The Depend Upon Promises Party

Peter Robinson's leadership of the DUP has certainly got off to an inauspicious start. The phrase 'no surrender' is one which can never be applied to them again. Robinson cravely surrendered to a Gordon Brown bribe. We don't know what they asked for and we don't know what they got. But it must have been big.

Gordon Brown may be pleased to have won the vote on 42 days, but he couldn't have done it without the DUP. The duplicitous bastards kept reassuring the Conservatives they wouldn't cave in, but they were not to be trusted in the end.

There are many people who will view this result as a weakening of Brown's personal position rather than a strengthening of it. Whether that is true or not, we are about to find out.

UPDATE: Dan Hannan is none too impressed by the way the DUP have sold their votes.
UPDATE: Our Kingdom has an excellent round-up.

PMQs: A Very High Scoring Draw

I think this was one of the best Prime Minister's Questions in recent years. I think both Brown and Cameron were at the top of their game and they debated real, substantive issues. It was certainly Brown's best performance so far, on a day when he needed it to be. I'd give them both 9 out of 10. Clegg again failed to rise to the occasion

I was aghast when Gordon Brown started quoting ConservativeHome's editorial in favour of 42 days this morning, and I suspect Tim and Sam will have gone a little green around the gills too. Cameron was clearly furious, and I have to say I don't blame him. However, it's a free country and if they feel so strongly they have every right to make their views clear, I suppose. It's just a pity it had to be today.

I'm just about to go and interview Damian Green and Jeremy Browne on College Green about 42 days and PMQs and will post the video later.

Is £42,000 Enough to Buy Off 42 Day Labour Rebels?

It is quite disgusting that if Labour wins the 42 day pre charge detention vote tonight, they will have done it with two financial bribes.

In his latest concession to backbench rebels Gordon Brown has said that anyone released after 28 days would get £3,000 a day compensation. In a Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy spooky coincidence, someone released after 42 days would get £42,000 compo.

We wait to find out what kind of financial inducement is being offered to DUP MPs, but rest assured it will be a high one.

What an utter travesty that human rights which have been protected since the 1215 Magna Carta are worth so little to some of our parliamentarians. Some very brave Labour MPs will defy their party line this evening and vote on the side of freedom. Others will follow their party out of a sense of loyalty rather than because they believe in what they are voting for. Loyalty to party is a fine quality. But loyalty to country is far more important.

To any Labour MP reading this - and I know there are many who will be - let me say this.

Have you heard a single convincing reason for 42 days?

Why is it that every other Western democracy makes do with 14 days or fewer? Is the threat here really three times that in Australia or six times that in the USA?

Neither the Prime Minister, nor the Home Secretary, have been able to answer this question or give any convincing reason for the rise to 42 days beyond banal generalities.

The Police are split dowm the middle on the need, the prosecuting authorities don't want it and the security services are said to be ambivalent. In such circumstances our legislators would be well advised to leave well alone.

UPDATE: Astonishingly, ConservativeHome has declared its support for the government on 42 days. Its readers are none too impressed judging by the comments. It takes something to be more right wing than Simon Heffer, who has a brilliant article critiquing 42 days HERE.

Andy Burnham's 'Bullingdon' Moment

Bearing in mind he oversees licensing, our new "Kulture Minister" would not seem `fit for purpose. The Cambridge Evening News (not online) reports tonight that Andy Burnham - Labour Minister for tackling teenage drinking - has admitted being a member of Fitzwilliam College "Mornie Onion Society", a male only drinking club.

Initiation consisted of downing a yard of ale with an onion floating on top whilst naked or wearing just a towel. The Society's main aim is "dedicated to getting drunk".

Respect. Or totally shocking, depending on your point of view. Might be difficult to hurl the word Bullingdon at David Cameron after this revelation...

PS Anyone got a pic of a naked Mr Burnham? I ask out of professional, rather than personal, interest, you understand. Natch.

UPDATE 8pm: It seems this was in the Times and Mail at the weekend. Guess I ought to change my reading habits and ditch the Cambridge Evening News, eh?

Tory Defector's Inconvenient Truth

When I heard this afternoon of the defection of Cllr Les Byrom to Labour (ostensibly over 42 days) I thought to myself it was a bit odd, seeing as though it has been Tory policy to oppose extending the pre charge detention period for at least four years. So I rang a friend in the North West to ask for some background. All is, as is usual with defections, not quite what it seems.

