Parliament

Monday

Alex Massie

Three Cheers for John Hemming MP

Come the revolution, you’re supposed to hang the lawyers first. Which is fine. But it might be better to start with the judges. Specifically those that are happy to grant injunctions that prevent members of the public from raising matters of concern with their local MP. I ken that commonsense need not be compatible with jurisprudence but this oversteps the mark by some considerable distance. It is outrageous and so outlandish that one wonders how it can actually happen. But happen it does and, it turns out, more frequently than you might think and certainly more often than you’re supposed to know. So three cheers for John Hemming*, MP for

Peter Hoskin

Obama’s nervousness makes life difficult for him and his allies

Gingerly, gingerly — that’s how the Americans are approaching the presentational battle over Libya, if not the actual campaign itself. There is no bombast in the official broadcasts from Washington, nor categorical intent. Instead we have Robert Gates emphasising, as he did yesterday evening, that the US will soon handover “primary responsibility” for the mission to us or the French. Or there’s Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying that “potentially one outcome” is for Gaddafi to stay in power (see video above). The idea of regime change, or of deeper US involvement, is being downplayed all round. What’s clear, perhaps even understandable, is that Obama

Friday

James Forsyth

Cameron’s sombre statement

David Cameron was calm, measured and far from messianic as he delivered his statement to the House on the coming action against Libya. He was keen to stress that last night’s resolution ‘excludes an occupation force of any part of Libyan territory.’ However, he did, in answer to a question from James Arbuthnot, agree that regime change was likely to be necessary to achieve the aims of the resolution.   Cameron said there would be a statement later today from international leaders and it seems that this will be an ultimatum to Gaddafi. If military action does follow, Cameron said that he had ‘some guarantees’ from Arab leaders that they

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

PMQs live blog | 16 March 2011

VERDICT: A more evenly-matched PMQs that we have been used to, with both leaders parrying and thrusting to some effect. Miliband’s chosen topic — the NHS — was a surprise, particularly given today’s unemployment figures and the persistent flurry of bad news from abroad. Yet it did open up a clear divide between him and Cameron. On one side, the Labour leader claiming that the the coalition is taking undue risks with a beloved health system. On the other, the PM painting Miliband as Brown Mark II, a roadblock to reform and change. Neither side really won, or lost, the argument today, but you can expect them to return to

Tuesday

Alex Massie

Sir Fred Goodwin’s Penance

If we were not permitted to report parliamentary proceedings we would not be able to observe that, protected by parliamentary privilege, the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming revealed the existence of a superinjunction taken out by Goodwin to prevent reporting on, well, who knows what? But for Mr Hemming’s actions, revealling the existence of this superinjunction would risk being held in contempt of court. Two things arise from this: what kind of judge thinks it appropriate to grant the kind of injunction that includes an injunction on revealing its existence? Is the judiciary not troubled by the apparent ease with which rich public figures can purchase protection from being inconvenienced

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

PMQs live blog | 9 March 2011

VERDICT: A turgid sort of PMQs, where most of the quips were clumsy rather than cutting. Cameron probably won it by virtue of one of the few direct hits – his line about Ed Miliband knifing a foreign secretary, aka MiliD – and because Miliband failed, really, to prod and aggravate the coalition’s wounds over Libya. The Labour leader’s main attack – over the competence of the coalition – was clear enough, though, and could have some purchase depending on, erm, how competent the coalition is. As it is, Cameron’s hint that he still has the occasional cigarette will probably capture the spotlight. 1231: And that’s it. My quick verdict

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Who watches the watchmen? | 7 March 2011

There’s a fuse-meet-flame quality to PoliticsHome’s smart little scoop this morning. Our parliamentarians are already somewhat hacked off with IPSA, the body tasked with overseeing their expenses. So how will they react upon reading that IPSA spent £300,000 of taxpayers’ cash on furbishing their London office? The watchdog’s shopping list includes 25 cabinets (£2,295 each), 14 “relaxer loungers” (£465 each) and a table at £837. It sounds awfully like some of the MPs’ claims that were so controversial in the first place. IPSA are defending the spending, citing “industry standards” and such. But, whatever, it just fuels the sense that they are an unduly expensive and convoluted answer to the

