Nastiness Courtesy of Harriet Harman

This from today's Q& A with Harriet Harman in The Independent...

Question: As a feminist, are you proud of Margaret Thatcher?
Harriet Harman: No, because she was out to prove she was every bit as nasty as all the men in her cabinet.

Which part of that answer isn't nasty then? Harman and many so-called feminists like her, still haven't got over the fact that Margaret Thatcher got to where she did on her own merits. She didn't need an all woman shortlist or an A List. The frightening thing is, nor did Harriet Harman. Makes you wonder who she was up against, doesn't it?

UPDATE: Ben Brogan seems to share my view. And Dizzy has an erudite response too.

Open Thread

Apologies for the lack of blogging today. I am about to go to the funeral of former Conservative MP for North Norfolk, Sir Ralph Howell, which is taking place this lunchtime in Dereham.

I'm back later this afternoon so until then please use this as an open discussion thread. I will moderate comments as often as I am able.

Poll: Who Would YOU Like to be the Next Speaker?

Take part in the Speaker Poll HERE. Vote on whether you think Michael Martin has done a good job, who you'd like to see succeed him, and for your best Speaker of the last thirty years. The results will be posted a bit later in the week, once at least 1,500 of you have voted!

The Daley Dozen: Sunday

1. Phil Taylor has yet another example of Ken Livingstone's mendacity.
2. Liberal Burblings has a burble on Ming's memoirs.
3. Biassed BBC is angered by the 'Andrew Marr Love-in'.
4. Homosexuality good. Church bad. Archbishop Cranmer explains...
5. Tracey Crouch's day in the life of a parliamentary candidate.
6. Ben Brogan explains the silence of The Speaker.
7. Donal Blaney says tax doesn't have to be taxing.
8. Baroness Ros Scott reports from the Welsh LibDem Conference.
9. An Englishman's Castle is not sure about Ireland's Eurovision entry.
10. Hopi Sen on political fashion.
11. Mr Eugenides on the costs of spending a penny.
12. Dan Hannan wants you to lobby Parliament on the 27th.

Top 10 Runners & Riders to Succeed Michael Martin

Everyone seems to putting forward their own favoured candidates to succeed Michael Martin as Speaker of the House of Commons. One or two candidates are even letting it be known that they would certainly consider the job were it to be offered. Off the record, natch. So here are my Top Ten Runners & Riders in order of likelihood...

1. Sir Alan Haselhurst (Con)
For: Been deputy for many years and performed well when Gorbals Mick was ill. Popular across the divide.
Against: His age, although he's the youngest 70 year old you'll ever meet.
Odds: 3-1

2. Sir George Young (Con)
For: Respected, with wide experience of political life.
Against: Seen as a toff by Labour MPs.
Odds 3-1

3. Sylvia Heal (Lab)
For: Has few enemies.
Against: Has few friends on the Tory or LibDem benches.
12-1

4 Alan Beith (Lib)
For: Has no enemies.
Against: Seen as incredibly dull.
Odds: 20-1

5. Vince Cable (Lib)
For: Hugely respected, would remove one of Brown's leading critics
Against: LibDems wouldbe reluctant to lose one of their stars and he pronbably wouldn't want to do it
40-1

6. Frank Field (Lab)
For: Liked and respected by most MPs who've never worked with him.
Against: Over Gordon Brown's dead body.
40-1

7. Sir Patrick Cormack (Con)
For: Deep love of Parliament and knowledge of procedure.
Against: Age and battlescars from reselection.
40-1

8. John Bercow
For: Independent minded, turned off by party politics.
Against: More popular with Labour MPs than his Tory colleagues.
Odds 66-1

9. Michael Lord (Con)
For: Experience
Against: Regarded by most as having had his day
80-1

10. Ming Campbell (Lib)
For: Sympathy vote, liked and respected
Against: Sympathy vote is not the strongest card.
100-1


Who do you think might be other plausible candidates? My money is on my home MP Alan Haselhurst. He's been a huge success as Michael Martin's most senior deputy and hasn't put a foot wrong. He carries the right mix of authority and humour. I hope he is indeed Michael Martin's successor.

