total Politics Top Political Journalists

For the second year running, Total Politics has conducted it's Top 100 Journalists poll, asking its readers, MPs and journalists themselves to vote.

1. (+3) Nick Robinson
2. (-1) Evan Davis
3. (-1) Jeremy Paxman
4. (+9) Adam Boulton
5. (+18) Eddie Mair
6. (+1) Andrew Marr
7. (+22) Jon Snow
8. (+3) Quentin Letts
9. (+22) James Naughtie
10. (-4) Martha Kearney
11. (-1) Peter Riddell
12. (-9) Matthew Parris
13. (+1) Simon Hoggart
14. (-9) John Humphrys
15. (-7) Andrew Rawnsley
16. (+16) Carolyn Quinn
17. (+1) Simon Walters
18. (+36) Edward Stourton
19. (+18) John Pienaar
20. (+7) Ann Treneman

You can see the full list of 100 HERE. In the magazine, we carry separate lists as voted by MPs from different parties. Perhaps the most interesting result was that Tory MPs voted the BBC's Laura Kuennsberg as their number one. The journalists also voted on their own and their results are HERE. There are some quite revelaing variations from the main list.

I also asked my blog readers to vote separately. So here are the Iain Dale's Diary Readers Top 50 Political Journalists...

1. Matthew Parris (The Times)
2. Fraser Nelson (Spectator)/(News of The World)
3. Andrew Neil (BBC)
4. Paul Waugh (Evening Standard)
5. Quentin Letts (Mail)
6. Jeremy Paxman (BBC)
7. Adam Boulton (Sky News)
8. Benedict Brogan (Daily Telegraph)
9. Simon Walters (Daily Mail)
10. Jeff Randall (Daily Telegraph)
11. Boris Johnson (Daily Telegraph)
12. John Humphrys (Radio 4)
13. Eddie Mair (Radio 4)
14. Trevor Kavanagh (The Sun)
15. Daniel Hannan (Daily Telegraph)
16. Nick Robinson (BBC)
17. Daniel Finkelstein (The Times
18. Evan Davis (Radio 4)
19. John Redwood
20. Peter Oborne (Daily Mail)
21. Andrew Gimson (Telegraph)
22. Matthew D'Ancona (Sunday Telegraph)
23. Simon Hoggart (Guardian)
24. Charles Moore (Daily Telegraph)
25. Edward Stourton (Radio 4)
26. John Pienaar (BBC) TV & (FiveLive)
27. Ann Treneman (Times)
28. Jon Snow (Channel 4 News)
29. Gavin Esler (BBC)
30. Tom Bradby (ITV News)
31. Andrew Rawnsley (The Observer)
32. Andrew Pierce (Daily Telegraph)
33. James Landale (BBC)
34. Peter Riddell (The Times)
35. Joe Murphy (Evening Standard)
36. George Pascoe-Watson (The Sun)
37. Christopher Booker (Sunday Telegraph)
38. Peter Allen (FiveLive)
39. Simon Jenkins (Guardian/Sunday Times)
40. Simon Mayo (FiveLive)
41. Rachel Sylvester (The Times)
42. Martha Kearney (Radio 4)
43. Robin Lustig (Radio 4)
44. Michael Crick (BBC)
45. Krishnan Guru-Murthy (Channel 4 News)
46. Jeremy Clarkson (Sunday Times
47. Andrew Marr (BBC)
48. James Naughtie (Radio 4)
49. Jonathan Dimbleby (Radio 4)
50. Laura Kuenssberg (BBC)

LibDems In the Clear Over £2.4 Million Donation

I may be in Tunbridge Wells today but I am sure I can hear the sound of champagne corks popping in Cowley Street, Westminster. The Electoral Commission has just announced that the £2.4 million donation by convicted fraudster Michael Brown's Fifth Avenue Partners was permissible and that no action will be taken against the LibDems. This despite the fact that the company was clearly not trading in any meaningful form when the donation was made.

Am I surprised? Not really. But the Electoral Commission has brought itself into disrepute over this case. When you think thaty UKIP has been forced to pay back £360,000 because a donor was inadvertantly missed off the electoral roll but the LibDems have been spared any punishment at all, it does make you wonder what kind of priorities the Electoral Commission has.

If Fifth Avenue Partners can be considered permissible donors, it brings the whole system of donation regulation into disrepute.

Triumph of the Mediocre

No offence to Baroness Ashton and Mr Rumpy Pumpy, but seriously, is that the best they can do?

And I mean that in a caring way...

