Book of the Day: Delane's War by Tim Coates

Delane's War is one of the first books published by my new book publishing company, Biteback. It tells the story of how the Times newspaper forced the government of the day to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of a war - sound familiar? But this tale is about the Crimean War. The results of the inquiry led to the downfall of the government. I'll leave the author, Tim Coates to tell you more....

I imagine most writers sit, like I do, at the laptop wondering what comes next- until it comes in a bus load. Delane’s War took a long time to write. It started when I came across some official Government reports about Florence Nightingale which complained, with evidence to support the objections, that she was procuring huge quantities of port wine for the use of her patients in the hospital at Scutari during the Crimean War.They were drunk to avoid the pain of death. Those comments come from a Select Committee report of 1855 which is in five volumes, in the last few paragraphs of which she is named as one of the handful people who had acted, in the view of the Committee members, honourably in the appalling events into which they had been asked to inquire.

I followed the trail back, not just for her but for the other people on that short list, of whom I had never heard. There was the Reverend and Honourable Sidney Godolphin Osborne, who turned out to be the vicar of a tiny parish church in Dorset, but who wrote letters to The Times and frequently had them printed. Augustus Stafford the independent MP for Northampton who had travelled to the Crimea to observe for himself the appalling events in the war zone, and John MacDonald the printing engineer of The Times newspaper who had been sent out to administrate The Times Fund – which had been set up by the editor to help bring comfort to the soldiers injured and made sick in the war. The assembly of the stories of all the people gave many possibilities for the tale that needed to be written; the Rev Osborne, when asked about supplies that failed to reach the Crimea, told the committee that he believed that the whole subject should be handed to the police to investigate.

Florence Nightingale, from what I was reading, was most certainly not the angelic lady of the lamp we have all been told about in school and the writings and speeches of Augustus Stafford could hold their own anywhere. But the siftings and tellings of the story in the end all pointed to the person who was driving the moral backlash against the government and the army and he, too, was someone lost in the obscurity of Victorian history: John Delane the editor of The Times, who never put his own name to any article. I then read the daily editions of the great newspaper in the original copies that are held, neatly and magnificently bound in the basement of the London Library, from July 1854 to March 1855. And from these the real story became clear: it was the editor who had fought his own war against the Government of the day, in a way that showed courage almost beyond our experience and conception. I was writing this at the same time that the Blair Government and Alastair Campbell were locked in battle with the BBC and Andrew Gilligan over the reporting of the Iraq war, and the story each day was almost identical — except that in the version of 1855, the journalists held out to win, which sadly was not the case one hundred and fifty years later.

It's a terrific tale. Buy Delane's War HERE.

UPDATE: Tim Coates is giving talks on his new book, Delane’s War, at the following venues. It’s a terrific book and he speaks well so if you find yourself in the vicinity, do drop in.

Tuesday 3rd November 7pm - Swiss Cottage Central Library

Thursday 5th November 7pm – Westminster Reference Library

Thursday 12th November 7.30pm – Fulwell Cross Library

EXCLUSIVE: Parliamentary Watchdog to be Paid £208,000!

If you are MP reading this, prepare for a good old splutter.

Readers may recall that a new Parliamentary Standards Authority is being set up to oversee MPs. A chairman and board members for the authority are being sought.

This morning I can reveal how much they will be paid. I hope you are sitting down. The chairman will trouser a massive £208,000 a year at £800 a day for a five day a week. This time commitment will be reduced after eighteen months. Board members will be paid £400 a day, the equivalent of £104,000.

So the chairman of the Parliamentary Standards Authority will earn more than three times the salary of the people he will be overseeing.

I think the taxpayer deserves to know who set this level of remuneration, and whether the three party leaders endorse it.

I, as a taxpayer, think it is a disgrace.

UPDATE: The PSA website indicates the remuneration is £700 per day for a 3 day week, equating to £109,200. Have the terms and conditions changed since that was published? My sources are adamant that it is a 5 day a week role initially, and that the day rate is actually £800.

Interestingly, there is no mention of the remuneration for the 5 day a week chief executive.

Why Gordon Can't Blame Peter

Until today Lord Mandelson was master of all he surveyed. Seen as a genius by most Labour MPs, he could do no wrong. But as the postal strike begins more than a few MPs are pointing the finger of blame in only one direction.

Normally, the Prime Minister would be doing the same. He has a default position of blaming individual ministers when even the smallest thing goes wrong. Not face to face, of course. That would be too courageous. No, he gets his monkeys to brief the papers. But this time he dare not. Why? Because he knows the moment that Lord Mandelson withdraws his favours, he, the Prime Minister is finished. Which shows just how weak his position actually is.

Bedford: What Goes Around...

Further to my previous post about Bedford, I just got this email....

I was at the 2001 parliamentary seat selection for Bedford - she [Nicky Attenborough] made sure that the final members meeting was held in Kempston, where she was the local councillor. She duly packed the room with local supporters of hers.... and strangely enough, won.

Strange how these things happen.

Perhaps Parvez Akhtar learned about political organisation from Mrs Attenborough's own example. It would be cruel to say what goes around, comes around. But it would be accurate.

The Bedford Aftermath

I didn't write about the Bedford mayoral election last week as I was concentrating on Bracknell, so allow me to share a few thoughts now. Much has been written about the Open Primary, most of it derogatory and blaming it for the fact that the LibDems pipped the Conservatives to the post in winning the election. It's a very simplistic viewpoint but one which needs answering.

Since the mayoral election it has been announced that the Bedford Deputy Mayor, and one of the losing participants in the Open Primary, has been expelled from the Party for two years. The reason, I am told, is that she refused to support the winner, Parvez Akhtar, and then proceeded to undermine him throughout the campaign.

That didn't surprise me. Despite consenting to every aspect of the running of the Open Primary, including coming on the stage afterwards to endorse the winner, Nicky Attenborough had a face like a saucer of sour milk. Afterwards she sent a bitter email to Eric Pickles saying that the winning candidate had packed the meeting and that most of the people there either couldn't speak English or were Liberal Democrats or Labour. Utter balls.

Parvez did indeed mobilise support - as the open primary process encourages all candidates to do. All four candidates were local and all four were afforded exactly the same opportunities. The fact is that Mrs Attenborough didn't feel she needed to go through a selection process. She felt it was buggin's turn and that all she needed to do was to turn up to be crowned the winner. Her CV was appallingly presented and her interview was weak. She did not like being questioned and refused to give her view on two key local issues. She also failed to mobilise support. That was why she lost.

It was unforgiveable of her to act is such a petty and petulent way after the election. These two letters from the local paper say it far better than I ever could...

Sir - I was a candidate-neutral participant at the Mayoral selection meeting that Nicky Attenborough claims was hijacked. As far as I am aware, every candidate had equal time to prepare and to mobilise support.

Everyone there had pre-registered and was a Bedford Borough voter – the problem was that there were insufficient people on the door to verify the ID of so many attendees.

The resultant late start limited the candidates’ time to present themselves, but each was afforded the same time to make their impression.

It is a rather foolish and petulant leap to assume that because she was unsuccessful, people couldn’t understand what the candidates were saying.

Each candidate was asked the same series of questions, unfortunately the tenor and tone of her responses did not reflect what the meeting was looking for in a candidate, and my personal view is that she wouldn’t have carried the room even if the doors had been shut at 7.30pm as advertised.

She is to be admired for putting herself forward; but at best her outburst shows her to be politically naive and rather negative, and at worst, divisive and from an era which is thankfully long past.

Either way, these are not endearing qualities in a potential Mayor.

She would have been better advised to hold her counsel and get full square behind Mr Akhtar.

Robin Illingworth
Cornwall Road, Bedford

Sir - Yet another complaint from Nicky Attenborough. Does she really expect the public to vote for a candidate who cannot even organise her own supporters to do something as simple as to attend a meeting and then, as Tory leader, goes on to vilify the organisation of the meeting and its selection procedure.

Worse, she insults a large number of people from the Asian community who did make the effort to attend.

As its previous occupant demonstrated the office of Mayor deserves a better organiser and person than this.

Brian Lawson
Wood End Road,
Kempston

The fact is that any local resident had a right to attend. Mr Akhtar (who performed best on the night) mobilised his supporters and got his vote out. That's what should happen in a contest. Phillip Lee did that in Bracknell far better than I did, clearly. Do I complain about that? No I do not. What a pity Mrs Attenborough hadn't acted in the same way and got behind Parvez Akhtar. Would it have affected the final result and stopped the LibDems winning? Very possibly. The electorate doesn't vote for disunited parties, and the split in Bedford Tories meant that it was always going to be an uphill struggle.

