The Myth of MPs' Holidays

There's been lots in the papers today about how MPs "have awarded themselves an extra ten days holiday" next year. Apparently there isn't enough legislation for them to pass. Well, yippedy do! I'd have thought that would have been a relief for most people. Unfortunately, the reason is more to do with the amount of legislation now emanating from Brussels than anything else. However, this also gives our MPs an opportunity. Why not increase the amount of time spent debating the great issues of the day? Parliament is not there just to legislate. We could allocate days of debate to the most popular Early Day Motions, for example, or say that the most popular Number Ten Petition ever month would get a debate. At least that would mean there was some point to them.

But perhaps we can destroy the tabloid myth that MPs get three months holiday. They don't. Most MPs I know - from all parties - take very little holiday. The majority actually work their constituencies when they are not in Parliament. And perhaps they ought to shout about that a little more!

Norfolk Blogger has more HERE.

Alex Deane: Report from the Aussie Election Day 5

CAMPAIGN DAY 5 – 36 TO GO

Labor’s tax plans have been announced. Conventional opinion suggested that it would have to be out before Sunday, when (disagreements about arrangements notwithstanding) the debate between the leaders will take place. The Treasurer has given our response – it’s “me-tooism” – as 91.5% of it is taken from our previously announced plan. Heavy betting on the cartoons in tomorrow’s papers being of two schoolboys, Rudd and Costello, writing away – with Rudd peeking over and copying Costello.

The closing poll figures and a good week in the media have buoyed us. The widespread e-mailing of a particularly unpleasant bit of old footage of Rudd provides a reminder of the need for attention to, um, not eating earwax in public, if such a reminder were needed.

Ethan Eilon, the Executive Director of the College Republicans in the USA, has been with us today and will be with us for the next few weeks. We are very aware that people throughout the Anglosphere are watching this election – not only because of an interest in Australia’s future, but also for a sense of the direction of Conservatism.

What is the Point of the Greens?

Jeremy Paxman wonders what the point is of the LibDems. I would ask the same question of the Green Party nowadays. All three parties have largely adopted much of their agenda. The Greens are no more a political party than Friends of the Earth. They ought to join forces. This week I interviewed Rupert Read, who writes (like me) a column for the Eastern Daily Press and is leader of the eleven strong Green group on Norwich City Council. We covered a lot of ground but ended up talking about the Green Party itself and in particular the argument which is going on at the moment about whether they should ditch their co-speaker strategy and elect a leader instead. (Interview is HERE).

Most of the sensible people in the Green Party favour the latter strategy as they believe it will get them more coverage and make some political headway. There's no doubt that the Greens have some people at the top of their Party who don't frighten the electoral horses in the way that some of their activists do. I'm thinking about Caroline Lucas, Sian Berry, Darren Johnson etc. Later this year there will be a vote among the Party's 8,000 members. In large part, this will determine whether they deserve to be taken seriously in the future. A 'no' vote will consign them to oblivion as the sensible elements may well walk away and find something more rewarding to do with their lives. As someone said on the New Statesman website...

If the Greens can't trust one of their own to lead without forming a
dictatorship, how can they expect anyone to vote for them?

Quite. I have been remiss in not posting the Top Twenty Green Blogs, so I will put that right now. It was compiled by Jim Jepps, who writes the excellent Daily (Maybe) Blog

1. Alice in blogland
2. Sian Berry
3. Tom Acrewoods
4. Transition culture
5. Derek Wall
6. Jenny Jones
7. Gaian Economics
8. Know your place
9. Peter Tatchell
10. The Ecologist
11. Green Girls Global
12. Earthquake Cove
13. Philobiblon
14. The Void
15. Green Ladywell
16. Barkingside 21
17. Green Jelly Bean
18. Coventry Green Party
19. Conserve England
20. Greenmans Occasional Organ

2014: You Can't Stand As a Conservative!

On Vox Politix last night, UKIP Deputy Leader David Campbell-Bannerman made an astonishing claim. He reckons that, under a little noticed clause in the new EU Constitution Reform Treaty, British political parties will not be able to put up their own candidates at the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections. Instead, they will have to go under their European Group banners. So assuming Tory MEPs are part of a Movement for European Reform group by then, that's what they will have to stand as - not Conservatives. My ghast is well and truly flabbered. David insisted it was true and has promised to send me the evidence. But I'm an impatient kind of guy, so if anyone out there can any shed any light on this I'd be grateful. Is UKIP spreading one of these EU myths that we hear so much about or are they telling it as it is? As Sir John Junor used to say, I think we should be told!