Ming's Memoirs Lack Zing

I think we need a new definition of the word 'explosive'. "Turn to the Review section to read Ming Campbell's explosive memoirs" said the ad in the Mail on Sunday. I duly did, but found that the extract about Charles Kennedy's drinking added little to what we already knew. Not exactly explosive, I'd say. The only vaguely new material was an account of the conversation between Ming and Kennedy when Ming told him he should stand down. But even that could hardly be described as 'explosive'. Ming's account certainly does a lot to scotch any impression that he acted duplicitously, which was no doubt the intention. Read on...

I went to see Charles in his office. 'I think it's in the interests of yourself, your family and the Party that you should now step down.' I said. 'I don't think we can go on as we are. It's not tolerable. I tried to find an elegant way out for him. : 'You can say you've led the Party to its best General Election results since the Twenties. You've got new family responsibilities. You've got a wonderful wife and a beautiful son. You want to spend as much time with them as you can. You're leaving the party a legacy of achievement of which you're proud. All this is true.'

At this point Ming took an onion out of his pocket...

Charles listened intently. 'Ming, we've always been friends,' he said. 'I value your advice but you'll understand that I'll need to talk to Sarah. I've listened very carefully to what you've had to say.' He came out from behind his desk, shook my hand and said: 'Thank you for being so frank. We've had a long friendship. It's survived this long and I hope it'll survive all of this.'

Now I hope I am not being unduly cynical when I say that this sounds very much like the conversation Ming would LIKE to have had. I suspect Charles Kennedy's recollections may be a little different.

You can buy Ming's Memoirs HERE.

Could Crist Be the Saviour of the Republican Party?

Could the Republican Party be approaching the abyss? The Sunday Times reports today that John McCain's denials of a relationship with a blonde lobbyist are starting to unravel. Although the content of the article doesn't quite match up to the headline, it's telling that McCain is quoted as saying: " We still don't know how this whole thing ends up". Let's look into a counterfactually interesting abyss. What would happen if McCain is hown to have told an untruth about his fidelity? The likelihood is that he would have to abandon his campaign. What happens then?

The Republicans would be without a presidential nominee. No one seriously believes Mike Huckabee, the only other candidate left in the race, would be a credible candidate. So who would they turn to? Rudy Giuliani? Not very likely after his appalling campaign. Mitt Romney? Highly probable, but he's disliked and mistrusted by many members of the Republican establishment who would see it as their role to make a recomendation to the Convention in September.

A very likely scenario is one where the party looks to a popular State Governor to carry the torch. And who better than the incredibly popular Governor of Florida? Step forward Charlie Crist.

OK, enough of the counterfactuals, but make no mistake Crist is the coming man of the Republican Party. Whatever the outcome this November, expect him to be a candidate in 2012.

Will the 'Men in Grey Suits' Despatch Mr Speaker?

The Sunday papers have launched new attack on Commons Speaker Michael Martin over more expenses allegations. However, the most damaging thing from his point of view is the resignation of his PR adviser, Mike Granatt. Needless to say our gutless MPs are keeping their heads down on this, with Norman Baker the only one to put his maverick head above the parapet. The real point is that Michael Martin has been the worst Speaker in living memory. He deserves to go because he's useless. The expenses allegations are a diversion from the point that he should go because of his incompetence. Every Labour MP I speak to recognises this privately and Conservatives and LibDems think so too. There is no formal mechanism for despatching a Speaker, but it would be a very foolish Speaker indeed who refused to go after being approached by a cross party delegation of men in grey suits. The usual channels should get to work.

The Daley Dozen: Saturday

1. The Huntsman has Nanny Hewitt in his sights.

2. Louise Bagshawe reckons LibDem MP David Heath is frit. Of his Tory opponent.

3. Britain & America.com has closed for business. But is due to be relaunched in the Summer.

4. Liberal Burblings details 300 defections from Labour ... to the Tories.

5. Our Kingdom believes the Paisley era in Northern Ireland is coming to an end.

6. LabourHome wants to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the start of the Miners Strike. Leopards ... spots... UPDATE: Strangely the story has disappeared from LabourHome. More anon.