Could Harriett Have to Resign?

Let's be clear, Harriet Harman has maintained she is innocent of the charges made against her yesterday by the CPS. She is accused of using a mobile phone while driving and driving without due care and attention.

But let's say she is found guilty. What happens then? Is being convicted of an offence of this nature serious enough to warrant a resignation? I'm trying to think of precedents here, where ministers have been convicted of an offence, but am having difficulty. She may well try to pass it off as a minor transgression, but I wonder if she would get away with it.

What do readers think?

UPDATE: Just seen this tweet from BevaniteEllie

@iaindale no @harrietharman will not resign over a driving incident,she has work 2 do 2 achieve equality in this country.Sorry 2 disappoint

LMAO

Chairman of Standards Committee Forced to Stand Down

When will it end? The Telegraph has the story tonight of Conservative MP David Curry, the new chairman of the Parliamentary Standards Committee (no, really), has been accused of claiming £30,000 of taxpayers' money to pay for a house he hasn't set foot in for four years, after being banned by his ex wife. The Telegraph says...

The Conservative MP is accused of having an affair with a headmistress in his Yorkshire constituency and using a taxpayer-funded cottage to meet his lover.

A Telegraph investigation has learned that four years ago, after discovering the affair, Mr Curry’s French wife Anne demanded that he does not stay at the Yorkshire property as a condition of the couple’s reconciliation.

However, the former Conservative minister has continued claiming thousands of pounds a year for the house – which he could expect to sell for a substantial profit after leaving Parliament.

After the Telegraph approached Mr Curry with the allegations, he announced that he was referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner. He said he would stand down from the Standards committee during the investigation, which is expected to take several months.

The Committee has been criticised recently for taking a sympathetic position towards MPs accused of misconduct. It has been questioned for failing to adequately punish MPs including Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty who were criticised for expense claims running into tens of thousands of pounds.

Mr Curry’s questionable claims followed the temporary break-up of his marriage in 2004. He had been using the Yorkshire cottage as the base for seeing his lover, a local headmistress called Cherry Edwards.

However, the Telegraph has established that following a reconciliation with his wife the following year, Mr Curry was ordered by her to leave the cottage largely unused because of its association with the affair.

Later that year – after moving back into the family home in Essex – he designated the Yorkshire property as his second home to the parliamentary authorities, since when he has claimed a total of £28,078.

Quite astonishing behaviour. It's even more astonishing that Mr Curry took on the role of chairman of the Standards Committee in the first place. Did no alarm bell ring, even at the back of his head?

It is just as well he has already announced he will be standing down from Parliament at the next election. I could say a lot more, but I think I'll leave it there. For the moment.

The Daley Dozen: Thursday

1. Paul Goodman has further evidence that Labour MPs have given up.
2. Luke Akehurst is a tad put out by ranting Bob Piper.
3. Prodicus struggles with Prospect Magazine.
4. David Smith gives you Adam Smith in ten minutes.
5. Working Class Tory fisks a Labour email about their PPB.
6. Cranmer on the virtues of Rumpoy Pumpoy.
7. FT Blog on 10 Things You Never Knew about Baroness Cathy Ashton.
8. Paul Waugh on Oliver Kamm and Nightjack.
9. Guido exposes the loser Labour candidates.
10. LibDem Voice predicts a hung parliament.
11. James Macintyre has (another) bad day...
12. The Blue Blog has details of the community right to buy.

The Truth Behind Labour's DIY PPB

Tory Bear and his friend Emily No Mates rip the p*** out of Labour's PPB, created by a Labour blogger in her bedroom. Good on her, but the only reason Labour showed it was because their finances are so shot to pieces that they will broadcast any old crap as long as it's free.

Tory Bear really is the bastard offspring of Boris and Guido, isn't he?

Have Labour MPs Given Up?

Have Labour MPs given up? I only ask because I have never seen the government benches so empty during a Queen's Speech debate. Normally they are packed to the rafters. Conservative MPs did a head count yesterday and while Gordon Brown was speaking there were only 127 Labour MPs there, with massive gaps appearing on the green leather benches. This has never happened before. It is symptomatic of a parliamentary party that has lost all confidence in its leader and all confidence in its ability to win an election. Many of them probably just couldn't face turning up and performing like nodding dogs. It's not that they were in the building - they weren't. They didn't even bother to turn up for one of the parliamentary set pieces of the year.

They really do appear to have given up.

