House of commons

Where arms dealers meet do-gooders

Yesterday saw the annual Commons vs. Lords Tug of War, in aid of Macmillan and sponsored by BAE. Battle was joined at Westminster College Gardens, behind the cloisters of Westminster Abbey. Teams of marines, fireman, hacks and staffers battled it out before the final show down between the elected and the unelected. Disappointingly for the aristocracy, the commoners bagged it.    Champagne and the dulcet tones of TV’s James Landale kept the crowd entertained. Speaker Bercow, defence minister Gerald Howarth and education minister Tim Loughton cheered on their colleagues, while Labour’s Lord Foulkes and Sharon Hodgson became well acquainted with the bar. Tory backwoodsmen Alec Shelbrooke, the loud Yorkshire MP,

Three Cheers for the House of Lords | 12 October 2011

As a general rule complaints that the opposition are too beastly for words should not be taken too seriously. They reflect a sense of entitlement on the part of the governing party that, whenever it may be modestly frustrated, quickly becomes peevish, sour and silly. If this is true of parliamentarians it is even truer when considering the bleatings of partisan pundits cheering on Team Red or Team Blue. Again, if you judge these squabbling teams by different criteria then you forfeit some right to be taken seriously. So it’s depressing to see a commentator as urbane and generally sensible as Benedict Brogan make such an ass of himself in

Fox defies the hounds

To the joy of the Tory benches, Liam Fox has just come out swinging in the House of Commons. In his initial statement, Fox apologised to the House for allowing the lines between his personal and professional life to become blurred out of “personal loyalty to a friend.” He then conceded that Werritty had travelled on 18 overseas visits with him since May 2010 and visited the Ministry of Defence 22 times. The presence of George Osborne and Michael Gove on the front bench showed how determined the Cameroons are to indicate support for the defence secretary despite the political differences between him and them. Jim Murphy missed the target

Downing Street’s boundary review problem

I understand that Number 10 will lean on Cabinet ministers not to object to what the boundary review does to their seats. This is an intriguing development because at least three Tory Secretaries of State are deeply unhappy with the proposed changes to their constituencies. It’ll be fascinating to see whether Downing Street can persuade them to hold their peace on the matter. Their disquiet reflects broader grumbling throughout the Tory parliamentary party. All sorts of conspiracy theories are doing the rounds. Number 10 needs to move quickly to offer some reassurance to nervous MPs. If the boundary review’s plan is to be made agreeable to the Tory parliamentary party,

Managing the boundary changes

MPs are queuing down the corridor on the first floor of Portcullis House as they try to get hold of a copy of the proposed boundary changes which have just been released under embargo. Boundary changes can make a huge difference to an MP, converting a marginal into a safe seat and vice-versa. Boundary reviews are a whip’s nightmare as they will set MPs of the same party against each other. The danger for the two coalition partners is that MPs’ take to rebelling on emotive issues for their parties in an attempt to win any selection head to head. This is why Cameron went out of his way to

Brown’s version of events

Gordon Brown’s speech in the House of Commons just now was remarkable. It was completely deluded, one of the most one-sided versions of history you’re ever likely to hear. Abetted by the Speaker, Brown spoke for what must have been at least half an hour trying to justify his record in office and depict himself as someone who was prepared to take on the Murdoch empire, which he certainly was not while News International was supporting Labour. Rather than acknowledging—as Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson have—, that Labour got far too close to News International and was too scared of it, he presented an entirely self-serving version of history. To

James Forsyth

Cameron on the back foot

This has been another difficult morning for David Cameron. He’s now taking flak for having said he would take part in the BSkyB debate this afternoon and then deciding not to. But what should, perhaps, worry the Prime Minister more than this criticism is the evidence that the Liberal Democrats are siding with Labour to portray Cameron as being behind the curve on this issue. The FT, the Lib Dems’ paper of choice, reports that Clegg and Miliband pushed Cameron for a wide-ranging public inquiry. The paper details how Clegg is demanding an end to the practice of politicians, and particularly Prime Ministers, meeting newspaper proprietors but keeping the meeting

Parliament prepares to take on Murdoch

Politicians are swarming all over the phone hacking scandal today, in even greater number than during the past week. If it isn’t the main topic at PMQs at noon, then it certainly will be immediately afterwards; when David Cameron delivers his statement on an inquiry into the whole mess. And then there’s Labour’s Opposition Day motion, urging Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid for BSkyB. By the end of the day, our parliamentarians will surely have delivered an official reprimand to the News Corp boss and his ambitions. The news that the government will vote in favour of Ed Miliband’s motion has sucked some of the vicious factionalism out of

Attention turns to the police

Today, the spotlight in the phone hacking scandal is shifting onto the police — who have an awful lot of questions to answer. Indeed, I suspect at the end of this the reputation of the police will have been hugely damaged. The evidence from senior Met officials — some retired, some serving — has not convinced the Home Affairs committee today. It is a sign of how poor relations are between the police and MPs that a Tory MP has asked the current and former assistant commissioners of the Met if he they have ever taken a bribe from a journalist. Both John Yates and Andy Hayman reacted indignantly to