Mrs Attenborough has now paid the price for her rank disloyalty. What a pity Parvez Akhtar had to suffer the consequences of this woman's self indulgence. And what a pity she, by her actions, has tarnished the idea of Open Primaries.

I congratulate the LibDem candidate David Hodgson on his victory. I hope he does a good job for the people of Bedford.

Miliband ImpliesTory MPs Approve of Jew Killing

From yesterday's Hansard

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that any massacre, big or small, by whomever, of Jews during world war two was a crime against humanity? To whitewash such a massacre and to try to make it relative is intolerable, unacceptable politics, and those who associate with those politicians shame this House and our nation.
David Miliband: My right hon. Friend has done fantastic work with colleagues across every party on anti-Semitism and the need to combat it. There is no room for hair-splitting when it comes to the massacre of 300 or 400 people in a Polish village in 1941, and I would have thought that every single Member of this House would be able to condemn that atrocity without any hesitation.

So that's the new politics is it? For a senior Labour Cabinet Minister to imply that Conservative MPs secretly rather agree with massacring 400 Jews? What a disgrace. What he and his lapdog MacShane are trying to do is nothing short of political vandalism. They see the Kaminski issue as the one thing they have got to beat the Tory Party with and they will go to any lengths to do so. MacShane actually emailed this exchange round to every journalist he knows this morning. Hopefully most of them will have the good sense to see what he is up to and won't fall for it.

In FCO questions in the Commons virtually every answer from Miliband and Bryant carried some kind of reference to Kaminski. And of course Kaminski himself has also condemned the massacre. This is what he told me in the interview I did with him...

MK: What I was saying from the beginning was that it was a terrible crime and I am ashamed that the Polish people were involved in this crime.

ID: If you're ashamed of that, why can't you agree that there should be an apology?

MK: Because my point is, I don't want to put this single crime - however shameful - on the same level as the Nazi policy towards the Jews. You see the difference? We had our underground state, we were occupied by Germans, and what those bandits did at Jedwabne was totally against Polish law, Polish customs and Polish culture. What the Nazis did was according to the state policies of the Nazi government. Do you understand the difference? Because there is a difference. Let's say that you can feel ashamed of British hooligans, but no one will require an apology from the whole British nation for the actions of a few hooligans.

ID: I'm not sure that's true - I feel ashamed about British football hooligans when they go abroad and I do apologise for my country.

MK: But the difference is that it's not about judging the crime. It was a position shared by many politicians in Poland: we condemned the crime but we didn't want to be put on the same side as the Nazis.

ID: Even though what you're saying has a certain logic to it, logic doesn't really matter in these sorts of subjects! I think you need to understand the other point of view.

MK: From the very beginning, when I was confronted with this accusation, I said that I fully understand the feelings of the Jewish people, and that I understand that after such allegations, they can ask me the questions and scrutinise me, because anti-Semitism is really bad. But what makes me angry is that the people who are using this anti-Semitic argument are in the political debate not to fight anti-Semitism, but just as a tool to fight opponents. They are actually undermining the global fight against anti-Semitism, because if you are making false allegations, people will think, oh, this is just politics as usual, whereas actually, this is something really important for me and everyone on this planet. I will repeat: I was in Israel, and I was actually attacked by the Polish anti-Semites. I was an enemy of the far right in Poland. I made a statement about anti-Semitism in Poland as a member of the European Parliament, and I have been attacked for this statement by the Polish far right. But it's a political game, unfortunately practiced by some journalists, which I regret.

I thought David Miliband was better than this, but it appears I was wrong. To think, he once had ambitions of leading the Labour Party.

UPDATE: Have replaced Infer with Imply!!!

All Women Shortlists: Not In My Name

I agreed with much of what David Cameron had to say about attracting a more diverse range of Conservative candidates. Much progress has been made in this direction, not just over the last three years, but over the last ten. The selection methods which were instituted under Iain Duncan Smith (while David Davis and Theresa May chaired the party) were crucial precursors to what has happened following David Cameron's election as party leader.

I was uncomfortable about aspects of the A List but I recognised that something needed to be done. It was successful in pushing women candidates and more women were selected. However, it did little to attract more women to come forward to apply to be on the approved list. Even now, I am told that only 30% of the approved list are female. It is this issue which needs addressing, not just the proportion who end up being selected. The fact is that there are 30% women on the list, and 30% selected candidates, I believe.

It was thought that Open Primaries would also enable more women to be chosen. That hasn't quite turned out to be the case. Of the last seven, only one (Totnes) has chosen a woman.

David Cameron has today raised the possibility of imposing all women shortlists on some selections which will take place after Christmas. He has no doubt said this knowing full well the outrage it will cause among party activists and male candidates on the approved list. But let's be open about it. This announcement will be seen as a sign of failure, not one of strength.

As a Conservative I believe in equality of opportunity. I believe in a meritocracy. I can just about stomach a final shortlist having to consist of three men and three women, but for me it is thus far and no further. Imposing all female shortlists is a fundamentally unconservative thing to do and one has to ask where it will lead. All black shortlists? All gay shortlists? All disabled shortlists? All christian shortlists? All muslim shortlists?

Not in my name.

I look forward to hearing the views of Women2Win. Will they think this is manna from heaven, or will they think like Conservatives?

So, what to do about it? Apart from deploying force of argument there is little than anyone can do. Futile gestures would be just that. Futile. I'd like to think female Conservative candidates would feel just as strongly on this issue as male ones, but to pretend that anyone can do anything to change David Cameron's mind would be to grandstand. And we have had enough of that in the past.

Even by writing this post, I suppose I will be accused of indulging in a bit of boat rocking. But you'd expect me to be honest in my views, and I have been.

Nothing British About the BNP Say Veterans

Taken from Nothing British.

LibDems All Over the Shop on Afghanistan Withdrawal

Last week I blogged about the possibility of the LibDems tiptoeing their way to a position where they would fight the next election with a policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan. I speculated that this might well be a cynical electoral ploy, designed to create some clear yellow water between them and the two main parties. I cited an interview with their defence spokesman Nick Harvey I did at the party conference.

Sunday's Politics Show exposed the LibDem sham for all to see. Jon Sopel asked Nick Clegg whether they would ever advocate a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Clegg said 'no'. Sopel than put to him Harvey's response to my question, which Clegg maintained was exactly the same as his own position! Amazing.

See for yourself. Click HERE and scroll in about 6 mins 30 secs and watch for the next two minutes.

Gordon Brown's Top Ten Dithers

With the news that Gordon Brown will now not be appearing side by side with David Cameron and Nick Clegg at today’s Speakers Conference, it appears that the Prime Minister has bottled a simple decision once again. This set me thinking. Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to compile one of my famous top ten lists? So here we go. Below are the top ten dithers, bottles and hapless miscalculations Brown has made.

1. The release of al-Megrahi
After the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail on compassionate grounds, the Prime Minister refused to give his opinion on whether it was the right thing to do. Instead, he said that it was a matter for the Scottish Executive and that he couldn’t give an opinion as part of the British Government. But papers later showed that he had given an opinion. But when the UK Government and Scottish Executive published papers relating to the controversy, it was revealed that Bill Rammell, who was then a Foreign Office minister, told the Libyan government that ‘neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison”

2. An early election
Brown appointed a general election coordinator three days before he became Prime Minister in 2007. He started writing a manifesto within two weeks. He reorganized the Labour Party’s entire structure. He hired an advertising agency and then he got his closest adviser to tell the newspapers that he was on an ‘election footing’ (Ed Balls, Sunday Telegraph, 23 September 2007). Brown refused to dampen speculation. When asked by Andrew Marr in September about an early election, Brown said: ‘whenever the time comes for an election these will be the issues… whenever the time comes for a decision I think the issues, of course, are clear…. that's what I think I will be trying to show the people of Britain this week. Brown bottled it and declared there wouldn’t be an election after all. On 6 October 2007, after months of dithering, Gordon Brown finally announced that there would not be a general election in 2007.