7. John Redwood says we will live to regret this week's rished Northern Rock legislation.

8. Donal Blaney is finding blogging (and being called a fascist) rather tedious.

9. Rupert Read wants to decriminalise the sex industry.

10. The Coffee House on why it's called the Coffee House.

11. Cranmer is not impressed by the FT's Europhile obessions. Not impressed at all.

12. Dave's Part looks at the Bridgend suicides.

Let's See If I Can Make It Easier...

... The first three pills just happen to be ... Asprin, Nurafen and Codine. I've still got a streaming cold but I'm about to drive to London to go to Saturday matinee of the Sound of Music. It's Connie Fisher's last day in the role of Maria. My sister Sheena (the punk rocker) organised it as a Christmas present for me and my mother.

My mum can't get out much as after five (yes, five!) hip replacements she's permanently on crutches. So it's more than my life's worth to tell them I feel awful and can't go. I shall just have Confidence in Me and sniffle my way through and imagine that I am High on a Hill With a Lonely Goatherd. I'm sure Something Good will come out of it. I just hope that for my mother, getting into the Palladium won't be like Climbing Every Mountain. Joining us will my other sister, Tracey (yes, Tracey from Essex...) who still reckons she's Sixteen, Going on Seventeen. So until this evening, So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehn, Goodbye.


PS Do you think I've been taking too much Benalin?!

Who Should be on The DNA Register?

Balancing the responsibilities of the State against the rights of the individual is one ofthe most difficult things for politicians to get right. The tendency is to be all in favour of civil liberties while in opposition but to revert to authoritarian type when in government. That's certainly happened with this Labour government. And in times of threats to national security, politicians need to be quite courageous to resist all the demands to impose authoritarian measures on the populace.

The argument surrounding DNA evidence is a perfect example of the dilemmas faced. At the moment only someone interviewed by Police has their DNA taken. If they are charged it is kept on their records, but not removed if they fail to be convicted. Some argue that if the government had everyone's DNA on record it would make the Police's life far easier and crimes would be solved much more quickly. It's a similar argument to ID cards.

This week European judges will consider the case of two people who were charged with a crime but never convicted who want their DNA wiped off the national database. This case has far reaching implications and could lead to more than 500,000 other people's DNA being wiped.

This is a really difficult one for people like me who believe that the rights of the individual must be protected from the pervasive influence of the State. In theory I would support the right of the innocent individual to have their records wiped if they had been found not guilty of a crime, or not even charged. However, the real world does not operate in this way. The individual also has the right to be protected from harm by others, and it is the role of the State to introduce laws which enable that to happen.

As I understand it the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives believe that only those convicted of a crime should be on the DNA database. It's a consistent position and easy to argue. The fact that 100,000 innocent children are on it and should never have been, 26,000 police-collected samples have been left off it and half a million entries have been misrecorded lend weight to the view that the government is incapable of managing such sensitive data.

And yet, and yet. What worries me is that sex attackers and murderers are more difficult to find without full access to DNA records. So I wonder if a messy compromise isn't something we should be considering. My only exceptions to the "No DNA record unless charged" rule would be for people interviewed on suspicion of rape or murder. I accept that it would mean some innocent people being added to the DNA register, but it would undoubtedly reduce the time it takes the Police to solve these two heinous crimes, and therefore prevent others from taking place. Of course one can take this further and use the same argument in favour of everyone having their DNA taken, as it would then lead to other crimes being solved more quickly. I realise that. But I'm afraid that murder and rape are crimes which merit a different and stronger approach.

UPDATE: Martin corrects me in the comments: "Actually Iain you're wrong to say:"If they are charged it is kept on their records, but not removed if they fail to be convicted."People who are arrested but not charged remain on the DNA database."Before 2001, the police could take DNA samples during investigations but had to destroy the samples and the records derived from them on the Database if the people concerned were acquitted or charges were not proceeded with.The law was changed in 2001 to remove this requirement, and changed again in 2004 so that DNA samples could be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station."http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/using-science/dna-database/So the dataabse is already being populated with the DNA of people who have never been charged just in case they later go on to commit a crime. Either they should be removed or everyone should be added.