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Government to appeal on prisoner votes

PoliticsHome reports that the government is to ask the ECHR to reconsider its verdict in the prisoner voting rights case. The website says: ‘In a response to a parliamentary question from Labour MP Gordon Marsden, Cabinet Office Under-Secretary Mark Harper said: “We believe that the court should look again at the principles in “Hirst” which outlaws a blanket ban on prisoners voting, particularly given the recent debate in the House of Commons.”’ This is unsurprising. Last month, the government asked its lawyers to advise on the ramifications of noncompliance. The lawyers were unequivocal: the repercussions of such defiance was diplomatically impossible and extremely expensive. As non-compliance is foolhardy and acquiescence

Friday

David Blackburn

On the basis of this legal advice, the government is not planning to defy the ECHR

As I wrote this morning, the Times has obtained a copy of a government legal memo (written before last week’s prisoners’ debate in parliament) examining non-compliance with the ECHR’s infamous judgment. The newspaper argues that the government plans to defy the Court; and there are plenty rumours swirling around Westminster to that effect, which is hardly surprising given that the Times chanced upon this document. But it’s mostly hot air. The government lawyers actually advised against non-compliance on four separate grounds and revealed that British officials are working towards compliance. First, here are the recommendations of the advice: 1).    The Strasbourg judgements on Hirst and Greens and MT are

David Blackburn

It’s a knock out: judicial activism versus the sovereignty of parliament

The prisoner voting debate is coming to a head, and Dave has turned once too often. The Times has received (£) what it describes as a government legal memo, urging the government to defy the demands of the European Court of Human Rights. After last week’s parliamentary debate, the government’s lawyers calculate that the ECHR can only put ‘political pressure rather than judicial pressure’ on British institutions. This is a seminal moment: political will has not been met by administrative won’t. But would non-compliance succeed? Last month, Austria’s attempt to withdraw the franchise from all prisoners serving more than a year was thrown out by the ECHR; but one suspects

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Parliament is not sovereign

Enough is enough. The British Bill of Rights is set to return: a consequence of the government’s running battle with parliament over the European Convention on Human Rights. Recent days have been filled with clues and suggestions of imminent reform: Dominic Grieve, a former advocate of the ECHR, went so far as to assert that Britain may leave the convention. Cameron let slip the news that a Bill Of Rights commission is to be convened at PMQs; at the time he was answering a question about the Supreme Court’s controversial sex offenders’ register decision. There are no details as to what the commission will consider, but Theresa May aired the

Tuesday

David Blackburn

More trouble for the government over the military covenant

The news that serving soldiers have been given notice by email has been met fury from ministers. Liam Fox has answered questions in the House about this story and why 100 RAF pilots discovered they were redundant in yesterday’s newspapers. Fox was both livid and contrite, decrying the ‘completely unacceptable’ practices and reiterating the MoD’s ‘unreserved apologies’. He announced that an internal inquiry has been called, which Patrick Mercer believes will expose negligence among those officers who manage personnel. Fox also conceded that the sacked pilots, many of whom were ‘hours from obtaining qualification’, cannot be retained in some form of volunteer reserve, such is the squeeze on the MoD.

Monday

James Forsyth

The AV referendum hasn’t captured the public’s imagination

It is odd to think that in just a few months we’ll be having only the second nationwide referendum in our history and no one is particularly excited about it. This is largely because the plebiscite is on AV, an unloved voting system that is a half-way house between first past the post and a proportional system. (Just imagine the level of conversation there would be if the vote was to do with Europe not electoral reform). At the moment, the yes side has a growing lead in the polls http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3115. But, given the vast number of undecideds, this could change very quickly. The No campaign, though, will have to

David Blackburn

DD’s having a shindig

The FT’s Alex Barker has a sweet little scoop. David Davis is having a knees-up for all 234 of his comrades in the prisoner voting debate. Here’s the invitation: It’s been a while since newspapers and the public commended parliament, so why not throw a ‘little party’. True, normal service will be resumed if Mark Reckless and friends fall into old habits; but last Thursday was a great moment for parliament, they’ve a right to some latitude. Of course, as Paul Goodman has conceded, it was a greater day still for Davis.

