![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/partnercomm.gif){kind=small}
Gordon Brown expected David Cameron to raise the economy, the floods in Cumbria and possibly Afghanistan in Prime Minister's Questions today. He was right about the floods, but surprised when the Tory leader ambushed him by alleging that an extremist Islamic front organisation was receiving public money for two schools. Cameron's wider point was that Brown should have got a grip earlier by banning Hizb ut Tahrir (a long-running saga).
The PM in effect accused Cam of breaking the all-party consensus that groups should be banned only when they advocate violence. He was clearly miffed that the Tory leader caught him off guard with a left field question, saying that Muslim groups should not be tarred with the same brush and that decisions on bans should be taken on the basis of all the evidence, not on what is said in PMQs.
Nick Clegg then pulled off what looked like a better ambush: a government protocol giving Whitehall departments the right to veto material being included in the final report of the Iraq war inquiry launched this week. All part of the Government's "shameful culture of secrecy", according to the Liberal Democrat leader. Brown was again caught unawares, mumbling about exemptions on grounds of national security and international relations. (Which is surely what the whole inquiry is about). Unpredictable session. Clegg 2, Cameron 1, Brown 1.
The PM in effect accused Cam of breaking the all-party consensus that groups should be banned only when they advocate violence. He was clearly miffed that the Tory leader caught him off guard with a left field question, saying that Muslim groups should not be tarred with the same brush and that decisions on bans should be taken on the basis of all the evidence, not on what is said in PMQs.
Nick Clegg then pulled off what looked like a better ambush: a government protocol giving Whitehall departments the right to veto material being included in the final report of the Iraq war inquiry launched this week. All part of the Government's "shameful culture of secrecy", according to the Liberal Democrat leader. Brown was again caught unawares, mumbling about exemptions on grounds of national security and international relations. (Which is surely what the whole inquiry is about). Unpredictable session. Clegg 2, Cameron 1, Brown 1.
Unusual event today, as all leaders of the three main parties pitched for the support of businessmen at the annual conference of the Confederation of British Industry in London.
Gordon Brown opened proceedings with a scattergun speech, reminiscent of his Budgets as Chancellor, forgetting that he did better recently when he managed to speak more slowly. Time was clearly pressing and he rattled through his speech too quickly. His key message was that it was too soon to switch offf the "life support" for the economy (ie the fiscal stimulus). He portrayed the Tories as isolated on the issue and mocked David Cameron's conversion to "go for growth" as a soundbite without substance.
Nick Clegg, who followed him, scored better on delivery. His recipe was a 10 per cent temporary tax on bank profits; a tax-neutral switch to cut taxes for ordinary people,partly through a tax on unearned income (that one didn't go down too well).
Cameron was in confident mood, deliberately upbeat after criticism that his party's austerity package at the Tory conference lacked a growth strategy. He tried to answer the "isolation" charges with a new line: Brown was increasingly isolated, he claimed, because there was a growing consensus (President Obama, CBI, OECD) on the need for urgent action to cut public debt.
Of course, businesses don't have votes. But businessmen and women do and what they and their bodies think does matter to parties as it trickles down to the voters via the media. Despite the recent (overdone) hype about a hung parliament, it seems that most business folk are anticipating a Tory Government.
Gordon Brown opened proceedings with a scattergun speech, reminiscent of his Budgets as Chancellor, forgetting that he did better recently when he managed to speak more slowly. Time was clearly pressing and he rattled through his speech too quickly. His key message was that it was too soon to switch offf the "life support" for the economy (ie the fiscal stimulus). He portrayed the Tories as isolated on the issue and mocked David Cameron's conversion to "go for growth" as a soundbite without substance.
Nick Clegg, who followed him, scored better on delivery. His recipe was a 10 per cent temporary tax on bank profits; a tax-neutral switch to cut taxes for ordinary people,partly through a tax on unearned income (that one didn't go down too well).
Cameron was in confident mood, deliberately upbeat after criticism that his party's austerity package at the Tory conference lacked a growth strategy. He tried to answer the "isolation" charges with a new line: Brown was increasingly isolated, he claimed, because there was a growing consensus (President Obama, CBI, OECD) on the need for urgent action to cut public debt.
Of course, businesses don't have votes. But businessmen and women do and what they and their bodies think does matter to parties as it trickles down to the voters via the media. Despite the recent (overdone) hype about a hung parliament, it seems that most business folk are anticipating a Tory Government.