The Daley Dozen: Friday

1. Dizzy questions a LibDem MPs' eating and drinking habits.

2. Dizzy also questions the conduct of Norman Baker and claculates he owes the taxpayer a cool £8,000.

3. Lanson Boy reckons he's got one up on me by blogging from the office of the President of ... Mozambique!

4. Guido reckons someone at CCHQ is in for a bollocking. And if not, they ought to be.

5. Inspector Gadget describes the daily lot of a policeman. Prepare to be shocked.

6. Donal Blaney refuses to appear on the BBC Asian Network.

7. Bill Blanko reports on today's press gallery shenanigans.

8. Kerron Cross gives his best man some tips. No mention of a Prince Albert, though.

9. Cassilis becomes a Socialist. Well, kind of.

10. The UN's call for disestablishmentarianism (I got tired just typing that) leaves Cranmer unimpressed.

11. Kevin Maguire on a victory for the Brothers which leaves Brown with a dilemma.

12. Party Political Animal gets the Land of the Free off his chest.

The Auschwitz Fiasco Should Serve as a Warning

I suppose as everyone else has weighed into the Auschwitz row, I might as well add my twopennyworth. When I first heard about I could hardly believe anyone could be so crass. Whatever checking procedures that are in place in CCHQ are clearly not working.

But just when it looked very bad for team Cameron, up rode the increasingly ridiculous Ed Balls with an attack which had most of the lobby rolling in the aisles. He accused the Conservatives of playing party politics in a press release on Labour headed notepaper. The Tories went into 'explanation' mode and sought to clarify what "Trips to Auschwitz" on their list of Gordon's gimmicks actually meant. They said "The government was trying to suggest in a press release earlier this month they were going to fund two children from every school. The problem is they said they would pay for it in full. But when you look at the analysis the schools have to pay £1.9 million. So what exactly is the government paying for?” Fair enough, but the damage was already done.

As most commentators have pointed out, David Cameron can hardly be blamed for this and no one seriously believes that it was meant as a deliberate insult to those who died in the Holocaust. But coming so soon after Brown's "student politics" jibe, it does look incredibly crass. Things of this sort do happen from time to time in all parties. That's not to excuse it, but I go back to my point at the beginning - checking procedures need to be far more rigorous. This should serve as a warning.

Current Affairs Magazines On The Up

You know, this idea that the great British public is disinterested in politics is rapidly losing credance. Well, it is if magazine sales are anything to go by. the ABC figures piblished this week show that in the last twelve months the circulation of current affairs magazines has jumped by 10.5% - compared to a 3% drop overall in all other sectors. I must admit that brought a smile to my face when drawing up the final version of the TOTAL POLITICS business plan yesterday.

The Economist +6.7%
The Week +7.7%
Spectator +5%
Prospect +20.2%
New Statesman -12.7%

The New Statesman figure is very odd, as it has become far more readable and easier on the eye. But for the rest it seems that there's a very bright future. As well as my company launching TOTAL POLITICS, the Social Affairs Unit is about to publish a new right of centre competitor to Prospect called STANDPOINT.

Livingstone: Christie Clarification Provokes More Questions

This story about Linford Christie being asked by Ken Livingstone to be one of the Olympic torchbearers gets odder and odder. Livingstone now denies asking Christie to do it, yet Christie's agent has a signed letter from Livingstone inviting Christie to take part. The Mayor is developing a track record for making a statement and then immediately having to backtrack once the truth is established. His reputation for political sure-footedness is taking a bit of a battering at the moment.

Today, Tony and Telly

Enjoyed the Today Programme this morning albeit that Tony Benn rather dominated the discussion - but I know my place in these things! They played a wonderful archive clip of Jack de Manio interviewing a public schoolboy with an accent Brian Sewell would be proud of. He told of his speeches at Speakers' Corner. Tony, in his endearing way, veered off the topic completely and launched an attack on the BBC for never reporting public speeches unless they were broken up by fights. He asserted that the BBC didn't report a single speech from the anti-war rally in Hyde Park. I pointed out that this was a load of old cobblers as I remembered seeing news reports of Charles Kennedy's speech at the very least.