3. His favourite biscuit
When the Prime Minister took part in a webchat with readers of the Mumsnet website, he was asked on 12 separate occasions what his favourite biscuit was. Each time, Brown responded with silence. This failure to answer such a simple question prompted one user to question how much political calculation the Prime Minister needed to provide a response: ‘Maybe he needs to consult with his advisers on what would be the most vote-winning biscuit to admit to liking?’ It was only the next day when Number 10 strategists realised that his failure to answer was attracting negative publicity that an answer was cobbled together. Brown posted the following on his Twitter account: ‘I missed Mumsnet question about biscuits: the answer is absolutely anything with a bit of chocolate on it, but trying v hard to cut down.' See, wasn't so hard, was it? But still no brand.

4. Brown’s favourite food
Brown offered 8 different dinner and types of cuisine when asked what his favourite meal was by a school child. Brown responded to the question by saying: ‘Traditional things like steak and….all that and I love er…spaghetti bolognese, carbonara and all these things…so I like all these er er things…er…er, I like Chinese food, Indian food, I like English food, British food…I like…er…er…French food…I like, I like almost everything.’ When pressed further by his interviewer to give a firm answer, Brown finally replied: ‘I think it would be steak.’

5. Brown’s favourite band
Brown attempted to portray a softer side of himself by professing that he enjoyed listening to the Arctic Monkeys. In an interview with New Woman magazine in May 2006, Brown said that ‘the Arctic Monkeys really wake you up in the morning’. Months later, it emerged that Brown couldn’t actually name any songs by the Arctic Monkeys. When asked by men’s magazine GQ to give the names of any of the songs on the band’s debut album, Brown couldn’t offer a single one. He instead said ‘they are very loud’ and went on to praise Coldplay.

6. Televised leaders’ debate
Brown refused to have a televised leaders’ debate. When asked by David Cameron last year to commit to a televised debate between the main party leaders, Brown refused to do so out of hand: ‘In America they do not have Question Time every week, where we can examine what the different policies of the different parties are’. (Hansard, 27 February 2008, column 1084). Earlier this year, Lord Mandelson said that Brown would be happy to have a televised debate with David Cameron. However, the Prime Minister’s aides rejected such a notion with one saying: ‘Our position has not changed. Voters have the chance to compare the party leaders each week at prime minister's questions’. Brown was going to announce support of televised leaders’ debates in his conference speech before deciding against doing so. According to Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, ‘Drafts of his conference speech yesterday contained a promise to do what no British prime minister has done before: to call for a series of TV debates with his opponents not just during the election campaign but starting now. Once again, however, Gordon Brown has shied away at the final hurdle. An offer to debate will not now be in his conference speech because, I'm told, “he wants to focus on policy not tactics”’. One aide later added more detail of the short notice at which the decision to back out of the decision on leaders’ debates was taken: ‘Do you know when the decision was finally taken by Gordon to drop the commitment to debate Cameron from the speech? At 1:30 in the morning on the day of his speech, that’s when he decided. At that point there’s panic. Quick, who has some substance we can use to fill the hole in the speech? That’s when they quickly re-heat the stuff about putting single mothers in state-care homes, and chuck it in. At… 1… 30… in the morning of the speech.’ (Labour aide, Ian Martin’s WSJ Blog, 4 October 2009). Brown finally decided to announce his support of leaders’ debates 18 months after David Cameron challenged him about it at PMQs. The Prime Minister finally committed to televised debates on 3 October saying: ‘It is right that we set the issues before the British people.…I relish the opportunity of making our case directly to the people of this country.'

7. Meeting the Dalai Lama
After months of dithering over whether to meet the Dalai Lama when he came to Britain, Gordon Brown finally decided that he would meet him. The Prime Minister arranged to meet him at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s residence, rather than his own. It was reported that the decision was taken because Gordon Brown was afraid to upset the Chinese government. But the Prime Minister’s spokesman claimed the decision reflected the fact that the Dalai Lama is a ‘respected spiritual leader’.

8. Welcoming the Olympic Torch
The original route for the Olympic Torch did not include Downing Street. But on 3 April, it was announced that Brown would welcome the torch in Downing Street the following Sunday. While the Prime Minister did welcome the torch into Downing Street on 6 April, in order to look like he understood the position of anti-China protestors he refused to touch or hold the torch. However, he was happy to be pictured with it.

9. Signing of the Lisbon Treaty
In late 2007, Gordon Brown couldn’t decide whether to personally sign the Lisbon Treaty or not. After days of dithering, he finally opted to put his signature on the document, but not to attend the official signing ceremony on 13 December 2007. However, a question still remained over whether he would sign the renamed EU Constitution in public: ‘At first Downing Street suggested that he would miss the entire event. When his attendance was confirmed at the start of the week, it was suggested he would sign the treaty in private. It was only on Tuesday that his officials finally announced he would sign in public’ (The Daily Telegraph, 14 December 2007).

10. Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony
In March 2008, after Nicolas Sarkozy announced he might boycott the Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony, Gordon Brown said he would attend the opening and closing ceremonies: “We will not be boycotting the Olympic Games; Britain will be attending the Olympic Games ceremonies” (BBC News Online, 10 April 2008). Days later, he confirmed this saying that Britain would “be present at the Olympic ceremonies and I will certainly be there” (ibid). On 9 April, after two weeks of dithering, Downing Street announced that Brown would not actually attend the opening ceremony, contrary to his earlier position.

In actual fact I could easily have turned this into a Top 30 list. There's just so much material...

One Rule for the LibDems, Another for UKIP

Michael Crick has an excellent blogpost pointing out the inconsistency of treatment of the LibDems and UKIP by the Electoral Commission.

Spot the difference(s)

Case A: Alan Bown gave a political party £363,697

1) It was his money
2) He had a business trading in this country, making him eligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register when he donated although he was the year before, and also the year afterwards.

Case B: Michael Brown gave a political party £2.7m
1) It was not his money, he had defrauded it
2) His business was not trading in the UK, so therefore he was ineligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register; neither was he the year afterwards, nor the year before.

Do you see the difference(s)?
Well the main difference is that the Electoral Commission has doggedly pursued the Alan Bown donation, and today won an appeal forcing the party to give up the money, despite a judge previously ruling that the political party that received it had acted in good faith.

In the Michael Brown case the Electoral Commission has always maintained the political party acted in good faith and need not repay money. Although following the criminal proceedings against Mr Brown they have re-opened an investigation, it has not had yet had any result and they have not managed to say when, if ever, it will.

Oh yes there is one other difference:

This year the Political Parties and Elections Act went through Parliament, and among other things it restructured the Electoral Commission and gave it new funding and powers.

The political party in Case A, UKIP, has no MPs and only three representatives in the House of Lords (where the government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).

The political party in Case B, the Liberal Democrats, has 63 MPs and 71 members of the House of Lords (where the Government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).

At least those are the difference that I can see. Perhaps you can you suggest others?

Feel free to help Michael. Buggered if I can...

UPDATE: LibDem Voice is chortling over UKIP's plight. Not sure they will be laughing so hard soon...

Balls Doesn't Do Irony

Poor old Ed Balls. Someone tell him that when he's in a hole he really should stop digging. After the story earlier today about the childrens' commissioner, he's now accused the Conservatives of planning to pack quangos with their own appointees. I think a ROFL is called for here. Oh the hypocrisy. Isn't that exactly what Labour has done over the last twelve years?

Bribing the Marginals

Just seen this tweet from Labour MP Parmjit Dhanda.

I suspect there will be a lot of such announcements in Labour marginals over the next six months. It's called electoral bribery. I seem to remember the Major government doing a lot of this sort of thing in its final year. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Do feel free to submit other examples.

An Inspector Calls

This poster was issued by the Conservatives in the 1929 general election. It may have taken Labour eighty years to make it come true, but it just shows how far sighted Tory election strategists were at the time!

Because remember that Labour has told local councils to come and inspect every inch of your home in future, so that councils can charge you more if you have a nice view, or a nice garden.

As I have written before, if they think they will get over the doorstep of SimmonsDale Towers, they have another thing coming.

Introducing a Book of the Day Feature

What do all these people have in common?

Sheryl Gascoigne, Jeremy Clarkson, Peter Kay, Jo Brand, Ozzy Osborne, Jack Dee, Chris Evans, John Barrowman, Katie Price, Jamie Oliver, Rick Stein, Loose Women, Justin Lee Collins, Gordon Ramsay, Al Murray, JLS, Leona Lewis and Ant and Dec...