Hunt flounders in very choppy water

Jeremy Hunt’s statement today confirmed that News Corps’ takeover bid for BSkyB was being referred to the Competition Commission. But the questions afterwards were dominated by Labour questions about Andy Coulson’s appointment. Hunt could not answer whether or not Coulson had been positively vetted. Nor, could he say when Cameron and Coulson last spoke. Indeed, Hunt initially claimed Cameron had not spoken to his former director of communications since Coulson stepped down, before quickly correcting himself. The Culture Secretary did do a decent job of sounding reasonable and bemoaning Labour’s tone. But without a proper line on Coulson, he was left floundering. There were two other things worth noting from

Ofcom to rule on Murdoch’s purchase of BSkyB

If News Corporation was not trying to buy the whole of BSkyB, there’s a good chance that phone hacking would not still be in the news today: that decision was one of the things that led to a revival of interest in the story. As has been said many times during the past few days, securing full ownership of BSkyB is regarded as crucial by the Murdochs and that is one of the reasons they were prepared to take the dramatic step of shutting down The News of the World. But the letter from Ofcom about the takeover and the possibility of Labour forcing a vote in the House of

Whipping up a storm | 29 June 2011

The mini Tory rebellion last night, 15 Tory MPs voted to allow couples to transfer their personal tax allowance, has further strained relations between the whips office and some backbenchers. One complained to me earlier that the whips had been overly heavy-handed in their approach, describing their behaviour as ‘quite terrifying’. Now, these things are in the eye of the beholder and I suspect that the whips involved just thought they were doing their bit to maintain party discipline. One other thing worth noting is that even those unhappy with the behaviour of the whips are going out of their way to say that the chief whip Patrick McLoughlin is

Lloyd Evans

World battles narcolepsy as wonky Miliband opens up

Superwonk Ed was back today. For the third week running he tried to nobble Cameron at PMQs by taxing him on some miniscule detail of policy. ‘Of the 163 statutory organisations in the health service’, asked Miliband, ‘how many will be left after the government’s top-down reforms?’ Cameron hadn’t a clue. And even at this early stage a sense of resignation was settling over the watching thousands. Trying to kick the PM with a footling facticule doesn’t play with the general public. It rarely makes the news. It has commentators reaching for lines of speed to keep awake. And the only people it excites are the opposition leader’s all-star team

A reshuffle of the whips office?

It is tempting to treat the whole circus animal affair in the Commons this week as just a big joke, the Palace of Westminster turned into the Palace of Varieties. Certainly, the sight of MPs vigorously arguing about the fate of four circus geese had a certain black comedy to it. But there might be at least one serious consequence of the vote, a reshuffle of the whips office. In Tory circles, there is a lot of chatter about a damning assessment of the state of the whips’ office penned by former Tory MP Paul Goodman for the Conservative Intelligence website, an offshoot of ConservativeHome. In it, Goodman writes about

Even Ed knew he’d lost

Cameron made history today. He gave the Speaker a genuine reason to call PMQs to a halt. Usually Mr Bercow pops up two or three times to shout down shouters and to waste time by ordering time-wasters not to waste time. But today protocol obliged him to stop proceedings. A half-hearted punch-up was in progress over government u-turns and the PM was defending his reforms by referring to his favourite Labour ally, the shadow health secretary. If he quotes John Healey much more often Cameron will owe him royalties. Ed Miliband accused the government of lengthening waiting times by abolishing Labour’s targets and Cameron countered by claiming that the figures

Clegg’s ermine troubles

Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, that much we know. But thanks to the wonders of modern science, we can now poll them on it. Today’s Times carries a survey of the 789 peers who are entitled to sit in the Lords — of whom, 310 responded. It’s not a huge sample size, but the results, you assume, are representative. 80 per cent oppose a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, including 46 per cent of Lib Dem peers. 81 per cent believe that the Lords works well as it is. And 74 per cent believe that it wouldn’t be “constitutionally correct” for the Commons to force through a cull of

Choppers add to the Libyan fog of war

There was much ado about choppers in Westminster earlier today. Yesterday, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet told reporters that Britain and France were to deploy attack helicopters to Libya; and that the British had instigated this move. The fog of war then descended. Labour’s defence spokesman Jim Murphy called on the British government to explain why the conflict is escalating. Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey contradicted Longuet’s account; and a source at the Ministry of Defence told me that this was the first he’d heard of helicopters being deployed to Libya in that role. The implication was that the French were trying to force the issue. Then again, a separate

Clegg: No MP is above the law

The sun shone on the deputy prime minister at DPMQs earlier today. Nick Clegg usually wears a grimace at the despatch box; but he was assured this morning, successfully defending a Labour onslaught on the NHS reforms. There were even flashes of, well, Flashman. He replied to a question from Chris Bryant by quipping, “Every time the Honourable member asks a question, I wonder why anyone bugged his phone.” Clegg also rebuked John Hemming for breaking the Giggs super-injunction yesterday; a popular move among those MPs who think Hemming degraded parliamentary privilege. Clegg said: “I don’t think anyone should be above the rule of law. And if we don’t like