Cllr Byrom has had a nice little earner as Tory chairman of the Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority (£7,596). Sadly (for him) his term comes to an end next week, and the Tory leader on Sefton Borough Council has decided not to renominate him. He has moved heaven and earth to try to get her to reverse the decision, but she has stuck to her guns. He even tried to enlist the support of Bob Neill and Eric Pickles. Why is he so anxious? Because without that position, he cannot continue as Chairman of the LGA Fire Committee (remuneration £9,996). So by losing these two jobs, Cllr Byrom has lost more than £17,500 in allowances.

When I spoke to Eric on something else half an hour ago his ghast was well and truly flabbered. He said he was astounded at Byrom's defection and what he was saying on the BBC News Channel, especially given the email he and Bob Neill had received from him after Crewe & Nantwich. Eric has given me full permission to quote from the email. Here's what Mr Byrom thought, only two weeks ago...

Great result in Crewe, I picked up the vibes last Friday as Janice and I pounded the streets and council houses, Labour were in for a kicking, but it brings us renewed confidence, the press and establishment are now predicting a Tory Government, there is a buzz about our next administration and we are on the way back.

Also reflects well on the Local Government team and Eric, with good press coverage.

Doesn't sound to me like an unhappy Conservative. He goes on in the email to berate the leader of his council group for her plans not to renominate him to the Fire Authority, which would then place in jeopardy his place on the LGA Fire Committee. He pleads with Bob Neill and Eric Pickles to intervene and save his position. They, however, felt unable to do so as it is entirely down to the local group leader how she allocates jobs like this.

So Les Byrom sees both his sinecures disappearing and decides to defect on the spurious pretence of disagreeing with the Tory leadership on 42 days. How convenient for that to happen a day before the vote.

Perhaps Cllr Byrom could tell the truth and stop pretending it's about 42 days, when it so clearly is not.

PS Thank you to my correspondent who has sent me the above picture of Cllr Byrom. I assume that he will be instantly branded a 'toff' by Labour HQ and ejected from the party immediately.

UPDATE 6pm: Hmmm, Cllr Byrom has certainly built up some enemies over the years judging by the avalanche of emails which I have been sent over the last hour. Excuse me while I filter them...

UPDATE: Having been a candidate for four parliamentary elections and two EU ones, his applications to get on the candidates list after 2005, and again last year, were rejected.

UPDATE: Reaction from the Southport Visitor.

UKIP Demo Outside LibDem HQ

I just emerged into the sunlight from my bunker office in Cowley Street, not far from the House of Commons to find fifty members of UKIP demonstrating outside the LibDem HQ building. "We want a referendum," they chanted. It looked like a day trip out for the Surbiton Bowls club! It did occur to me that it might have been better to do it outside Labour HQ, as they are the ones who have actually denied us a referendum, but I imagine they were pointing out the illogicality of the LibDems' position in the Lords on this issue, where they have taken a rather different stand to the LibDem MPs in the Commons.

The demo might have been better timed too, because from what I can see, the whole of LibDem HQ seems to have decamped to Henley.

Now, if they'd like to stop chanting, we have a magazine to get to the printers today... [wraps cold towel round head for further bout of proof reading and tries to concentrate].

Clegg Loses His PR Chief

David Singleton in PR Week has just broken the news that LibDem Communications Director Johnny Oates is quitting his job after only 15 months in the post. Here's their report...

The Liberal Democrats' comms chief is quitting the party and returning to his previous employer.

Jonny Oates is to return to Bell Pottinger Public Affairs after just 15 months with the Liberal Democrats. He rejoins as director of strategic media relations. News of his move comes six months after Nick Clegg took over as party leader. Since then, the Lib Dems have failed to improve their standing in the polls, dropping to 16 per cent in a recent ComRes survey.

Clegg has also earned the unwanted nickname 'Cleggover' following an interview with GQ magazine in which he admitted to sleeping with 'no more than 30' women. Oates was previously a director at Bell Pottinger, which he joined in 2004.

He left the agency last year to join the Lib Dems as director of policy and communications, overseeing a 14-strong media team and a further 14 policy and research staff.

So, who will now take on one of the most unrewarding jobs in British politics?

Does Trevor Phillips Have a Conflict of Interest?

There's a lot of fuss in the papers about Trevor Phillips being paid to advise Channel 4 on equality issues, while at the same time he is chairman of the body which regulates equality issues. He was on the Today programme this morning defending himself, somewhat unconvincingly. He said that he only worked for the Equality Commission for three days a week and was therefore free to do what he liked the rest of the time. John Humphrys made the point that he ought to do work outside equality-related issues. Either he didn't get the point or choe to ignore it as he repeatedly asked Humphrys is he was saying he should sit on his hands all the time.