They all have books out at the moment, and they dominate the front of house sales display in each branch of W H Smith. If ever evidence were needed of our dumbed down culture, this list of mediocre literary offerings provides it. The only quality books in the same display are William Shawcross's biography of the Queen Mother and Andrew Marr's History of Britain. Are there really only two such books which merit a main display? Or is it because the publishers have to pay a marketing fee to get the position, and the only books which will recoup the fee are the celeb books? You know the answer.

I am not singling out W H Smith. The other chain bookshops do the same thing. I understand the financial reasons for operating in this manner, but it still pains me to think of all the brilliant books which are published which don't get shelfspace let alone a front of house display.

Thank God for the internet. Without online bookstores we'd never get to know about half the books which are published.

I am intending to introduce a new regular books feature on this blog. If you want to nominate a new political title you have read and think worthy of mention, do let me know.

Bully Balls

If ever proof were needed that Labour couldn't give a toss what Parliament thinks, it cam this morning when Ed Balls said he would press ahead and appoint Maggie Atkinson as childrens' commissioner even though a Labour dominated select committee voted down her appointment, saying it didn't think she would be independent enough or be able to stand up to Ed Balls. The committee chairman, Barry Sheerman called Balls a "bit of a bully" who "likes to get his own way.

Michael Gove has issued a fairly strongly worded statement, but failed to say he would replace her if he becomes Education Secretary. Why not?

Labour's Dodgy European Allies

The hypocrisy of the left in criticising the Conservatives' bedfellows in the new Reform Grouping in the European Parliament has to be seen to be believed. Yes, I am sure there are a few undesirables in the group, but that's the case in virtually every group in the EP. I don't remember these concerns being raised when most of them were members of the EPP. Funny that.

However, Tory Bear has done us all a service and batted the ball back to the left's court. I don't often quote a blogpost in full, but this one merits it.

TB is getting sick to the back teeth of Labour, and their stooges, attempting to create scandal around who the tories sit with in the European Parliament. The audacity that they have in these attacks can quickly be exposed with Google and rather appropriately given today’s attempt at journalism from the Observer – Wikipedia.

The Labour Party sit with the European Socialists grouping (PES), a bunch of nuts lefties that make Blair and Brown look slightly to the left of Hannan. Labour can try have a half-hearted smear attempt at the tory groupings, but it is a national embarrassment that the governing party of the day consort with communists, terrorists, murderers, anti-semites and 9/11 deniers.

Oh you didn’t know this? Well it’s not like it’s reported by the main stream media. Dan Hamilton wrote a great piece a few months ago and TB would like to share some of what he exposed. Lets just have a quick peek at a couple of Labour’s friends in Europe shall we...

First up we have former Italian Communist Party officer holder and Josef Fritzel look alike Giulietto Chiesa. A member of the Communist Party until 1991 Chiesa has since made a name for himself not only blaming Russia’s invasion of Georgia on European countries but more significantly as an extremely vocal 9/11 denier. His documentary Zero, as well as various essays and TV appearances have suggested that the US government was behind the planning and execution of the attacks. This lunatic is now the official European spokesman for the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Who else are close allies of the Labour Party in Europe?

How about Proinsias De Rossa, ever heard of him? This former IRA man originally joined the Communist and Allies group before transferring to the PES and taking an active role in the drafting of the European Constitution. What do you expect from a Labour Party who didn’t bat and eyelid when their guest Martin McGuinness was allowed to stroll around the Grand Hotel in Brighton almost 25 years to the day the IRA had murdered so many there.

So many loons to choose from, but TB’s absolute favourite scumbag has to be Andrzej Zbigniew Lepper the leader of the Polish Self-Defence of the Republic Party, who Labour sit hand in hand with in Europe.

Where to start with their leader and the sleaze, the criminal activities and the general insanity of the man. Another former communist, he has done time for assault and even demanded sexual favours for jobs in his office. Famed for throwing hecklers onto piles of manure according to the BBC, the "chorus of his party song is: This land is your land, this land is my land, we won't let anyone punch us in the face.”

Perhaps most worrying is Lepper’s honorary degrees from the anti-Semitic Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. To give you an idea where these guys are coming from, their honorary professor is the white supremest David Duke.

So next time you hear some Labour tool having a go at tory allies, tell them to go take a long hard look in the mirror and then behind their own shoulders.

The hypocrisy is sickening.


UPDATE 19.11: Not one Labour hack has been able to successfully defend this, or at least have the decency to condemn the facts. Kerry McCarthy, an official spokesman for the Labour Party online resorted to name calling instead of defending her MEPs. Says a lot. Arguments have ranged from the surreal - apparently it's fine as they weren't sort out, to laughable from those who should know better - it's ok because they are pro-Lisbon.

Maybe time to ditch the mud strategy guys.

I doubt they will, but we can live in hope. The truth is that all European Parliament groupings contain some pretty dodgy characters, many of whose views are unacceptable to UK parties. The LibDems suffer the same in their grouping. I don't pretend that the views of the Polish Law & Justice Party and some of the Lithuanians coincide with many Tory views. But to pretend they are any worse than those in other groups is just playing stupid, petty politics.

New York Times Praises Osborne

There was an interesting piece in the New York Times on Friday which poured praise on George Osborne and his approach of telling it straight to the British People.

In a party conference address earlier this month, Osborne gave the speech that an American politician will someday have to give. He said that he is not ideologically hostile to government. “Millions of Britons depend on public services and cannot opt out,” he declared. He defended government workers against those who would deride them as self-serving bureaucrats: “Conservatives should never use lazy rhetoric that belittles those who are employed by the government.”

But, he pivoted, “it is because we treat those who work in our public sector with respect that I want to be straight with you about the choices we face.” The British government needs to cut back.

Osborne declared that his government would raise the retirement age. That age was scheduled to rise at some point in the distant future. Osborne vowed to increase it sometime in the next five to 10 years.

Osborne declared that there would be no tax cuts any time soon. He said that as a matter of principle he believes that the top income tax rate of 50 percent is too high. But, he continued, “we cannot even think of abolishing the 50 percent rate in the rich” while others down the income scale are asked to scrimp.

Osborne offered government workers the same sort of choice that many private sector executives are forced to make. He proposed a public sector pay freeze in order to avoid 100,000 layoffs. He said that the pay freeze would apply to all workers except those making less than £18,000 (nearly $29,000) “because I don’t believe in balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest. Nor do you.”

There were other austerities. Osborne vowed to cut a program he once supported but which has not proved its worth: a baby bond program that was meant to help offset the costs of childhood. There would no longer be means-tested tax credits for families making more than £50,000.

Osborne’s speech was not an isolated event. The Conservatives have treated British voters as adults for a year now, with a string of serious economic positions. The Conservatives supported the Labour government bank bailout, even though it was against their political interest to do so. Last November, Osborne opposed a cut in the value-added taxes on the grounds that the cuts were unaffordable and would not produce growth. It is not easy for any conservative party to oppose tax cuts, but this one did it.

And the public has responded. The Conservatives now have a dominating lead over Labour. Over all, support for the Conservatives rose by 4 percentage points after Osborne’s speech. The polls reveal that nearly 60 percent of Britons support the austerity measures. The Conservatives have a 21-point lead when it comes to being honest about public finances and a 14-point lead on economic policy generally.

The key is that Osborne is not merely offering pain, but a different economic vision — different from Labour and different from the Thatcherism that was designed to meet the problems of the 1980s.

In the U.S., the economic crisis has caused many to question capitalism. But Britain has discredited the center-left agenda with its unrelenting public spending, its public development agencies and disappointing public-private investment partnerships.

Osborne and David Cameron, the party leader, argue that Labour’s decision to centralize power has undermined personal and social responsibility. They are offering a responsibility agenda from top to bottom. Decentralize power so local elected bodies have responsibility. Structure social support to encourage responsible behavior and responsible spending.

If any Republican is looking for a way forward, start by doing what they’re doing across the Atlantic.

Read the full article HERE.

Reflecting on Bracknell & Moving On

Front: Julia Manning, Katy Lindsay, Ryan Robson
Middle: Margaret Doyle, Rory Stewart, Phillip Lee

First of all, I have been overwhelmed over the last 24 hours by all the emails, texts, tweets and blog comments people have left. 98% of them have been very nice and almost made me feel like I am reading my own obituary!