Dress rehearsal for the general election this afternoon when Gordon Brown and David Cameron clashed in the Commons at the start of the debate on the Queen's Speech. No knock-out blow landed by either man. Some good lines from the Tory leader, as you would expect, and a strong demand for an immediate election rather than another six months of this.
Brown was slower to get into his stride but had a new nugget up his sleeve in job or training guarantees for young people. He was at his strongest when attacking Tory policies to cut inheritance tax, saying it would be the only tax cut in history where the Leader of the Opposition knew all the beneficiaries in the constituency where he lived. Nothing to do with the Queen's Speech, of course. But it gave Labour MPs a ray of hope that Brown could perform well in the heat of an election --and in the televised leaders' debates which look increasingly likely. It is going to be a very long campaign.
Brown was slower to get into his stride but had a new nugget up his sleeve in job or training guarantees for young people. He was at his strongest when attacking Tory policies to cut inheritance tax, saying it would be the only tax cut in history where the Leader of the Opposition knew all the beneficiaries in the constituency where he lived. Nothing to do with the Queen's Speech, of course. But it gave Labour MPs a ray of hope that Brown could perform well in the heat of an election --and in the televised leaders' debates which look increasingly likely. It is going to be a very long campaign.
Not often that you see that headline, especially as David Cameron gets to go first ahead of Nick Clegg at Prime Minister's Questions. But the Liberal Democrat leader stole a march on Cameron with his call in The Independent yesterday for tomorrow's Queen's Speech to be scrapped on the grounds that it was a waste of time so soon before the general election.
Ministers dismissed it as a gimmick --a sign that Labour was rattled, otherwise it would have merely ignored a third party missile. Clegg's call was widely follow-up by broadcasters and other newspapers.
Someone else who seemed to be rattled was Cameron, who launched his pre-emptive strike at the Queen's Speech a day later in The Times today. With Clegg having grabbed all the best lines, the Tory leader could only bang on about Labour's political point-scoring and obession with dividing lines. (I suspect voters think all parties are guilty on these fronts). Unlike Clegg's attack, it has not made waves in the Westminster village. Cameron will be hoping that normal service resumes when the three party leaders debate the Speech in the Commons tomorrow.
Ministers dismissed it as a gimmick --a sign that Labour was rattled, otherwise it would have merely ignored a third party missile. Clegg's call was widely follow-up by broadcasters and other newspapers.
Someone else who seemed to be rattled was Cameron, who launched his pre-emptive strike at the Queen's Speech a day later in The Times today. With Clegg having grabbed all the best lines, the Tory leader could only bang on about Labour's political point-scoring and obession with dividing lines. (I suspect voters think all parties are guilty on these fronts). Unlike Clegg's attack, it has not made waves in the Westminster village. Cameron will be hoping that normal service resumes when the three party leaders debate the Speech in the Commons tomorrow.
Gordon Brown is making yet another attempt to turn the tide of public opinion on Afghanistan in his annual foreign affairs speech to the Lord Mayor's Banquet at the Guildhall tonight. Although he also covers Iran, the need to engage with the EU, climate change and the economy, the PM devotes most of his address to the case for the British presence in Afghanistan. He sets himself a big task, especially while President Obama dithers over whether to send more US troops. But Brown deserves marks for persistence.
Tonight he is arguing that the struggle against al-Qa'ida is being won, revealing that British security services have told him that there is a chance of inflicting significant, long-lasting damage to the terrorist network. He trumpeted recent successes in taking out some of its leaders (by the US, not us).
While making his familiar argument about a link with terror on the streets of Britain, Brown also tries to paint an optimistic scenario in which parts of Afghanistan can be handed over, district by district, to Afghan security forces from next year. The PM wants the Nato allies to discuss the way ahead at a special conference in London in the new year. The idea, according to his aides, is to show the British people a "horizon" -- in other words, a mucg-needed end game. I've no doubt the foreign policy experts will spot two flaws in his argument -- Hamid and Karzai. Without an effective, inclusive government enjoying the support of its people, Brown's timetable looks extremely ambitious.
Tonight he is arguing that the struggle against al-Qa'ida is being won, revealing that British security services have told him that there is a chance of inflicting significant, long-lasting damage to the terrorist network. He trumpeted recent successes in taking out some of its leaders (by the US, not us).