It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)

One of the funniest satires I have seen in ages. And yes folks, it is satire. Just before anyone thinks it's actually serious. OK?

Alex Deane: Report from the Aussie Election Day 4

CAMPAIGN DAY 4 – 37 TO GO

In the run-up to this election, Labor deselected several sitting MPs for this election, replacing them with union activists. I should say that (1) I have no view on the respective merits of various lefties, so I’m not criticising; and (2) I’ve got no problem with parties deciding to get rid of dead wood: longevity of occupation alone is no argument for future selection. However, Labor’s problem is that some of the wood is refusing to stay dead. Gavin O’Connor, sitting ALP member for Corio, was deselected last year in favor of Richard Marles, despite holding the seat with a reasonable margin in 2004. It has been known for a while that he was pretty unhappy about it. There have been rumours about his position for a while, and he has announced today that he will run as an independent. Evening news shows today lead with the story – as a well-schooled pollie, he knows how to turn out a good line, and his thumping attacks on the party that made him and gave him a career were all replayed: “there’s no renewal if they’re all union officials and factional hacks” [the “they” being the candidates the ALP are parachuting into the seats of members they’re axing]; “you can’t betray the community and then represent it”; “you can’t be part of the solution if you’re part of the problem”. A pleasing opportunity to sit back and watch the left bash itself – rare, in these days of the impressive discipline of the Rudd era.

When it’s all said and done though, it’s probably just a sideshow. Whilst under the first past the post system his candidacy would mean that Corio – where the Coalition was 5,000 votes behind at the last election – would be in play in no uncertain terms, given Australia’s preferential voting system, it seems likely that O’Connor’s preferences will flow straight back to his erstwhile ALP colleague Marles – presuming that O’Connor finishes behind him…

The Independent: It Isn't

The Spectator Coffee House blog reveals a disgraceful tale of connivance with the government by The Independent. Here's an extract from Neil O'Brien's story...

With wearying predictability The Independent splashes today on “10 Myths about
the EU Treaty” - and prints a rebuttal of those eurosceptic “myths” on page three. They looked curiously familiar to me. And then I figured out why. The piece is an almost word-for-word reprint of a Foreign Office briefing note – but without any attribution that that is the source. Have a look at this thing, circulated by the FCO which Open Europe obtained a copy of. And then read the Indie piece. They are almost exactly the same. (Rather like the relationship between the “new” treaty and the re rejected constitution, you might say…) When we called for comment on this, the editor was not available for comment.

The Independent is no longer a serious newspaper. It's not even a "Viewspaper". It's a comic. It's become the broadsheet equivalent of the Daily Express, and I can think of nothing more insulting to say about it than that.

Panic at the Ministry of Defence

Remember THIS story yesterday about the Defence Secretary Swiss Tony Des Browne misleading the House of Commons about troops stationed in Kuwait being paid the Operations Allowance? For the uniniated, Des said they did get paid it and Liam Fox said they didn't. Liam Fox was later proved 100 per cent correct.

Well I'm told that the MoD has reached panic stations over this and they don't know how they are going to extricate Dessy from the mire that he has created for himself. They even arranged a meeting with the Treasury who were expected to cough up the extra dosh. I suspect we can all imagine the Treasury's response.

Being forced to apologise to the House once in six months (see HERE) might be considered unfortunate. Having to repeat the experience ought to be terminal.

UPDATE: This just in from the House of Lords debate on Iraq today.

Lord Astor of Hever: ... Two days ago in the other place, my honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary raised concerns that personnel serving in Kuwait on Operation TELIC are not entitled to the operational bonus. The Secretary of State said that this was not true, yet a Written Answer sent last December to the Member for the Forest of Dean stated: “The specified qualifying locations for the operational allowance are the geographical boundaries of Iraq”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/06; col. 933W.] Can the Minister clear up this confusion? Are all personnel serving in Kuwait and the Gulf entitled, like their American counterparts, to the operational bonus? If not, are Her Majesty’s Government looking at ways in which this could be rectified?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I should point out that we have not specified the location of the support troops that we have in the region down to a particular country, so I cannot comment on the location of troops in Kuwait or other places, but I shall certainly be able to look further into the noble Lord’s point on the definition of the operational bonus. I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Muddier and muddier, eh?