Yesterday was a a very good one for Bracknell Conservatives. At the end of the day the Open Primary has to be judged a success. I told the selection that I believe any one of the seven candidates would be a good MP and I stick by that. It was a very strong shortlist.

I arrived at the venue at 1pm and dished out my leaflets on each chair in the auditorium. BBC South were there and wanted to do an interview but I was reluctant to do one unless the others did too. At 1.30 the room started to fill up with constituents, many of whom were very keen to have a chat before the proceedings got underway. I wasn't sure if this was really allowed so after a short time retreated to the rather spartan room which had been set aside for the candidates. Just before 2pm we were called down to draw lots in front of the audience. I drew number 7 meaning that I was last on. I didn't know whether to be pleased or not. Would they all be so punch drunk by the time I appeared that they would just want it all over with? Or would it be an advantage. The others seemed to believe I had struck lucky. But it meant that I had three and a half hours to sit there, with no contact with the outside world, until I was on.

Obviously we didn't listen to each others' performances, so I can't tell you exactly what was said but the Bracknell Blog has an extensive blogpost outlining what each candidate said and how they approached it. As we were waiting most of the others were boning up on some local issue or other or rewriting bits of their speeches. I am afraid I take the view that if you don't know it by now, you never will. So I just sat there mentally rehearsing a few lines in my head. Some went into a separate room to rehearse their speeches out loud. I kept thinking, should I be doing this too? But in the end, you have to do it your way.

We all had to do a three minute introduction, then answer questions for 20 minutes and then do a three minute wind up. The questions had all been submitted in advance and were put to each candidate. There were no spontaneous questions from the floor.

Eventually, at about 5.20pm, my turn came. I was really pleased with my opening statement. I decided to address the issue of trust head on and the reason we were all there. I was told afterwards that I was the only one who had addressed the expenses issue head on. Was this a mistake? Surely not.

We then moved on to questions. I know at the Executive Round that I was far too loquacious in my answers so I was determined to be more succinct. We covered a huge range of issues including nuclear power, working with the local councils, Europe, Heathrow, how we would split our time between Westminster and the constituency, Trident, the euro, our personal priorities and the NHS. I am sure there were others which I can't recall now.

I got a couple of rounds of applause when I mentioned I was in favour of an English Parliament and against the government's plans for a so-called paedophile register and I also made them laugh a few times.

I was really pleased at how the question session went and felt that I had given very robust and honest answers to every question. Perhaps things were going too well...

I then made a mistake. I didn't use my full three minutes at the end. I thought that the audience had probably had enough, as they had been sitting there for more than four hours. So I reiterated the point that it was up to a new MP to restore trust and expressed the hope that they would allow me to be given the chance to do that. I was told afterwards that several people had voiced the opinion that I should have used the full three minutes.

But apart from that, I genuinely think that I performed well.

We then trooped off back to the candidates room to await the verdict. Time after time, the Association chairman, Lesley Philpot, knocked on the door to deliver the terrible news to one of the candidates.

I knew my best chance was to win on the first or second ballot. When it went to four ballots and it was down to Rory Stewart, Phillip Lee and myself I had an inkling that the game was up. Why? Because I reckon I am a bit of a marmite candidate. You either love me or you hate me. I don't do well on second preferences! So I always knew that when the supporters of the other candidates had to vote again, I might not do as well. We weren't told the figures, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if I had been ahead on round 1 or 2, but gradually slipped back. I guess I'll never know.

So when Lesley came into the room for the final time and told me I was out, I wasn't in the least surprised. I'm normally quite emotional in these circumstances, but on this occasion remained completely calm. One or two of the other candidates were clearly devastated. For some reason I wasn't - not because I didn't care, or didn't want it badly enough: I did. But somehow I just knew Phillip was destined to get it. I had told quite a few people right from the start that if I didn't win, I hoped he would, and I genuinely meant it. I don't know him well, but I knew enough to know he'd be a good choice. So when Lesley came back and told him he had won I was delighted to shake his hand and wish him well. Rory took it very well. He had clearly made a huge impression and I have no doubt he will soon be selected elsewhere - maybe Penrith next weekend.

There have been a lot of comments about whether Open Primaries are working. Personally, I have absolutely no complaints about the system used in this selection. It was conducted fairly and transparently. The Association Agent, Mary Ballin, did a terrific job and I'd like to thank all the members and councillors I have met over the last three weeks for their unfailing courtesy and helpfulness.

My only doubt about the whole process would be the fact that there were seven of us in the final. It was too many and made the event far too long-winded. It would be far better in future to allow Associations to reduce the shortlist of 6 to 4 at an Executive Round. I know this issue has caused some angst in other constituencies.

So what now? Obviously I wanted to win Bracknell - I think I made that fairly clear. But anyone who expects to apply for one seat and then win it is either delusional or very lucky. Michael Howard applied for 44 before he got one. Bracknell was the first seat I had applied for in two years.

Will I apply for others, having fallen at this hurdle? You bet I will.

I didn't apply for Devizes, Gosport, Esher or Central Suffolk as the deadline was last Monday and I wanted to concentrate on Bracknell, but I'll certainly now apply for other seats as they become available. But I won't use a scattergun approach and apply for everything. It has to be the right constituency.

Congratulations to Phillip Lee

Just to say that Philip Lee got the selection in Bracknell. He will be an absolutely brilliant candidate and I offer him my genuine congratulations. Rory Stewart came second and I came third. It's been quite an experience, which I will blog about properly later.

Obviously I am gutted; who wouldn't be? But it was a fair contest and there can only be one winner. And Philip is a very worthy one.

Thanks to Bracknell Conservatives for handling the whole selection so well and thanks to all those of you who have been texting, emailing and twittering your words of encouragement throughout the day. It means a lot.

I'm now driving to Saffron Walden to celebrate my Dad's eightieth birthday. I'll try and get myself in the mood on the journey by playing some Mango Groove!

UPDATE: Bracknell Blog has written a full account of the Open Primary HERE.

Preparing for the Open Primary

As most of you know, this weekend is an important one for me, as tomorrow afternoon I will be taking part in the Open Primary in Bracknell. I'm up against six other terrific candidates so I don't underestimate the magnitude of the task ahead of me. Any one of them would make a great MP.

Preparing for an Open Primary isn't easy. We're not asked to make a normal speech. Instead, we make a three minute opening statement, answer questions for 20 minutes and then make a closing three minute statement. As there are seven of us, the whole event may last five hours as I suspect there will be at least two rounds of voting.

So forgive me if I disappear now for the rest of the day. I'm doing the Daily Politics at noon on BBC2 but after that it's time to mug up on all the things I have learnt about the constituency over the last month.

The next time you hear from me I will either be in a state of elation or depression! I know I will sound like an X Factor contestant, but I really do want this. And that's what I need to convey tomorrow.

Newton-Dunn Replaces The Sun's Pascoe-Watson

It was reported earlier on tonight that The Sun's political editor George Pascoe-Watson is to leave the paper to join Portland PR. I think quite a few people will have been shocked by this news.

I understand he will be replaced by the Sun's Defence editor, Tom Newton-Dunn. He has a superb reputation as a story getter but will he find it so easy in the lobby? He's a hugely talented journalist but it is a huge step to take on one of the top jobs in political journalism when your contacts book is in another sector entirely.

By the way, what is it with The Sun and journalists with double barrelled names? :)

Another Tory MP Stands Down

David Wilshire has tonight announced he is standing down at the next election. He issued this statement...

"The allegations made in today’s Telegraph are deeply hurtful and unjustified. However, my Constituents rightly want reassurance and the truth. This is why I have referred this to the Commissioner. I am confident that he will confirm that I have done nothing wrong. That said, I am very conscious that the allegations and investigation will cause great distress to my family and friends. These allegations also run the risk of harming my local party and our national party’s chances of winning at the next General Election. In the circumstances I have reluctantly concluded that it is sensible for me not to seek re-election next year."

This followed an interview earlier today with Conservative chief whip Patrick McLoughlin. Mr Wilshire clearly believes he is in the right but has fallen on his political sword to save embarrassment to the party. Was he pushed or did he jump? I have no idea, but there will be many people in Tory High Command who breathed a sigh of relief when they heard about his decision. It's rare for enquiries by the Standards Commissioner to be completed very quickly and the last thing they will have wanted is something like this hanging over the party in the runup to an election.