While making his familiar argument about a link with terror on the streets of Britain, Brown also tries to paint an optimistic scenario in which parts of Afghanistan can be handed over, district by district, to Afghan security forces from next year. The PM wants the Nato allies to discuss the way ahead at a special conference in London in the new year. The idea, according to his aides, is to show the British people a "horizon" -- in other words, a mucg-needed end game. I've no doubt the foreign policy experts will spot two flaws in his argument -- Hamid and Karzai. Without an effective, inclusive government enjoying the support of its people, Brown's timetable looks extremely ambitious.
The new Gordon Brown I detected here on Wednesday wasn't a hallucination after all. Interviewed on BBC Radio Four's Today programme this morning, the PM managed to keep up his new approach of speaking more slowly and calmly and avoided getting into an undignified slanging match. Conversation is much better than verbal brickbats.
Although he was batting on the increasingly sticky wicket of Afghanistan, you wouldn't have guessed it from the interview-- or that, as the BBC seems to think, he has just been through his worst week since his last worst week (which ignores Labour's comfortable by-election victory in Glasgow North East, by the way). Given that Brown's Labour critics have been banging on (rightly) about his poor presentational skills, his much better performance in adversity this week might just give them food for thought.
What was the secret of today's successful interview? Good prep and good sleep, I am told.
Although he was batting on the increasingly sticky wicket of Afghanistan, you wouldn't have guessed it from the interview-- or that, as the BBC seems to think, he has just been through his worst week since his last worst week (which ignores Labour's comfortable by-election victory in Glasgow North East, by the way). Given that Brown's Labour critics have been banging on (rightly) about his poor presentational skills, his much better performance in adversity this week might just give them food for thought.
What was the secret of today's successful interview? Good prep and good sleep, I am told.
David Cameron went on the attack over youth unemployment at Prime Minister's Questions this afternoon. (The Commons went back to the future, holding the session at its old time of 3pm instead of midday because of this morning's Armistice Day service at Westminster Abbey). Unusually, the Tory leader didn't hit the target. His script may have been written before today's jobless figures, which were not as bad as predicted and still left the number of 18-24 year-olds out of work below one million. Ministers can't crow about that but are privately delighted the rise in unemployment is slowing so quickly.
The two leaders traded predictable insults. Cameron accused Gordon Brown of living in a "parallel universe" and quoted from a leaked government document suggesting the skills budget would be cut. Brown said of Cameron: "Every time he mentions policy, he loses it." The most interesting thing was that Brown's lines were sharper than usual. He spoke more slowly than he usually does in PMQs and avoided a shouting match, perhaps learning a lesson from his successful press conference yesterday. Labour MPs cheered him on -- genuinely, not just going through the motions. One even told me afterwards that yesterday and today we had witnessed a "new Gordon Brown." Interesting. We shall see.
The two leaders traded predictable insults. Cameron accused Gordon Brown of living in a "parallel universe" and quoted from a leaked government document suggesting the skills budget would be cut. Brown said of Cameron: "Every time he mentions policy, he loses it." The most interesting thing was that Brown's lines were sharper than usual. He spoke more slowly than he usually does in PMQs and avoided a shouting match, perhaps learning a lesson from his successful press conference yesterday. Labour MPs cheered him on -- genuinely, not just going through the motions. One even told me afterwards that yesterday and today we had witnessed a "new Gordon Brown." Interesting. We shall see.
A very sombre Gordon Brown on display at his Downing Street press conference this morning, the first of these once-monthly events since July. Inevitably, it was dominated by Afghanistan. He wore a black tie and it felt a bit odd when he spoke slowly and deliberately about the NHS too. He brought the presser to an end so that it did not clash with the bodies of six other servicemen killed in the conflict arriving home.
The PM handled the most difficult issue sensitiively and well -- his dispute with Jacqui Janes, whose son was killed in the conflict, and whose name he misspelt in his hand-written letter of condolence, revealed by The Sun newspaper.
Brown, whose 10-day-old baby daughter Jennifer Jane died in 2002, said movingly: "I'm a parent also. I feel the pain of people who lose their loved ones. I understand when people are grieving that they are looking for answers...I'm a parent who understands the feelings when something goes terribly, terribly wrong and I understand how long it takes to handle the grief that we have all experienced."
No one can say this was not from the heart. Surely, it's now time for everyone to move on and draw a line under the row over his unfortunate letter. Whether that happens is another matter.
