Parliament

Ok, ok – so PMQs may be of more interest inside Westminster than out.  But, love it or loathe it, it’s still one of those things which affects the mood music of politics and how it is reported.  Far better for a party leader to do it well, than to be bludgeoned by his opponent at the dispatch box. Which is why Team Dave should internalise Matthew Parris’s article in the Times today.  Not only is it typically readable, but it’s packed full of sound advice for how the Tory leader should present himself in the weekly knockabout sessions.  Here’s a snippet: “Millions are now eyeing Mr Cameron up as

Two weeks ago, Barry Sheerman opened a second front against Brown’s premiership by attacking Ed Balls’ appointment of Kathleen Tattersall to Ofqual without a pre-hearing before the Schools select committee. Brown had introduced a requirement that recommended appointments to offices that reported to Parliament be scrutinised by legislators prior to confirmation of their appointment. Sheerman, with characteristic venom, referred to a “sleight of hand”. This afternoon, Balls defended himself and his permanent secretary, arguing that the committee did not object to the appointment when it was made in July 2008, and any rate the pre-hearing was not operational then. I don’t know whose memory is accurate. If Balls is correct

So MPs have until the end of today to declare whether they’re appealing against Sir Thomas Legg’s request that they repay certain expenses claims.  Three have already done just that, one from each of the main parties: Jeremy Browne, Frank Cook and Bernard Jenkin.  You imagine that more may follow throughout the day, especially given the rumblings that the Legg review contained a fair few errors. Now, it’s only fair that MPs have a right of appeal – but you still wonder what it will mean for the expenses saga more generally.  From the public’s perspective, a swathe of appeals could look like MPs resisting reform.  From Parliament’s perspective, it

As Andrew Sparrow says, it’s well worth reading Iain Dale’s interview with John Bercow in the latest issue Total Politics.  It’s a fun read, mostly because the Speaker is remarkably candid – a quality that’s normally to be admired in a politician.  But I can’t help thinking that he made a mistake in admitting this:   “I received various approaches from various senior people in the Labour party saying: ‘Aw, you know, we’d love to have you on board. We think you’re being discarded by the Conservatives. We think you’d be quite at home with us.’ Senior people, not in a formal setting, but people sidling up to you –

We all know how bureaucratic and convoluted a lot of Parliamentary practice is, but this reminder from Heather Brooke of the bodies involved in reforming MPs’ pay and expenses is still pretty astonishing: “Currently we have: the senior salaries review body (which makes recommendations on MPs’ salaries and pensions); the committee on standards and privileges (appointed by the House of Commons to decide on complaints against individual MPs reported to them by the parliamentary commissioner for standards – currently John Lyon); the committee on standards in public life (which deals with complaints about unethical conduct among MPs – the current chair is Sir Christopher Kelly); the members allowances committee (made

And so the expenses scandal rumbles inevitably on.  If you want the latest on all the dubious claims our, erm, honourable representatives made in 2008-09, then I’d recommend Andrew Sparrow’s live blog over at the Guardian – and Guido’s got a good round-up here.  But, behind all that, there’s a u-turn which is almost as embarrassing for the government as all those dodgy, dodgy receipts. Remember when Gordon Brown neglected to mention MP’s expenses, or the Kelly reforms, as part of his legislative agenda in the Queen’s Speech?  The decision was immediately launched on by Sir Christopher Kelly himself, and set up some juicy attacks for the Tories.  Well, as

Does Cameron fluff PMQs on purpose? Some theorists say he lets Brown off the hook in order to keep the weakling in his job. I don’t buy that. A politician’s natural instinct makes him want to win every session, every question. But Brown sometimes sneaks through intact because Dave rarely varies his tactics. He doesn’t prepare ambushes. He never ponders what Brown wants to hear least. Today the Tories had a great opportunity. Brown’s recent flip-flop over the training of TA soldiers for Afghanistan was inspired, in part, by Dave himself, who raised the issue a fortnight ago. But Dave’s tone was wrong. He thought he was the point –

An intriguing item in today’s Telegraph, which suggests Brown is planning to offer MPs a pay-rise to stem backbench anger over both the Legg and Kelly reviews into expenses.  The idea is to boost the standard MP’s salary by about £3,000 and pay for it by cutting ministers’ salaries – so there’d be no further cost to the taxpayer.  But you imagine even that fact won’t rally much public support for this idea. As I’ve written before, proposals to raise MPs’ pay shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.  But it’s dispiriting that these latest plans are all about saving Brown’s hide, and have come about without consulting voters.  It’s also