Was David Wilshire right to stand down? Yes, I believe he was. Frankly, he had little alternative. Whatever your views on what provoked his departure, at least he didn't prolong the party's agony.

UPDATE: Paul Waugh recounts the day.

The Flaws of the Standards Committee

The David Wilshire case, which the Telegraph reports today, is a great example of one which may well expose a major flaw in the system of scrutiny of public standards.

Mr Wilshire has rightly referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Sir John Lyon. Sir John will decide if there is a case to answer, then conduct an investigation. He will then issue his findings and the Standards Committee will decide on Wilshire's punishment if he is found guilty. This is the same Committee which decided Jacqui Smith should issue an apology on the floor of the House but need not pay any money back. When it decided that punishment I believe 6 Labour MPs were present but only one Conservative was there.

Most people will find it odd, to say the least, that Mr Wilshire was paying his own company for services provided to his office, and no doubt the full details will emerge. His defence is that the arrangement was wholly approved by the House of Commons Fees Office. If this case had arisen two years ago that may well have been the end of the matter. But we all know now that the Fees Office hasn't been fit for purpose for a very long time.

But the Fees Office approval presents Sir John Lyon with a dilemma. He, like them, is a servant of the House. If he finds against Wilshire he will be emulating Sir Thomas Legg and changing the rules retrospectively. Essentially, he will be saying that Wilshire should have used his judgment better, and known that his office arrangement would not stand up to public scrutiny. Fair enough, you might say, but would this really stand up in a court of law? We may well find out.

The Committee itself then has a dilemma. Can it really force Wilshire to pay money back when they let off Jacqui Smith with a mere tap on the knuckles?

So it's not just the Fees Office which isn't fit for purpose, it may well be that we have to make the same judgment about the Parliamentary Standards Committee.

In my view the days of MPs sitting in judgment over each other must draw to a close. The Standards Committee has, over the years, proved itself incapable of ignoring narrow partisan politics and I see little prospect of that changing. The Parliamentary Standards Committee needs replacing by something which is transparently not open to party political game playing.

Labour Selection Woes in Barrow

If you ever had any doubts about the wisdom of open primaries just read THIS take of woe from Alex Hilton on LabourHome. He recounts in graphic detail the internal machinations in Barrow in Furness over selecting a successor to former Labour Cabinet Minister John Hutton. I was going to say it's the usual tale of command and control Labour Party stitch ups. But it's worse than that.

The fact of the matter is that if Labour followed the Tory lead and used the open primary process, this sort of stitch up would surely be avoided.

And why is it that Labour seems determined to select party apparatchiks for very reasonable seat that becomes available?

Are the LibDems About to Change Policy on Afghanistan?

With every day that passes, I am convinced that the LibDems will enter the next election campaign with a promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. They daren't come out with it now, but as sure as eggs is eggs, that's the direction in which they are tiptoeing. If it was some principled stance, one could have a rational debate about it, but it's not. It's pure, calculated, naked political opportunism. Their strategists have identified it as the only issue on which they can really differentiate themselves from the main two parties.

What does this say about them? I'll let their actions speak for themselves.

PMQs Review

I am afraid I didn't see PMQs. Feel free to give your views on what happened on this thread.

Telegraph Column: Who'd Want to Be an MP?

This morning I have a lengthy comment piece in the Daily Telegraph arguing that it is up to the new breed of MPs to change Parliament for the better and restore trust in politics.

Admitting that you want to be an MP in the present climate marks you out as either a social misfit or someone suffering from delusions. I have almost got to the stage of feeling I should attend a meeting of Politicians Anonymous to bare my soul. My name is Iain and I want to be an MP. There. I've said it.

My family and friends think I am mad. Why would I want to subject myself to a life of constant public scrutiny over everything I say or do? Well, I take the view that if those of us who aspire to public service allow ourselves to be put off by the current breakdown in trust between voters and politicians, we are heading for a very slippery slope indeed.

The present situation over MPs' expenses is very serious, and the disconnect with voters is worse than it has ever been, but let's not kid ourselves that there was ever a golden age in relations between voters and MPs. Voters have always been suspicious of politicians and their motives, and that is a perfectly healthy state of affairs.

What has changed is that people now believe that all politicians have their snouts in the trough. We've gone back to the days of 18th-century rotten boroughs. All that's missing is Hogarth to capture the scene.

Last Saturday, I spent the morning talking to shoppers in Bracknell, where I am competing to become the Conservative candidate. Expenses came up in conversation several times, and I found myself having to try to prove that I wasn't an expenses criminal in the making. I showed my 10-point Pledge of Integrity, in which I promise, among other things, to live in the constituency, but not at the cost of the taxpayer. I promise not to claim for food or furniture. I promise not to promise what I cannot deliver and to tell constituents my real views at all times. And much more.

But the point is, I shouldn't have to spell this out. People should be able to take it for granted that their elected representatives will act with honour and candour at all times. Five years ago, as the Conservative candidate in North Norfolk, I issued a similar pledge as I could see which way the wind was blowing. This initiative did not go down well with several Tory MPs, nor with my fellow candidates. "Imagine where this might lead," said one. Indeed. Just imagine.

It is not often that I am five years ahead of my time, but now almost every Tory candidate is issuing a variation of the same pledge. Chloe Smith, the party's newest MP, made it a key feature of her by-election campaign in Norwich North.

Why do we have to issue a pledge of integrity? Because people think politicians don't know the difference between right and wrong. And nor does the system of scrutiny by which they are governed. It is tragicomical to think that several MPs who have done nothing wrong will have to pay back money for offences they didn't commit, while a former Home Secretary, who wrongly claimed £116,000 in second-home expenses gets off without paying anything. No wonder voters think politicians have the morals of an alley cat.

It would never occur to me to claim £400 a month for food I would have consumed anyway, let alone to charge the taxpayer for a television or garden furniture. My mother said to me recently: "Thank God you lost at the last election. You might have got caught up in all of this." I'd like to think I wouldn't have, but when the party whips tell you to make sure you claim for this, that or the other and that you should view it as a salary increase, you can see why some members did what they did.

For the new intake of MPs who will be elected in 2010, things must be different. Their levels of personal morality and probity will have to be beyond reproach. It is down to them to make the change, ensure things are done differently and to rebuild trust with the electorate.

I can't pretend I am not daunted by the challenge that lies ahead. But if David Cameron and George Osborne can face the economic thunderclouds that stand in their way, the rest of the troops must look to their own challenges, in particular the way they conduct themselves in Parliament and their constituencies.

Cameron recognises that the world has changed: 24-hour news, blogs and Twitter mean that the old command-and-control methods deployed so successfully by Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson are now utterly redundant. In an age of increased individualism and easy communication, such attempts to control the message jar with the public's expectation of how politicians and political parties should operate. As effective as command and control may have been in the past, today it simply serves to weaken public confidence.

Nor will the next tranche of MPs be particularly easy to boss. The Tories know that after the next election there will be at least 150 new members on their benches in Parliament and maybe many more. Half of the Conservative Parliamentary Party won't be used to the ways of the whips. Their test will be this: will they succumb to the old ways of doing things and behave like sheep, or will they act as a group and insist on doing things differently?

In the past, it was easy for whips to threaten an MP who was intending to rebel. "We had thought of you as ministerial material, but if you vote this way, you'll end up on Standing Committee B on European Statutory Instruments." That was usually enough to divert the cowering member into the correct division lobby. But not everyone goes into politics determined to climb what Disraeli called the "greasy pole". Not everyone wants to be Prime Minister.

Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP for Clacton, has proved that you really can change things, even from the backbenches. It was he who got rid of Speaker Martin. Many of his ideas, in particular about devolving power from central government, have now been adopted as Conservative Party policy, but he steadfastly resists the allure of front bench office.

Those bent on career advancement will always be vulnerable to control by the party machine. Yet the rise of political primaries in selecting parliamentary candidates, the public appetite for direct debates between party leaders and the emergence of political blogging all point to a new age of politics in which individualism and independence are rewarded. David Cameron has recognised the public's desire for change by promising to curb the powers of the whips, enhance the role of select committees and give more time to backbenchers in debates.

The rise of political blogs is provocative to a political hierarchy determined to exercise control. My own blog, Iain Dale's Diary, provides me with tremendous reach and arguably gives me influence far beyond that enjoyed by the majority of current backbenchers.