The PM handled the most difficult issue sensitiively and well -- his dispute with Jacqui Janes, whose son was killed in the conflict, and whose name he misspelt in his hand-written letter of condolence, revealed by The Sun newspaper.
Brown, whose 10-day-old baby daughter Jennifer Jane died in 2002, said movingly: "I'm a parent also. I feel the pain of people who lose their loved ones. I understand when people are grieving that they are looking for answers...I'm a parent who understands the feelings when something goes terribly, terribly wrong and I understand how long it takes to handle the grief that we have all experienced."
No one can say this was not from the heart. Surely, it's now time for everyone to move on and draw a line under the row over his unfortunate letter. Whether that happens is another matter.
What were armed services chiefs and politicians talking about in the margins of the Remembrance Sunday ceremony in Whitehall yesterday? I am told two words kept coming up. "President" and "Obama." Labour ministers and the military do not always see eye to eye (and some service chiefs think Gordon Brown does not "get" defence). But I am told they are now at one in their common frustration at the US President's apparent dithering over whether to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.
"Everyone is tearing their hair out," one Whitehall source told me today. "It is all in limbo because we are still waiting for Obama." The delay has put on hold Britain's plans to send another 500 troops to Afghanistan. Ministers hope the passage of Obama's health reforms through Congress will enable him to get a move on. But the latest signs from Washington are that we might have to wait another two weeks or so for his decision. The sense of drift will hardly help Brown in his mission to explain the operation to the British public, which looks increasingly like mission impossible.
"Everyone is tearing their hair out," one Whitehall source told me today. "It is all in limbo because we are still waiting for Obama." The delay has put on hold Britain's plans to send another 500 troops to Afghanistan. Ministers hope the passage of Obama's health reforms through Congress will enable him to get a move on. But the latest signs from Washington are that we might have to wait another two weeks or so for his decision. The sense of drift will hardly help Brown in his mission to explain the operation to the British public, which looks increasingly like mission impossible.
A surprise sting in the tail in Gordon Brown's forceful speech this morning making the case (again) for the British presence in Afghanistan. For the first time, he warned bluntly that our troops would not remain there unless the newly "re-elected" (sort of) Afghan President Hamid Khazi tackles corruption.
The Prime Minister said: "The government of Afghanistan has become a by-word for corruption. And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption." He called for a new anti-corruption law, a new anti-corruption commission with powers of investigation and prosecution and an appoint an international adviser of substance (sounds like a job for Paddy Ashdown, who was blocked by Khazi last time). Strong stuff, though whether Khazi will swallow the medicine is another matter.
Brown, of course, had two audiences -- the Afghan President and the British public, which is becoming increasingly hostile to the mission. No wonder after the killing of five soldiers by a renegade Afghan policeman. If Khazi doesn't act on Brown's warnings, then the dangerous gap between public opinion here and the Government's strategy will widen even further.
The Prime Minister said: "The government of Afghanistan has become a by-word for corruption. And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption." He called for a new anti-corruption law, a new anti-corruption commission with powers of investigation and prosecution and an appoint an international adviser of substance (sounds like a job for Paddy Ashdown, who was blocked by Khazi last time). Strong stuff, though whether Khazi will swallow the medicine is another matter.
Brown, of course, had two audiences -- the Afghan President and the British public, which is becoming increasingly hostile to the mission. No wonder after the killing of five soldiers by a renegade Afghan policeman. If Khazi doesn't act on Brown's warnings, then the dangerous gap between public opinion here and the Government's strategy will widen even further.
No politician likes being accused of a U-turn. Or breaking a promise. Or being dishonest with the voters. David Cameron has accused Gordon Brown of all three crimes but today the boot is on the other foot. The worst-kept secret in British politics -- that Cameron would abandon his pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty once it had been ratified by all 27 EU member states-- is becoming public knowledge now that the Czech Republic is about to become the final nation to sign up.
Cameron made hay with Labour's U-turn over a referendum on the proposed EU constitution, the treaty's forerunner. Today the Europe Minister Chris Bryant is saying that the Tory leader's "cast-iron guarantee" (to The Sun newspaper two years ago) is "already rusting pretty badly." There will be a row with Tory Eurosceptics, though it will be interesting to see how many of them bite their lips with the Tories apparently on the verge of power. Cam knows he will take a bit of a hit. He will doubtless try to mask his U-turn with talk of repatriating powers if the Tories win the general election. Little or no chance of our EU partners agreeing to that.