We then did a separate and longer piece for the World Service on a similar theme. I made my usual point about the BBC having a liberal world view, but I was rather undermined when we walked back into the Today newsroom when Tony pointed out a John McCain poster on the wall. He found it most amusing.

I'm now sitting next to Gary Bushell in the reception of the LWT building waiting to do a piece for the GMTV Sunday programme with the Telegraph's Robert Colville on his CPS pamphlet, on why politicians are so rubbish at using the internet. It will be shown on Sunday between 6am and 7am.

The London Universities Conservative Ball at the Russell Hotel last night was very enjoyable despite the onset of a streaming cold (I feel like **** warmed up today). Boris spoke during the drinks reception and Nadine made the after dinner speech. Highlight of the evening was having my picture taken with Nadine clasping my head on her ample bosom. My life will never be quite the same. No more middle eastern earthquakes caused by me then!

So, once I have done this interview I'm off home to curl up in bed or maybe get my new Vaio up and running. Mind you, with my capabilities it might take all weekend...

I Will Avoid 'Genital Shaking' in Future

I really would like to apologise to the people of Israel, the Lebanon and Jordan for any inconvenience caused by the six earthquakes which have struck the region over the last few weeks. According to today's Telegraph (so it must be true) it is all the fault of me and my ilk...

Shlomo Benizri, of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas party, suggested that the tremors could be stopped through the simple expedient of repealing various liberalising laws on homosexuality that have been passed by the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, in recent years... Last Sunday, to the outrage of the religious Right, the country's attorney general, Meni Mazuz, ruled that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. In what Mr Benizri clearly believes is no coincidence, the first of last week's quakes hit the country just two days later."Why do earthquakes happen? One of the reasons is the things to which the Knesset gives legitimacy, to sodomy," Benizri said during a parliamentary debate on earthquake preparedness. Stopping "passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the state of Israel, which anyway brings about earthquakes," would represent a cost-effective method of preventing future earthquakes, he continued.

"We are looking for earthly solutions, how to prevent them," he said. "I have another way to prevent earthquakes. The Gemara says that one of the reasons earthquakes happen - which the Knesset (parliament) legitimises - is homosexuality. "God says you shake your genitals where you are not supposed to and I will shake my world in order to wake you up," he added.

It is sometime since I realised I had made the earth move. I promise in future to resist the temptation of any genital shaking in the hope that further earthquakes may be avoided. I thank you.

On Today With Tony Benn

Tomorrow morning at 8.20am I will be debating with Tony Benn on Radio 4's Today programme. We'll be discussing the merits (or otherwise) of Speakers' Corner. Apparently there's going to be a new one in Nottingham.

I hope I won't be too knackered and incoherent after tonight's London University Conservatives Ball!

Miliband Makes an Honourable Apology

Listening to David Miliband's apology over rendition flights, it struck me that this was the way it should always be done, and that many of his colleagues could learn a lot. It's never a pleasant experience to address the Commons and hold your hands up and say sorry. But Miliband did it well - and only six days after they were first told by the Americans that there had been an error in what they had originally tiold the FCO when Jack Straw was in charge. The Home Office could learn a lot from this. Statements and a apologies do not come naturally to Home Office ministers. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Despatch Box.

The BBC Diplomatic Correspondent James Robins was adamant that this was a huge humiliation for Jack Straw, who was sat beside Miliband. I'm not so sure. He told the Commons the truth as he knew it to be. I'm not making excuses, but if your own officials tell you something and the Americans confirm it and you then go and tell the Commons, what's the alternative. In this sort of case the minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. Radio 5 didn't carry William Hague's response so I may be missing a party political point here (!) but in this case I have some sympathy for Miliband and Straw.

Quick Question

I'm trying to find out how many different forms of councillor there are - ie how many district councillors, how many county councillors etc. I rang the LGA who told me to ring the Office of National Statistics. They had no idea. I've tried googling it but no luck. Can anyone help?

UPDATE: Thanks to all who left comments. David Boothroyd has come up with goods!