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

Britain’s coming crunch with Europe

It did not take David Cameron long to realise that there were three parties in his coalition. A few months into government, the Prime Minister worked out that only half of the policies he was enacting came from the shared agenda drawn up when the Tories and LibDems got together. The other half comes from the EU. Or, more specifically, the Civil Service machine, which is busy implementing various EU Directives, often passed many years ago. Cameron is trying to put the brakes on this process. As I say in my News of the World column, this has led to much frustration in Whitehall. And dismay: the Civil Service remembers

Friday

Jonathan Jones

From the archives: parliament versus the ECHR

Yesterday, parliament asserted its supremacy before the European Court of Human Rights. As Ross Clark explains, it has been a long time coming. The Final Indignity, 10th November 2001 by Ross Clark It wasn’t so long ago that the very mention of the words ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ in conservative circles was enough to provoke frothing at the mouth. Of all the horrors to emanate from the Continent, here was the final humiliation: British ministers ordered around by the bigwigs of European justice. No longer would we be able to beat our children or tell them that they can’t wear earrings and Motorhead T-shirts to their Latin lessons. Murderers,

Thursday

James Forsyth

The Commons rejects prisoner voting rights

The Davis Straw motion on keeping the ban on prisoner votes has just passed by 234 votes to 22. It is a crushing victory on what was a very good turnout given that both front benches were not voting. The 22 against the motion were a bunch of Liberal Democrats plus the Ulster MP Lady Hermon, the Plaid MPs Jonathan Edwards, Elfyn Llwyd and Hywel Williams, the Green Caroline Lucas,   Labour MPs Barry Gardiner, Kate Green, Glenda Jackson, Andy Love, Kerry McCarthy, John McDonnell, Yasmin Quereshi  and  one Tory Peter Bottomely, David Cameron now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. His MPs hate the idea of giving

David Blackburn

Looks like Devine’s going down

Twitter has exploded at the news that former Labour MP Jim Devine has been found guilty on two counts of false accounting, and is likely follow to David Chaytor to the slammer – another argument against votes for lags. Sentence will be passed in four weeks As James Kirkup wrote at the time of Chaytor’s sentencing, this is a victory for the British justice system; proof that those who make our laws and subject to them also. The purge on the most heinous expenses cheats is a painful but necessary passage for restoring dignity to parliament and probity to public life. And the process is far from over. News of

David Blackburn

In their own words…

Parliament will debate a prisoner’s right to vote tonight, to satisfy the ECHR’s now infamous judgement. Jack Straw and David Davis, the progenitors of tonight’s discussion, have taken time to explain why they believe the ECHR does not have the right to dictate to sovereign states on such matters. Writing for Con Home, Davis has constructed an impassioned polemic, decrying the British government’s ‘pusillanimous culture of concession’. Essentially, Jack Straw is making the same argument, albeit with precise procedural insight. He writes (£): ‘But is there some contradiction between my support for the HRA and my criticism of the Strasbourg court’s judgment in this case? Not at all. The reason

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Parliament is expected to deny prisoners the right to vote

These are hard times for the government and there is no respite. Today, parliament will debate a prisoner’s right to vote, in accordance with the wishes of the resented European Court of Human Rights. The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour writes what many suspect: on the back of a free vote, the House will deny prisoners the right to vote in all cases and outlaw compensation claims. Such a result would seem a set-back for the government, which was thought to favour a limited franchise on prisoner voting. If it became law, then the government would apparently be at odds with the ECHR – precipitating an ignominious procession of grasping lags, searching