Cameroons hope this a case of short-term pain for long-term gain. They do not want their first two years in office overshadowed by a damaging power struggle with the rest of the EU, which would send a terrible signal the voters after Tory promises to get the country back on its feet. Many Tory MPs will have other ideas.
Cameron made hay with Labour's U-turn over a referendum on the proposed EU constitution, the treaty's forerunner. Today the Europe Minister Chris Bryant is saying that the Tory leader's "cast-iron guarantee" (to The Sun newspaper two years ago) is "already rusting pretty badly." There will be a row with Tory Eurosceptics, though it will be interesting to see how many of them bite their lips with the Tories apparently on the verge of power. Cam knows he will take a bit of a hit. He will doubtless try to mask his U-turn with talk of repatriating powers if the Tories win the general election. Little or no chance of our EU partners agreeing to that.
Cameroons hope this a case of short-term pain for long-term gain. They do not want their first two years in office overshadowed by a damaging power struggle with the rest of the EU, which would send a terrible signal the voters after Tory promises to get the country back on its feet. Many Tory MPs will have other ideas.
It made gripping telly, but I'm still not convinced that the BBC's "Question Time" was the right platform for the nation to scrutinise Nick Griffin's policies. It is true that the BNP leader looked wobbly and unconvincing at times, notably when he struggled to give examples of the "lies" he claimed the newspapers told about him. There were moments when he shot himself in the foot. Some heartening questions from the audience landed telling blows too.
The Justice Secretary Jack Straw, one of the panellists, claimed it was "a catastrophic week for the BNP". I hope he's right but I am not sure. The studio audience may have been hostile, but the BBC handed the BNP a huge platform to reach a much wider one. This morning the BNP is already playing the victim, claiming last night's programme was set up to demonise Griffin and should have dealt with more topical issues like the postal strike rather than being devoted almost entirely to the BNP. That message will get through to the BNP's target audience, and may boost the party. Visibility, rather than the actual message, matters hugely to minority parties, and the BNP is a lot more visible than it was a week ago.
The real test is not how the panellists performed last night, or even the BNP's ratings in the next few opinion polls. A difference between a 2 per cent and 3 per cent rating would not tell us much because the numbers of voters involved would be tiny. The real impact of last night's programme will emerge only when we know the result of the general election.
Is it just me, or is anyone else fed up with all the hype ahead of the BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on BBC TV's Question Time programme tonight? There is wall-to-wall coverage on the BBC's 24-hour News Channel. Anyone would think they had an interest in getting high viewing figures. (Sky News seems to be ignoring it but went into similar overdrive when it was calling for a televised election debate between the political party leaders).
Some newspapers are also hyping the Question Time programme -- see The Times today-- and giving Griffin tonnes of the oxygen of publicity. He must be loving all the attention.
True, it is a landmark moment. True, under the Broadcasting Act the BBC would have to recognise the BNP had won seats in the European Parliament by giving it airtime at the general election. Some BBC insiders argue that it is be better to get the BNP's Question Time appearance out of the way now rather than in the heat of an election battle, when it might help them more. I'm not sure. We'll see how the programme goes later but I wonder whether Question Time is the right one in which to subject the BNP's policies to proper scrutiny. I would have preferred a forensic interview by Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys.
Some newspapers are also hyping the Question Time programme -- see The Times today-- and giving Griffin tonnes of the oxygen of publicity. He must be loving all the attention.
True, it is a landmark moment. True, under the Broadcasting Act the BBC would have to recognise the BNP had won seats in the European Parliament by giving it airtime at the general election. Some BBC insiders argue that it is be better to get the BNP's Question Time appearance out of the way now rather than in the heat of an election battle, when it might help them more. I'm not sure. We'll see how the programme goes later but I wonder whether Question Time is the right one in which to subject the BNP's policies to proper scrutiny. I would have preferred a forensic interview by Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys.
Normal hostilities resumed at Prime Minister’s Questions today, after last week’s truce on Afghanistan. David Cameron went topical and populist, blaming the postal workers’ strike due tomorrow on Gordon Brown’s weakness and lack of courage and leadership. Why? Because militancy had got worse since the Government shelved plans to part privatise the Royal Mail, the Tory leader argued.