The point here is not about there being an actual conflict of interest, it's about there being the appearance of one. Trevor Phillips is being paid by a company he in theory regulates. I actually think that in his case he is able distinguish between the two roles, but to the outside world it is another case of having your cake and eating it. Imagine if it was a politician, rather than a quangocrat...

Where Did It All Go Wrong?

I'm watching Andrew Rawnsley's demolition job on Gordon Brown on Channel 4 +1 at the moment. The programme is titled WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG? Indeed so. I have seen a lot of programmes like this in my time.

I have never seen a documentary which is such an effective obituary of a government.

I have also never seen an obituary written before the corpse has stopped twitching.

I have also never seen a whole host of Cabinet Ministers appearing in a documentary about their own government while it was still in power.

I have also never seen serving Cabinet Ministers openly criticise their own government and their own Prime Minister, seemingly without fear of the consequences.

Astonishing stuff.

I Wouldn't Want to be a Mobile Phone in No 10 Tonight

Tomorrow's Times has a poll from Populus showing the Tories up five points at 45 per cent, Labour down four at 25 and the Libdems up one at 20. Gordon Brown's personal rating is now even lower than IDS's was just before he was knifed.

Jeremy Hunt Has Got a Blog

Jeremy Hunt has just become the first Shadow Cabinet blogger. Read his new blog HERE. His latest post is about what Hamlet could teach Gordon Brown! Hopefully he will be able to teach his colleague Mr Vaizey the joys of blogging regularly! He's been doing better lately though, it has to be said...

English Parliament: The Clarke 'Solution' Is a Sop

I could scarcely believe what I was reading in the Telegraph this morning. James Kirkup has got a leaked copy of Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force report and its proposed solution to the West Lothian Question. According to his article...

Former Tory cabinet minister, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, has argued powerfully that the answer to the imbalance is to effectively create an English parliament at Westminster, an "English Grand Committee" of MPs that would oversee England-only legislation from start to finish.

But Mr Clarke is understood to have rejected such a dramatic move, which would severely limit the work of MPs from Scottish seats. Instead, he is said to have advised allowing all MPs to vote on English legislation at the initial second reading stage of parliamentary scrutiny. But only English MPs would get to vote during the detailed committee stage of the legislative process, where real changes can be effected.

At the third and final reading, all MPs could once again vote, but a new parliamentary undertaking would prevent any party using Scottish votes to block amendments made by English MPs. The report was given final approval by the Shadow Cabinet at a meeting in Kent last week, and is likely to be published on July 1st.

If this is true, it is simply appalling. The phrases 'half baked' and 'dog's breakfast' come to mind. This is not a long term solution to something which even Scottish politicians recognise is a problem and it's not even a half way house. It reeks of a measure designed to placate rather than solve. And as usual with these things it won't even do that.

Those of us - and there a growing number - who believe that England deserves parity in the constitutional settlement will think it decidedly odd (and wrong) that Scottish MPs will retain ANY say in English only legislation. To trumpet the fact that they won't be able to vote on the Committee Stage of a Bill or reverse any amendments on Third Reading is a sop.

UPDATE: James Kirkup thinks I may be "understating the importance of part of the new Tory package: a new parliamentary undertaking that would prevent any party using Scottish votes to block amendments made by English MPs."

Peter Hoskin on the Coffee House also discusses the issue.

Ouch!

From Lord Levy's Q and A on today's Independent...

Q. Are you still in regular touch with Tony Blair?
A. Yes, though much less than before. Call it a lucky guess, but I'm expecting that trend to accelerate in the wake of my book.

Q. Has your opinion of Cherie Blair changed in recent weeks?
A. Not one iota. Read into that what you will!

More Gas Price Rises On the Way

The papers report this morning that the hike in oil prices may result in a 40 per cent rise in gas prices on top of those that have already happened. We don't have gas at home but a friend of mine in Norwich told me that their gas supplier has just told them that their monthly direct debit needs to rise from £38 to £71 to continue to receive the same level of supply. If that kind of rise is being seen all over the country, next winter could be a very bleak one indeed for some people.

Sunday Open Thread

I'm off to Wiltshire in a minute so will be out of commission for most of the day. So please treat this as an open thread and I will try to approve comments as quickly as possible from my Blackberry.

Feel free to talk about anything. You may wish to speculate on...