Having Your Cake

LibDem Treasury Spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy (age 29 3/4) today showed why she was wise to stay out of the LibDem leadership race. At the end of a press release bemoaning increasing house prices, she said this...
 
"While the Tories and Labour seem intent on fighting over niche issues, such as Inheritance Tax thresholds, there is deafening silence from them on the increasing uncertainty in the wider economy."
 
Niche?!! I don' think a tax which affects 37 per cent of houses can be described as niche. And in any case, wasn't it the very same Julia Goldsworthy who, only a few months ago, was trumpeting LibDem proposals to increase the IHT threshhold to £500,000? I think we should be told.

Ashcroft Goes on the Attack over Candidate Funding

Michael Ashcroft goes on the attack in today's Telegraph, where he mounts a vigorous defence of his role in the Conservative Party target seats campaign and accuses Labour of trying to hamstring Tories who threaten its MPs. Here's an extract...

Two popular misconceptions have arisen about the Tory target seats operation,
the first of which is that I pay for it all myself. I have never made a secret
of the fact that I contribute to the target seats fund, and I am proud to do so,
but I am by no means the only donor – indeed most of the money is given by
others.

The second is that I give money directly to Conservative candidates or constituency associations in target seats. This is also untrue. All contributions, including my own, are given to the party's central fund. Candidates are invited to submit campaign proposals to a committee at Conservative Campaign HQ which I chair in my capacity as the party's deputy chairman with responsibility for field campaigning. The committee – which also includes the party chairman, Caroline Spelman, professional party staff and senior volunteers – assesses each proposal and allocates funds to those we judge most likely to be successful. Candidates who receive funding provide regular updates to the team at CCHQ, which offers advice and expertise and ensures that the party receives the best possible return on its investment.

As well as being in a position to give financial help to the party I support – like Lord
Sainsbury, who has given Labour at least £8.5 million in recent years – I can bring a degree of expertise from my experience in business: raising capital, ensuring the best return, maximising the effectiveness of an organisation.

Read the whole article HERE.

The Tory Totty Night Out

A parliamentary mole has told me of a momentous event. Last night Tory women MPs enjoyed a night out on the tiles. This begs a number of questions...

* Did at any stage Theresa May take off her boots? If not, why not?
* What was Ann Widdecombe's reaction to Nicholas Soames being booked as the stripper?
* What would be the reaction if male MPs held a Men Only night out?!

But more importantly...

* When will we be told the details on Nadine's blog?

Clear Yellow Water in the LibDem Leadership Contest

The news that Steve Webb will not be standing in the LibDem leadership contest is a shame. Not because I want to see a bloodbath, but I think when you have two leading candidates (Huhne and Clegg) who are so similar in many ways, you need a third candidate who will challenge their conventional wisdom. It now seems that won't happen, so the LibDems need to think of how they will challenge the two candidates and the candidates themselves need to think about how they can put some clear yellow water (!) between themselves

Read the Small Print

UPDATE: When I originally posted this I didn't realise Kerron Cross had already done the story. The picture was sent to me from another source within Parliament. Apologies to Kerron, but it was an innocent mistake. Regular readers will know I always provide hattips where I know the source.

You Won't Get Me, I'm Part of the Union

An attack ad from the Australian Election for your delectation.

Their Lordships Are Not Amused

Following on from the Des Browne post below, another example of government carelessness with the truth has winged its way to me. During House of Lords questions last Monday, this exchange took place:

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Government have belatedly reduced the headline rate of corporation tax to 28 per cent, but that is still only around average for the OECD and has done nothing to restore our international tax competitiveness. Do the Government accept that there are sound arguments for the UK moving to lower rates of corporation tax that will lead to increased yields?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised that the noble Baroness does not recognise the significance of the reduction in the rate of corporation tax. It makes the British corporation tax rate one of the lowest in the OECD. Only Germany has as low a rate, at 28 per cent. When the rate was 30 per cent, the Opposition clamoured for a reduction. It has now been reduced to 28 per cent, and I would have expected just a little greater generosity from the other side, although I might have been looking in vain.