I understand, therefore, the pressures that will be put upon me to stop blogging if I am selected as a parliamentary candidate. But my blog's success lies, at least in part, in the fact that I am not restricted by the party line and that I can say what I think on given issues without reference to the desires of party whips. To misquote William Hague, I am in the Conservative Party, but not run by the Conservative Party.

Unsurprisingly, that's not something that sits easily with aspirations for advancement within the party. Indeed, at the most senior levels of government such individualism stands opposed to the principle of cabinet collective responsibility.

If I am to look at myself in the mirror each morning, though, I must do it on my own terms, while recognising that there will always be limits beyond which I cannot venture. Can I successfully tread that tightrope? Time will tell. But if a party demonstrates a lack of trust in its own candidates' good judgment, the public will want to know why they should trust those candidates to exercise good judgment on their behalf.

A Victims's Rights Are Superior to Those of a Prisoner

I was on The One Show earlier today, talking about whether prisoners should ever be released on compassionate grounds. It's an interesting film, which concentrates on one case of a prisoner who is dying of a tumour. He had burgled an old lady twice. Does he deserve the right to compassion? I argue not. In my view the victim has a right to be consulted over any early release and this right has to supercede any so-called compassion society might show to the perpetrator.

Click HERE to watch the film. Scroll in to 1 min 40. (my section starts at 4.30).

Note: The courtroom we filmed this in (in Eccles Town Hall) is the one used by Coronation Street. Deirdre Barlow was sent down here!

Jacqui Smith's Unravelling Record

It really hasn't been a good week for Jacqui Smith. Indeed, I can't remember a worse one for a politician since Gordon Brown's last one. As Cilla used, to say, let's have a quick reminder...

• A forced apology to the House of Commons over her second home claims
• The ban on Geert Wilders being overturned by the courts
• The Damian Green police action being criticised.

And remember that Alan Johnson recently overturned her ban on the US shock jock Michael Savage entering this country.

I cannot remember a former government minister's record unravelling quite so quickly. Ever. Can you?

Carter-Ruck Folds Over Guardian Gagging

New is breaking that Carter-Ruck have caved in and the Guardian is now free to report Paul Farrelly's parliamentary question and what lies behind it relating to Trafigura.

Let there be no mistake. This would not have happened without the online engagement through various blogs and Twitter which has happened over the last 18 hours or so.

As someone once said, a new dawn has broken, has it not? Well done to every blogger and twitterer who helped stand up for parliamentary freedom and freedom of speech.

Winning An Award

This morning I won an award. I've never won one before, so I'm feeling rather euphoric. It was the EI Online Commentator of the Year. I was shortlisted with Guido Fawkes and Chris Dillow of Stumbling & Mumbling. The event was entertainingly compered by style guru Peter York. Other award winners were...

Financial Commentator: Alex Brummer
Media Commentator: Peter Preston
Online Newspaper blog: FT Alphaville
Polemicist: Richard Littlejohn
Political Commentator: Fraser Nelsom
Commentator of the Year: Martin Wolf
Environment Commentator: Camilla Cavendish
Cultural Commentator: Johann Hari
Chairman's Choice Award: Matthew Parris

Full details of the event are HERE.

I made a very short speech in which I very ungraciously failed to thank anyone, because I wanted to use my time to draw attention to the way in which online commentators have shown their worth over the Guardian gagging case. So let me thank a few people here instead.

First of all, thanks to my readers for sticking with me even on days when I am not on top form. Thanks also to everyone in the political and media world who give me so much to write about. And special thanks to those who help me out on the technical side when I need it - Mike, Russell, Liam, Jag.

And thanks to all those who put up with me blogging when I really should be doing something else. Especially John. I'm the only one who really knows what he has to put up with - although many of you can guess.

I am now off to gaze adoringly at the lovely slab of glass EI presented me with.

Many Happy Returns to Lady Thatcher

May I on behalf of you all send an electronic Happy 84th birthday to the greatest Prime Minister of our times, Margaret Thatcher.

Happy birthday Lady T!

Guardian Gagged Over Parliamentary Reporting

Well THIS is a rum do. Apparently The Guardian has been gagged from reporting Parliament. By whom? Peter Carter-Ruck & Partners. This is an astonishing development. If newspapers are prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings, you wonder where we're heading.

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

Guido, naturally, is being rather braver than The Guardian. However, The Guardian is appealing the gagging order. It's important for freedom of speech that they win.

UPDATE: It's apparently all to do with THIS story about a UK oil company and its activities in the Ivory Coast. I was also interested to read this analysis on Next Left...

To veer off at a tangent, for some reason, that short report reminded me that I was rather impressed by some more extensive reporting which the same David Leigh of the Guardian undertook over the oil company Trafigura's shocking oil spillage in the Ivory Coast, over which the company was widely report to have recently decided to offer a £30 million settlement to 31,000 people affected. I recall that it was an interesting story because of the way the newspaper worked closely with Newsnight

I found it offered considerably more for the reader to get one's teeth into than another Guardian report over Barclays tax affairs, where a gagging order led to several documents being removed from the internet, in theory and no doubt in practice too.

Meanwhile, Guido Fawkes is among those playing the favourite backbencher in Hansard game, flagging up a rather good question from Paul Farrelly MP, of Newcastle under Lyme, and a very good man, as I recall from briefly overlapping with him as colleagues at The Observer where he was City Editor prior to be elected to Parliament in 2001.

His guess, and your guess, are certainly as good as or better than mine. But barking randomly up various trees has its limits.

So I would be rather heavily in favour of The Guardian getting the provisions of the 1688 Bill of Rights back in place so we might also find out the news of what our Parliamentary representatives are discussing on our behalf. on some excellent investigative digging.

Perhaps other bloggers might care to highlight this subject on their own blogs.

Number Two in Europe

According to those nice people at Wikio, this is the second most popular blog in the whole of Europe. Click HERE for the details... Well I never.

Back in the Day

The great thing about the internet (and sometimes the not so great thing...) is that people from your past can track you down. One of my German teachers from UEA just sent me an email from Austria with a picture attached from the last few weeks of my time there in the summer of 1985. She thinks it was at a party at the house of our history professor, Richard Evans (yes, THAT Richard Evans).

I don't know who that handsome young man is on the left, but he could have been auditioning for Spandau Ballet. The less said about the tight jeans, the better :).

UPDATE: The others in the picture are Nick Williams, Gary McAllen (last heard of living in Bavaria) and Steve West. Anyone know where the other two are now?

Remembering Sir Anthony Berry

Enfield Southgate remembers the 25th anniversary of the loss of their MP Sir Anthony Berry.

Today Lady Sarah Berry, the widow of Sir Anthony Berry, named Enfield Southgate's constituency office 'Sir Anthony Berry House' in recognition of his 20 years service as MP that was ended by the Brighton bomb 25 years ago.

Lady Berry attended with her daughter together with Stephen Twigg, former MP for Enfield Southgate 1997-2005, and Enfield's Mayor, Cllr Elefteris Savva, Party Agents, local Councillors and Party members who had worked for Sir Anthony.

David Burrowes MP said: "It is a great privilege to pay tribute to the long service of Sir Anthony to the constituency of Enfield Southgate. It was good on this sad day for the Berry family to be reminded of the fond memories which remain in the constituency. At a time when the character of politicians is under scrutiny Sir Anthony's dedication and compassion is a shining example to follow. My constituency office now with his name will try and emulate his values of hard work and service for the benefit of his and my constituents in the years to come."

House of Comments Podcast

Bloggers Mark Reckons and Stuart Sharpe are starting a weekly podcast called HOUSE OF COMMENTS. I recorded the first one with them last night via Skype. It lasts around half an hour and consists of a canter through the week's news events. You can listen to it HERE.

A Bad Day for Jacqui Smith

This is what the Standards Committee Report into the case of Jacqui Smith says:

“He [John Lyon] has also concluded that Ms Smith spent more nights at her constituency home than at her London home between 28 June 2007 and 31 March 2009. Ms Smith has agreed with this conclusion.13 The figures which underlie it are based on a reconciliation between witnesses’—including Ms Smith’s—personal recollections, the evidence provided by Ms Smith’s personal and ministerial diaries, and the evidence of police records (ie, records of the protection provided to Ms Smith by the police when she was Home Secretary).” (Pages 4 and 5)

But this is wat Jacqui Smith said when the original story broke:

“The spokeswoman said Ms Smith spends ‘the bulk of the week’ at her sister's home in London. Asked how many nights she stayed there, the spokeswoman said: ‘She tends to go home Thursday evenings and returns on Sunday or Monday.’ When it was pointed out that this suggested an average of three-and-a-half days a week, the spokeswoman replied: ‘She doesn't count the number of nights.’” (Mail on Sunday 8 February 2009).