* The 42 days vote on Wednesday
* Does sleaze hurt all politicians, not just the party of the politician concerned
* The invisibility of Nick Clegg and the LibDems
* Is two party politics back?
* The latest ICM poll

UPDATE: I completely disagree with his conclusions, but Dizzy has a quite brilliantly written article on the Caroline Spelman case.

Declaring an Interest - Or Not

Jo Revill is the Observer's Whitehall Editor. But in three weeks she starts a new job, as Special Advisor to Health Secretary Alan Johnson. She's well qualified for the post as she spent several years as Health Editor for The Observer. She used to be their environment correspondent too. Indeed, she is an excellent and well respected journalist. However, today she has written three stories for The Observer which should be in the comment pages, rather than news, as they are so blatantly cheerleading for her future employers. Her front page story on Caroline Spelman starts with the lurid words...

David Cameron was fighting to save the Tories' reputation last night...the demise of Spelman would be a major blow to the party's image and its leader.

Not even her worst enemy has suggested she would have to resign. Later on page 8 she does a bit of cheerleading for 42 days concentrating on the fact that the Telegraph's ICM poll says the public support 42 days. Nothing wrong with that, but not a mention of the fact that the very same poll puts Labour on its worst ever poll rating. Strange that. It merely says Labour the trail Conservatives badly in the general popularity ratings. Wouldn't Observer readers actually like to know the figures? 42-26-21. I reckon that's newsworthy, don't you?

There then follows a two page spread headline How Sleaze Came Back to Haunt the Tories. Again, nothing wrong with that, but wouldn't you have thought there might be a mention somewhere in the piece of similar or worse allegations that have been made against politicians from other parties? Clearly not.

If I got a new job, say with the BBC, and then spent the next few weeks writing stories about how terrible ITV was, don't you think people might find that just the teensiest bit odd?

It's called 'declaring an interest'. It clearly must apply to politicians, but why do journalists think it doesn't apply to them?

UPDATE: And as if for good measure, later in the paper there's an article by....cue drum roll ... Alan Johnson!

More Bad Polls News for Gordon Brown

An ICM poll in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph puts Labour on 26%, only 5 points ahead of the LibDems and 16 behind the Conservatives on 42%. It's Labour's worst ever showing in an ICM poll.

Spelman Nanny DID do Constituency Work

This is the full text of a statement released to the Press Association by Tina Haynes, the former nanny to Conservative Party Chairman Caroline Spelman.

During the period of 1997 to 2002 Mrs Caroline Spelman employed me at her home address and during the period of 1997 to 1998, I had two roles, one helping Mrs Spelman with childcare and another providing secretarial help to her as a MP.

My roles and responsibilities were general administration which entailed tasks such as posting of letters, answering phone calls at the home address, faxing or posting documents to Mrs Spelman whilst she was in London, this was performed during the hours that her children were at school. On Fridays any help with directions to constituency events was given.

On the 6th June 2008 I received a phone call from Michael Crick from the BBC stating that he was doing a programme about Mrs Spelman and her family life with her being an MP.

I answered the questions asked of which a few are listed below.

Did I do secretarial work? to which I answered Yes,

Was it political? to which I answered No (my understanding of this was that he was asking was it party political work)

Did I do Nannying / Childcare for her? to which I answered Yes.

For a period of time the constituency phone number was Mrs Spelman's personal home landline number, so any calls made to this number whilst Mrs Spelman was not present was answered by myself, and all messages taken were then passed directly onto Mrs Spelman.

I believe my answers accurately reflect that for one year I had two roles in working for Mrs Spelman."

This statement certainly backs up Caroline Spelman's version of events. It also puts some questionmarks over Michael Cricks "reporting" of the facts on Newsnight last night. Peter Spencer, reporting on the statement just now on Sky, reckons the case against Caroline Spelman has collapsed. More on the BBC HERE.

Caroline Spelman is a Decent & Honest Woman

The baying mob is once again in evidence. Its victim this time is Caroline Spelman. A more unlikely candidate for condemnation is difficult to think of. No one seriously believes Caroline Spelman is - or ever was - on the make.

I remember when Caroline Spelman was first elected. I didn't know her, but I heard quite a lot about her. I remember hearing that her first few months in parliament were an absolute hell for her. I remember she had an Association which was trying to deselect her. I remember various MPs telling me at the time that she was finding it incredibly difficult balancing her family life with her new life as an MP. Her statement today explains that because her predecessor died six weeks before the 1997 election there was a huge backlog of mail. There was no constituency office. There was no secretary to deal with it. As a new MP she didn't have an office until a couple of months after the election. So she did the best she could. But she was drowning. That's not to plead sympathy for her, it is a statement of fact. This is what she had to say today...