A forceful, ruthless attack with some good lines, and you could see what Cameron was up to: making sure Brown gets the blame if the walkout goes ahead, while painting Brown as weak and a ditherer (again). But he didn’t quite make the link between the strike and the Government’s decision on the sell-off. The PM argued that they were separate issues, and accused Cameron of making a difficult dispute harder to resolve instead of doing the responsible thing by calling for negotiation and arbitration.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, chose a better than Cameron: the huge bonuses on the way at the banks and the Bank of England Governor Meryvn King’s strong attack on the industry last night. Given the taxpayers’ massive support for the banks, this had rather more to do with the Government than the postal strike. Brown 1, Cameron 1, Clegg 2.
Gordon Brown has renewed his appeal to other world leaders to attend the critical December summit in Copenhagen about a new global agreement on climate change. In a speech in London this morning, the PM warned that time is running out for a deal."I will work tirelessly with my fellow leaders to negotiate a deal. I have said I will go to Copenhagen to conclude it -- and I am encouraging them to make the same commitment," he said.
Brown deserves full marks for trying. But I suspect there's a problem. President Barack Obama not only wants to focus on his reforms to the American health system before he turns his full attention to the climate change talks. The other snag is that Obama has just been to Copenhagen. He made an unexpected overnight dash to the Danish capital earlier this month to try to secure the 2016 Olympic Games for his hometown Chicago. The Obama magic didn't work and Rio de Janiero won. Not a good omen. So I suspect Obama will think twice before going to Copenhagen again, which could reduced the prospects of a deal.
Brown deserves full marks for trying. But I suspect there's a problem. President Barack Obama not only wants to focus on his reforms to the American health system before he turns his full attention to the climate change talks. The other snag is that Obama has just been to Copenhagen. He made an unexpected overnight dash to the Danish capital earlier this month to try to secure the 2016 Olympic Games for his hometown Chicago. The Obama magic didn't work and Rio de Janiero won. Not a good omen. So I suspect Obama will think twice before going to Copenhagen again, which could reduced the prospects of a deal.
I've had a sneak preview of a fascinating interview given by John Bercow, the first full one since he became Commons Speaker in June. He told my colleague Steve Richards, who presents BBC Radio 4's "The Week in Westminster" programme at 11am tomorrow, that MPs must obey the independent auditor Sir Thomas Legg's demands that they repay excessive expenses claims. Bercow dashes their hopes that he will urge Legg to think again, declaring that his role is as an "ambassador for Parliament," not a "shop steward" for MPs --as his predecessor Michael Martin seemed to see himself.
Similarly, Bercow uses language that his predecessors would have baulked at, saying the public wants to see "payback time" and not a "Westminster whitewash." He also talks revealingly about his family and what it's like having three young children living in the ornate Speaker's House-- another first.
I suspect some MPs may have a pop at Bercow over his defence of Legg when he takes the Commons chair again on Monday-- and the fact that he did so in a BBC interview before he sharing his views with MPs. But Bercow is doing exactly what he promised when he ran for Speaker. He has a mandate to modernise. And who elected him? MPs, of course. They shouldn't whinge. They should welcome his approach as a much-needed breath of fresh air.
Similarly, Bercow uses language that his predecessors would have baulked at, saying the public wants to see "payback time" and not a "Westminster whitewash." He also talks revealingly about his family and what it's like having three young children living in the ornate Speaker's House-- another first.
I suspect some MPs may have a pop at Bercow over his defence of Legg when he takes the Commons chair again on Monday-- and the fact that he did so in a BBC interview before he sharing his views with MPs. But Bercow is doing exactly what he promised when he ran for Speaker. He has a mandate to modernise. And who elected him? MPs, of course. They shouldn't whinge. They should welcome his approach as a much-needed breath of fresh air.
A very odd session of Prime Minister's Questions just now. In the bars, restaurants and corridors, MPs talk of little else except the row over their expenses. Despite anger in all parties about the review by independent auditor Sir Thomas Legg, not a single MP raised the issue in 33 minutes of PMQs. Lots of chatter here afterwards about the elephant in the Commons chamber, etc etc.
I suppose nobody wanted to put their head above the parapet and feature on the TV news bulletins as the MP who attacked the guy who is cleaning up the system.
Despite a big build up on this morning's TV and radio programmes, the first PMQs since the summer recess was a low-key, sombre affair. Gordon Brown set the tone by listing the names of the 37 servicemen killed in Afghanistan since the last PMQs in July. Although Brown was making a statement on Afghanistan immediately after today's session, David Cameron used his questions to talk about our troops rather than expenses, the economy or public services. Nick Clegg, despite raising the stakes earlier by asking Legg to take an even harder line against MPs, focused on the Afghan elections rather than expenses. It was an anti-climax, but there was a reason -- ie the situation in Afghanistan.