Government Borrowing Is Way Out of Control

As if we needed a reminder that Treasury forecasts aren't worth the paper they're written on, we learn today that government borrowing is higher last month than it has ever been. In October it reached a massive £11 billion. October is normally a good month for tax receipts, particualrly corporation tax. Borrowing in this financial year is scheduled to be £175 billion. I repeat, in case your gob is too smacked to take that in - £175 billion.

The worrying thing is not just the headline figure of £11 billion - it is the trend. So far this financial year borrowing has amounted to £87 billion. Last year at this point it was £34 billion. Experts are now predicting that if the trend continues, borrowing this financial year could reach £200 billion or more. One financial pundit on 5 Live just now was saying it could reach £220 billion. Truly horrifying.

If the financial markets take fright at these figures, as well they might, the consequences could be truly horrendous. Our triple AAA credit rating will come under further strain, and if that goes, well, we're in unknown territory.

It looks to me as though we will not be heading for a period of massive spending cuts, but also tax rises. Which to a low tax Tory like me are about the bitterest pill to swallow.

UPDATE: LibDem blogger Mark Reckons thinks the Fiscal Responsibility Bill is a Brown built landmine, set to go off as a Tory government prepares for its re-election campaign.

What If There's No Growth, Emily?

Earlier this evening I spent an hour on LBC alongside LibDem MP Susan Kramer and Labour MP Emily Thornberry discussing the Queen's Speech. Never was so much hot air expounded over so little.

Thornberry is an ultra loyalist and I expected her to defend the government's programme, but I was somewhat surprised when she was unable to explain how the government's Fiscal Responsibility Bill will work.

She tried to say that it would all be funded by growth. But what if there isn't any growth, I asked? But there will be, she said. But what if there isn't enough growth, I rejoindered. But there will be, she insisted. But just supposing on the off chance there isn't, I countered. Surely there would have to be public spending cuts. Otherwise the government would be breaking its own law. No, no, it'll be alright, she said. There would be growth. I left it to the listeners to judge what she said.

As Vince Cable has just pointed out on Newsnight, there are no sanctions against the Chancellor or the government if they don't meet the target of halving the deficit. So what exactly is the point of this Bill? It seems to me it is a Bill designed to encourage the Chancellor to do his job. Pathetic.

Footnote: If you close your eyes, and just listen, Emily Thornberry sounds rather like Margaret Thatcher. I kid you not.

The Daley Dozen: Wednesday

1. Mark D'Arcy looks at some historical parallels from the Queen's Speech.
2. Paul Waugh on the real Queen's Speech.
3. Cicero's Songs says Parliament must exert more control over government.
4. Ellee Seymour asks if you want to be Tory candidate in Cambridge.
5. John Redwood on the strangulation of written PQs.
6. PoliticalBetting.com asks who suffers if there is a Green Party surge.
7. SNP Tactical Voting wonders whether blogging has had its day.
8. Duncan's Economic Blog has a fascinating 'what if' there were two elections.
9. Michael Meacher says there was something missing from the Queen's Speech.
10. Luke Akehurst calls Compass a bunch of disloyal c****. Nearly.
11. Danny Finkelstein bemoans Archie Norman's move to ITV.
12. UKIP blogger Michael Heaver wonders if UKIP should stand against Euro-sceptic candidates.

The Next Election Campaign Starts Here

We will hear a lot of political posturing today from both the Government and the opposition parties. Labour politicians will try to present the Queen's Speech as a sign of a government full of vitality and ideas, while opposition politicians will dismiss it as a programme full of electoral bribes and as a an 'election manifesto' Queen's Speech. The whole thing is a ritual and everyone will no doubt play their part.

I would simply say that you cannot govern by aspiration, and that's what this Queen's Speech is trying to do. Very few of the Bills will ever see it to the Statute Book. There are only 70 days left before an election is called and I would be surprised to see more than a couple of these Bills making it into law - and they are likely to be the uncontroversial ones.

Does anyone really believe the Social Care Bill providing free personal care for the elderly has been thought through? Where on earth is the money going to come from? At least the Conservatives have announced how they would fund such a system. Legislating to provide "good education" for every pupil is pie in the sky. It's akin to legislating to abolish child poverty by 2020 - a worthy aspiration but not what legislation either can do or is there to do.

I think the electorate will be asking why there are no measures to tackle political and parliamentary reform - surely something that has been at the top of the political agenda for the last six months. A short bill introducing simple, easy to understand measures, which have cross party support would surely have been a worthwhile thing to propose.

But one thing is for sure. The next election campaign starts here.