Readers will, I have no doubt, appreciate the significance of the Treasury Minister's reply namely that, according to OECD figures, it is a palpable falsehood that "only Germany has as low a rate"; rather, fourteen countries have lower rates. Take this extract from an article in The Business in January.

The Austrians cut corporation tax from 34% to 25% in 2005. A week ago,
corporation tax in Holland was cut to 25.5%. Denmark has reduced its tax rate
from 34% to 28%. In Finland it is now only 26%, compared to 29% in 2004. Between 1999 and 2004, the Portuguese reduced their rate from 37.4% to 27.5%.
Corporation tax is also lower in Greece and Luxembourg than in Britain. Even in
those European countries where corporation tax remains higher than in Britain,
the direction is clearly down. In Belgium company tax has fallen from 40.2% to
34%; the Germans slashed theirs from 52% to 38.9% in 2001 and could introduce
additional reductions next year.Last year, the French cut their own corporation
rate from 41.7% to 34.4%; even more depressingly from Britain’s perspective,
President Chirac has just pledged that France will reduce corporation tax to 20%
in five years with the long-term goal of getting it down to 10%.

The upshot is that there is a strong argument that Lord Davies should make a personal statement, apologising for misleading the House. Their Lordships don't like this sort of thing.


In a similar vein, the Conservative Treasury team in the House of Lords is pressing for a debate on the economy this side of the State Opening. Quite apart from the obvious political motivation, there is a practical aspect to this in that historically the House has tended to forgo the PBR/CSR Statement on the basis that it prefers not to engage in knee-jerk responses but favours a more considered debate once the proposals have been subjected to proper analysis. Over the years this practice has been (more or less) studiously observed with an appropriate debate being offered in Government time within a couple of weeks or so of the actual Statement. Indeed, given the current schedule of business in the House, there is ample room for such a slot. However, Sheila Noakes (the Tory front-bench Treasury spokesman) is finding herself being stonewalled on this by the Government business managers. The conclusion one has to draw (pace the - "bottled" - election that never was) is that the Government are 'frit' about the prospect of having their economic policy exposed to proper scrutiny.

The BBC's Odd Sense of Priorities

The estimable Glen O'Glaza from Sky News tells THIS little tale on the Boulton Blog...

When Chris Huhne launched his Lib Dem leadership bid, our cameraman took the
trouble to count the number of BBC people present. There were TWELVE of them.
Sky and ITN had three each. Nuff said.

Well, not quite enough. Although I do think there are efficiency savings to be made in BBC News & Current Affairs (as, incidentally, do many people I know who work there), I find it incredible that a public service broadcaster, funded by the taxpayer, is making more cuts in news and documentaries than in any other area. Sure, reduce the duplication. No one could possibly disagree with that. But the BBC needs to rediscover what it is for. It is there to provide a public service. Perhaps we, the public, need to help them do that by making clear what we expect of the BBC and what we do not.

EXCLUSIVE: Straw Loses Out in the War of Lordly Procession

There's been a huge - and I mean HUGE - row between the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw and the Lords Speaker Baroness Hayman. In their typical cock-eyed fashion, no one had thought about the Queen's Speech procession when Gordon Bronw made a Member of the House of Commons Lord Chancellor. Jack Straw still wanted to walk backwards in front of the Queen even though he is not in the Lords. This was firmly squashed by Baroness Hayman who rather fancied the role for herself. In the end she won the day, but much blood has been spilt, apparently. Jack Straw was obviously very keen on breeches and suspenders... No change there then.

Des Browne: Knowing Your Own Policy Is Very Much Like Making Love to a Beautiful Woman...

The Defence Secretary is in a bit of trouble this afternoon. Yesterday he either lied to the House of Commons, or he proved that he hadn't got a clue what the policy of his own department is towards British troops stationed in Kuwait. This is a little elongated, but bear with me. It's worth it when you get to the end.