Further spokeswoman comment:

“The London home is Ms Smith's main home where she spends the bulk of her time. The Commons Fees Office has said it is happy with the arrangement.” (Daily Mail, 16 February 2009).

But Ms Smith still seems unrepentant:

“I am disappointed that this process has not led to a fairer set of conclusions, based on objective and consistent application of the rules as they were at the time.” (pages 6 and 7)

I was slightly surprised that Jacqui Smith didn't just issue a full and frank apology this afternoon in the House of Commons, rather than appear to go through the motions. It doesn't really matter that she feels she was the victim of the system - no one cares. A full, heartfelt apology together with a willingness to pay some money back it what she should have done. That was the only way for her to draw a line under it, and she missed the opportunity.

And in other news, we learn now that the Prime Minister is being asked to pay back £12,000. That's £12,000! Lord Paul is now also under investigation for wrongly claiming £38,000.

And then there's Damian Green. I hope to write about that a bit later.

It's The Only Language They Understand: Part 94

I've just been to the MoD to interview Bob Ainsworth. On the way there and back I had the dubious pleasure of seeing the Greenpeace protesters on the roof of the House of Commons. What a terrible lapse in security. It's not as if it is the first time this sort of thing has happened. I have absolutely no confidence in the Commons authorities to prevent a serious breach, which could lead to a terrible tragedy.

If you were an Al Qaeda cell in the UK, wouldn't you now be planning which organisation you could infiltrate to be part of a future protest like this? And then wreak your terrible havoc...

Greenpeace should be ashamed of itself.

Legitimate protest is one thing. Invading the parliamentary estate like this is quite another. Just leaving them up there on the roof with no intervention by the Police sends a simple message to others who might have the same idea: come on in, we're too worried about negative press reaction to do anything.

I wish I had suggested to Bob Ainsworth that he send the army in with a water cannon. It's the only language they understand.

UPDATE: For the humourless left, perhaps I should have added a smiley after that sentence. They really don't do tongue in cheek humour do they? Po faced idiots.

Paying the Price

This morning MPs of all parties will be getting letters from Sir Thomas Legge ordering them to pay back money to the taxpayer. There will be howls of complaint from many MPs about the unfairness of it all, especially from those who fall foul of the retrospective rules which Sir Thomas has apparently decided to impose. But if you start of precedent of passing retrospective legislation, as happened recently with various tax laws, the public will have little sympathy for MPs who bleat about it in this case. And rightly so.

MPs who are innocent are having to pay the price of those who are not. They must bite the bullet and take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.

Do You Live in Bracknell?

DEADLINE FOR OPEN PRIMARY REGISTRATION IS 5PM TODAY

This Saturday, 17 October, the local electorate in Bracknell has a chance to choose their Conservative candidate for the next election. I am one of seven candidates who have been shorlisted and will be interviewed. The others are Ryan Robson, Katy Lindsay, Margaret Doyle, Rory Stewart, Philip Lee and Julia Manning.

I reckon there are several hundred of my blogreaders who live in Bracknell and the surrounding area (which includes Sandhurst, Finchampstead and Crowthorne).

If you are one of them, I hope you won't mind me urging you to register to attend the Open Primary on Saturday 17th at the Blue Mountain Golf Centre. Or, also, if you have friends or relatives there, please encourage them to attend.

To do so, you should ring 01344 868894 or email primary AT bracknellconservatives DOT com. The deadline for registering is 5pm TODAY. You must be on the electoral register. You do not have to be Conservative Party members to attend, or even Conservative voters.

I have a campaign website HERE.

UPDATE: When I posted this originally a few days ago one or two commenters thought it was unfair of me to do so, on the basis that the other candidates haven't got blogs. That fails to understand the point of open primaries. The whole point of the system, whether you agree with it or not, is to use every means available to mobilise support in the constituency. That's normally unheard of in Conservative selection contests, but we're all operating under the same rules. From my experience in Bracknell town centre talking to people in Saturday I know how much this is capturing people's imagination locally. I'm sure my six colleagues have found the same. I want as many people to come to the Open Primary as possible, regardless of whether they vote for me. It's going to be a great display of local democracy in action.

So That's August Paid For, Then...

The BBC is reporting that Gordon Brown will announce tomorrow that he intends to sell off a number of assets to help reduce debt. It is predicted the sales will raise £16bn.

They will include the Tote, Dartford crossing, the student loan book, the Channel Tunnel rail link and - having protected national security - the government's stake in URENCO.

Let's put that in perspective. The budget deficit in August was £16.1bn!

So these sales, to be announced tomorrow as Browns big idea will, once sold, cover one month's debt… what will he do to pay for September's?

Roland White Needs Help

For my money, the Sunday Times Atticus column is one of the besy diary columns around. But I am very worried about the mental health of Roland White, the man who pens it each Sunday. This is from today's column...

On Friday night I dreamt that John Redwood was prime minister, thanks to an administrative error. Iain Dale, the Tory blogger, and I became his makeshift aides. Redwood immediately appointed Angela Knight, the former Tory MP who now runs the British Bankers’ Association, as chancellor of the exchequer (against our advice). What can this all mean? And, more to the point, am I in need of some sort of psychiatric help?

Anyone who dreams about me is indeed in need of psychiatric help. Even I try not to dream about myself.

Sunday Snippets

* I spent much of Friday night writing an article for the Mail on Sunday. All was well until yesterday afternoon. They liked it. And then the story broke about Gordon Brown's eyes. Article spiked. Hey ho.

* The reaction to the Gordon Brown story did not show the blogosphere in a very good light. Whatever one's view of Brown as a politician, no one can deny that he has shown courage in dealing with his disability. Several commentators interpreted the announcement of tears in his retina as start of a softening up process, which will end in his departure on health grounds. I'm not so sure.

* The death of Stephen Gateley of Boyzone in Majorca was a shock. To die at the age of 33 is a tragedy by any measure. Despite being a hugely successful singer, he had led a troubled life. The circumstances of his death remain unclear. As you might imagine with my musical tastes, I have many of his records. I think I'll listen to a couple today.

* Because of my schedule over the last three weeks I am about four episodes behind with X Factor. But I did catch the moment last night when Danni Minogue aluded to Danyle's bi-sexuality. It was a bottom clenching moment. Hmm. Perhaps that wasn't the best expression to use, but you know what I mean. For a woman who has suffered rumours about her own sexuality over the years, it was an odd thing to say at the very least.

* The older I get the less sleep I seem to need. I can survive on five hours a night usualy, but the last few days have really caught up with me. Over the conference I was getting 3 or 4 hours, and found myself on the last day chairing a breakfast fringe and my eyes nodding. Driving home from the BBC at 1am on Friday I came as near as I have ever come to really falling asleep at the wheel. As a consequence I cancelled doing the paper review with Yasmin A-B last night for fear that on the way home something awful could happen. Instead, Shane Greer did it, and by all accounts had a very heated debate with her. I didn't see it. I was asleep!

* Today, the Eastern Daily Press has revealed the names of the final six participants in the selection contest for South West Norfolk. I cannot understand why the local Conservative Association is so desperate to keep the names secret. Surely they should be proclaiming from the rooftops that they have six excellent people on the shortlist and allow the local population to examine who they are. We live in an age of transparency. Local Tory parties need to recognise that. FYI info the six are Claire Emmett, James Tumbridge, Clare Whelan, Therese Coffey, David Rutley and Elizabeth Truss.

* Yesterday morning I and eight friends stood in Charles Square inBracknell, stirring up apathy (copyright Willie Whitelaw) among the local shoppers. In two and a half hours we met hundreds of people. I was surprised at how many were already aware of the Open Primary and the number who were already registered to attend it. Quite a few others who we talked to promised that they would now attend too. Job done. I was struck at the number of people who mentioned immigration as their main concern - not in a racist way, but out of concern that our borders are porous and our infrastructure cannot cope. I was also impressed by the number of people who mentioned how sad they were that Andrew Mackay is standing down and what a good constituency MP he has been over the years. He will be a hard act to follow, whichever one of the seven of us is selected.