Backbenchers raised a whole host of hobby horses and constituency matters but the X-file remained firmly closed. Funny how they are prepared to be so vitriolic about Legg in private but not in public.
I suppose nobody wanted to put their head above the parapet and feature on the TV news bulletins as the MP who attacked the guy who is cleaning up the system.
Despite a big build up on this morning's TV and radio programmes, the first PMQs since the summer recess was a low-key, sombre affair. Gordon Brown set the tone by listing the names of the 37 servicemen killed in Afghanistan since the last PMQs in July. Although Brown was making a statement on Afghanistan immediately after today's session, David Cameron used his questions to talk about our troops rather than expenses, the economy or public services. Nick Clegg, despite raising the stakes earlier by asking Legg to take an even harder line against MPs, focused on the Afghan elections rather than expenses. It was an anti-climax, but there was a reason -- ie the situation in Afghanistan.
Backbenchers raised a whole host of hobby horses and constituency matters but the X-file remained firmly closed. Funny how they are prepared to be so vitriolic about Legg in private but not in public.
Public enemy no 1 amongst MPs today is Sir Thomas Legg, the retired civil servant who is asking them to repay money after carrying out an independent audit of their expenses claims over the past five years. MPs in all parties are seething, claiming that Legg has made errors in his letters to them (such as asking them to justify their mortgage interest payments when they didn't claim any).
In a statement explaining his approach sent to all MPs, Legg admits his task is "not straightforward" and defends his controversial decision to impose retrospective annual limits of £2,000 for cleaning and £1,000 for gardening under the second homes allowance. His review "has to interpret and determine what the rules and standards in force at the time were," he says. He also makes clear that he will demand repayment of all their mortgage claims (up to £24,000 a year) unless MPs can prove the money went on mortgage interest. Bank statements will not be enough proof. In theory, there could be big sums involved here.
Public enemy no 2 at Westminster is Gordon Brown for calling in Legg to conduct the review in the first place. Labour MPs and even some ministers are saying the move has turned into a disastrous own goal. The other worrying scenario for Brown is that it may be easier for David Cameron than him to persuade his backbenchers to hold their nose and swallow Legg's medicine. Tricky.
In a statement explaining his approach sent to all MPs, Legg admits his task is "not straightforward" and defends his controversial decision to impose retrospective annual limits of £2,000 for cleaning and £1,000 for gardening under the second homes allowance. His review "has to interpret and determine what the rules and standards in force at the time were," he says. He also makes clear that he will demand repayment of all their mortgage claims (up to £24,000 a year) unless MPs can prove the money went on mortgage interest. Bank statements will not be enough proof. In theory, there could be big sums involved here.
Public enemy no 2 at Westminster is Gordon Brown for calling in Legg to conduct the review in the first place. Labour MPs and even some ministers are saying the move has turned into a disastrous own goal. The other worrying scenario for Brown is that it may be easier for David Cameron than him to persuade his backbenchers to hold their nose and swallow Legg's medicine. Tricky.
First day back at school for MPs after their long summer break and it's deja vu all over again. Their expenses tops the agenda by a mile, and will probably do so for some time. Perhaps unwittingly, Gordon Brown scripted this latest episode in May when (for good reasons) he asked the former mandarin Sir Thomas Legg to look into the expenses claimed by all MPs over the past four years.
To the consternation of many MPs, Legg appears to have exceeded his remit :he is judging MPs against what the rules are now and what he thinks they should be rather than those which applied when they submitted their claims for garden maintenance, cleaning their second homes etc. Even the Speaker John Bercow, while urging MPs to co-operate with Legg, acknowledges he has given himself a wider remit. In a letter to MPs today, Bercow recalls that Legg was asked to examine payments made "against the rules and standards in force at the time."
So you can see why MPs are miffed. Yet Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg feel they have no alternative but to tell their MPs to swallow hard and accept whatever painful medicine (ie repaying the Commons authorities) Legg prescribes. None of the party leaders can afford to look "soft" or "weak " on expenses in the public's eyes. Clearly, some backbenchers may refuse to toe the line after receiving their prescriptions from Legg today.