16 October cols 719-720

Dr Liam Fox: I am sure that I do not need to remind either the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Armed Forces that the Kuwait border is only 30 miles from the Basra air base. As a result of that small difference, service members will lose out on hundreds of pounds a month, although their American counterparts receive the same bonus regardless of whether they are in Iraq, Kuwait or Qatar. If the Secretary of State made it clear that those allowances will apply to all those in the region, and not just those in Iraq, that would be a major step forward.
Des Browne: That is a classic example of the sort of thing that I was talking about. Based on absolutely no research, not even the courtesy of asking the MOD whether what he has described is the reality, the hon. Gentleman has asserted his case at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. But it is not true.
Dr. Fox: Good.
Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman says, “Good.” Perhaps he will now explain the basis on which he made the assertion in the first place. Is there a factual basis for it, or did he make it up for
political advantage?
Dr. Fox: I am delighted that those operational bonuses will apply, because those issues
have been raised with us by members of the armed forces so that they can get clarification from the Government. If it is clear that we will get such clarification, I will be delighted—and so will they be.
Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman now says to the House that he was asked to inquire. Why did he choose to inquire by asserting an untruth at the Dispatch Box, rather than asking me or a
Minister?
Dr. Fox: Excuse me, but I thought that the purpose of the House of Commons was for us to be able to question Ministers directly. It is an entirely appropriate place to raise such issues. Now that we have clarification on those, perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify other issues— [Interruption.]

We'll ignore Browne's blatant rudeness and his incomprehension of the role of asking questions of Ministers. Instead, let's look at the evidence to see who's right. In a written answer to Mark Harper on 12 December 2006, the then Defence Minister Derek Twigg said: "The specified qualifying locations for the operational allowance are the geographical boundaries of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans..."

I have made enquiries with the Ministry of Defence and it seems Des Browne's reply has caused a minor storm among civil servants there along the lines of "what the **** did he think he was saying?" They confirm that troops in Kuwait DO NOT qualify for the Operational Allowance, unlike those serving in the US Army.

So I return to the original question. Did Des Browne lie or was he totally unaware of his own policy. I choose to be charitable and believe the latter. But whatever the truth, he should now apologise to both Liam Fox and the House. If memory serves me correctly, it would not be the first time.

LibDems Must Not Copy Cameron

Last night on Vox Politix we (naturally enough) discussed the LibDem leadership. Spectator columnist John Torode made a very telling point. He reckoned that Nick Clegg would be seen as the LibDems' answer to David Cameron. However, Clegg would be wrong to try to enter into some kind of beauty contest with Cameron "as no one does David Cameron better than David Cameron". It may seem an obvious point to make, there is a dilemma here for Nick Clegg. Twenty five per cent of people who voted LibDem in 2005 now intend to vote Tory according to a recent poll. Why? Presumably because they like what David Cameron is offering them. Far be it from me to offer the LibDems advice on how to attract these voters back, but I suspect success does not lie in trying to copy Cameron. It lies in offering a distinctive narrative and a different policy agenda to the two bigger parties. And it is here that Chris Huhne may come to the fore. He is advantaged by the two month timetable. He also has the advantage of having had a dry run in 2005 and can dust off his previous policy platform. It will need to be tarted up and radicalised, but he's way ahead of Clegg in being able to offer a coherant narrative.

My guess is that a third candidate will emerge too. Steve Webb will stand as the Hughes replacement. His second preferences may determine which of the other two win. But the candidate who may set the contest alight is the 29 year old Julia Goldsworthy. It may seem ridiculously sublime to go from a 66 year old to a 29 year old but I gather Ming wants her to stand - not because she will win (she won't) but so she can put a marker down for the future. She'd certainly liven things up.

UPDATE: The Doughty News hour at 8pm this evening will feature an hour long discussion about the LibDem leadership with LibDem MPs Nick Harvey and Paul Rowen and former spin doctor Mark Littlewood. And at 10pm John Hemming MP (who is rumoured to want to stand) will join me on Vox Politix.

Secretaries of the World Unite!

Yesterday there was a meeting between the House of Commons secretaries and researchers and the Administraion Committee which proposed the controversial new rules of giving MP's 'precedence' in lunch queues etc. Here's what my spy told me...

There was just a huge meeting in the Grimond Room with staff and Frank
Doran MP head of the Admin Committee. Feelings were running very high and
you would be surprised at the amount of Tories there – well bred secretaries who
had worked at the House for 20 years or more – they were among the most
vehement. Doran was totally useless and reminded us that this place was
for the MPs at which he received heckles. One asked the ‘honorable
member’ if he was aware of the opprobrium this brought on MPs when their
standing with the public has never been lower. Our reps are now having
meeting with the Admin Committee but there will be no backing
down.