I thought it might be helpful if I provided a little bit of background to the events when I was first elected MP for Meriden 11 years ago in 1997. My predecessor Ian Mills had suffered an untimely death about six weeks before the general election so there was quite a backlog of correspondence and therefore I accepted the opportunity to have part time administrative secretarial help from Tina Haines because I had advertised my home my consistency office, as there was no other office that Ian Mills had, nor staff in the constituency. Tina would answer the telephone for me and open the post and sort it for me and arrange it into files, and as a working mother that offered a practical solution because she could deal with the secretarial side whilst the children were in school and then after school provided child care for my kids. And to me that seemed a good solution and at the time I thought that was entirely within the rules.

The chief whip then made me aware that such an arrangement could be open to misinterpretation and whilst within the rules such misinterpretation is not helpful, therefore I put a stop to the arrangement. Tina Haines then ceased to work in any secretarial capacity and I engaged another person locally to work for me on the constituency administration.

My prime concern was to make sure my constituency needs were rapidly attended to as a new MP. Now at the time I thought those were still within the rules and that is still my belief but I will refer this series of events to the parliamentary standards commissioner and invite him to examine them and I will seek an early opportunity on Monday to meet with the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for that purpose.

Caroline Spelman had never worked in Parliament before she was elected. She wasn't a career politician who knew the ways of Westminster. It was, of course, up to her to find out what rules she had to follow. The fact that the chief whip had to have a word indicated she had fallen foul of the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules. Remember, this was ten years ago - the Fees Office rules were not as clear and detailed as they are today and were easy to misinterpret. She took the advice of the chief whip and corrected the situation.

There are lessons here for politicians of all parties who find themselves elected to national office. Take every measure you can to make sure you are not overwhelmed by the enormity of what you have taken on. The House of Commons authorities know that a Member of Parliament is going to be elected. It is inexcusable that new MPs have to wait two months for a new office. It happened to Caroline Spelman in 1997. It happened to David Cameron in 2001. It happened to Nick Clegg in 2005. It must not happen to Priti Patel or Helen Grant in 2010. The rules of conduct may now be clearer, but the House of Commons still seems unable to cope with the consequences of the election of more than 100 new MPs. They've got two years to plan it.

I have only ever met or spoken to Caroline Spelman three times. But I know a decent, honest woman when I see one. If she did wrong here - and by referring herself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner she obviously knows she has a case to answer - she will do whatever she has to do to rectify the situation. But let's have less of the baying mob sanctimony which I have read in other places over the last hour. Why? Because imagine other women out there who look at Caroline Spelman and think to themselves: well if they treat a nice woman like her like this, why would I want to go into politics? Those who are effectively calling Caroline Spelman a crook would do well to reflect on the damage they are doing - not just to a decent, likeable and trustworthy politician, but to the political process itself.

PS I'm going to disallow anonymous comments on this thread due to the scandalous comments posted on this subject by anonymous cowards during the course of today.

Book Review: A Question of Honour by Lord Levy

Reading Lord Levy’s book, I felt a slight sense of shame. Having written some fairly terrible things about him on my blog over the last two years, I expected my opinion of him to be confirmed a thousand times over by his memoirs.

Yet I have to admit, I finished the book wondering if I made a terrible error of judgement. Political autobiography is often said to be a work of fiction about oneself, and maybe this book is no different, and yet I felt a certain honesty pouring out of the pages. Have I been hoodwinked or was I wrong? If I have been hoodwinked, then it’s Levy’s ghostwriter, the brilliant Ned Temko, who has pulled off a coup.

Michael Levy is a self made businessman, from a very poor background. An East London boy who made it good. He makes no bones about enjoying the nicer things in life and admits he’s one of the vainest individuals on the planet. And it is this vanity, I suspect, which has got him into so much trouble in the political world. He liked being feted by high profile celebrities and politicians. It may be a weakness, but I can think of worse.

He became the very symbol of a changed Labour Party. He was shameless in exploiting rich donors and clearly got a kick out of it. He is the most successful political fundraiser since Alistair McAlpine in the 1980s for Margaret Thatcher. The Labour Party may feel bitter towards him for many reasons, but they have more reasons to thank him. Boy, how they could do with him now.

Much of the book revolves around Levy’s jewishness. I learnt more about what it’s like being a jew in Britain, and indeed about the Middle East than I have learnt from any other book. And for that reason alone I have no hesitation in recommending it. There, that’s a surprise, isn’t it? Buy it HERE.