As ever, the expenses saga operates at two levels. Seen from Westminster, there is another side to all the headlines about MPs with snouts in the trough and trying to defy the independent inquiry into their claims. Meanwhile, in the real world, the attempt to sweep the stables clean makes them seem even more smelly -- for now, at least.
To the consternation of many MPs, Legg appears to have exceeded his remit :he is judging MPs against what the rules are now and what he thinks they should be rather than those which applied when they submitted their claims for garden maintenance, cleaning their second homes etc. Even the Speaker John Bercow, while urging MPs to co-operate with Legg, acknowledges he has given himself a wider remit. In a letter to MPs today, Bercow recalls that Legg was asked to examine payments made "against the rules and standards in force at the time."
So you can see why MPs are miffed. Yet Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg feel they have no alternative but to tell their MPs to swallow hard and accept whatever painful medicine (ie repaying the Commons authorities) Legg prescribes. None of the party leaders can afford to look "soft" or "weak " on expenses in the public's eyes. Clearly, some backbenchers may refuse to toe the line after receiving their prescriptions from Legg today.
As ever, the expenses saga operates at two levels. Seen from Westminster, there is another side to all the headlines about MPs with snouts in the trough and trying to defy the independent inquiry into their claims. Meanwhile, in the real world, the attempt to sweep the stables clean makes them seem even more smelly -- for now, at least.
"I'm Dave, trust me." That was David Cameron's message in his closing speech to the Tory conference in Manchester. He admitted: "You can never prove you're ready for everything that will come your way as prime minister." And he argued that character, temperament and judgement mattered more than manifestos and policies.
His audience loved it, not least because his two recurring themes were 1. for everyone --government and people-- to show responsibility, and 2. that Labour's "big government "approach has reached the end of the road. Defining what a Conservative Government would stand for, he said: "If you take responsibility, we will reward you, and if you cannot, we will look after you."
In a sober,serious, joke-free but personal address, the Tory leader tried to deflect growing Labour attacks on his background. "I want every child to have the chances that I had," he said. He wanted state schools to be as good as private schools.
It certainly worked in the hall. Tory representatives agreed that their leader "ready" to be PM. Labour will now go into overdrive to persuade the voters otherwise. I suspect Labour's line of attack will be to claim that the Tories are reverting from compassionate Conservatism to Thatcherite type, and using the debt crisis as an excuse to roll back the state (ie leaving vulnerable people to sink or swim). So another election dividing line is clear: big government versus small government.
His audience loved it, not least because his two recurring themes were 1. for everyone --government and people-- to show responsibility, and 2. that Labour's "big government "approach has reached the end of the road. Defining what a Conservative Government would stand for, he said: "If you take responsibility, we will reward you, and if you cannot, we will look after you."
In a sober,serious, joke-free but personal address, the Tory leader tried to deflect growing Labour attacks on his background. "I want every child to have the chances that I had," he said. He wanted state schools to be as good as private schools.
It certainly worked in the hall. Tory representatives agreed that their leader "ready" to be PM. Labour will now go into overdrive to persuade the voters otherwise. I suspect Labour's line of attack will be to claim that the Tories are reverting from compassionate Conservatism to Thatcherite type, and using the debt crisis as an excuse to roll back the state (ie leaving vulnerable people to sink or swim). So another election dividing line is clear: big government versus small government.
Advertisement
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
agrice : Brown ambushed twice [+0] - agrice : Pitching for the business vote [+0]
- agrice : The long election campaign has begun [+2]
- agrice : Clegg 1, Cameron 0 [+1]
- agrice : Brown upbeat on Afghanistan [+1]
- agrice : New Brown (continued) [+2]
- agrice : A new Gordon Brown? [+3]
- agrice : Sombre Brown [+12]
- agrice : Waiting for Obama [+1]
- agrice : Brown threatens Afghan pull-out [+3]
- agrice : Cameron's EU-turn [+2]
- agrice : The Nick Griffin Show [+10]
- agrice : BBC hypes BBC shock [+3]
- agrice : Cameron hits the post [+0]
- agrice : Why Obama won't go to Copenhagen [+2]
- agrice : The Speaker speaks out [+0]
- agrice : The dog that didn't bark [+0]
- agrice : Expenses row (continued) [+0]
- agrice : Expenses furore (part 2) [+3]
- agrice : Trust me, says Cameron [+3]
Syndicate
Designed by chasethestars
chasethestars