Parliament

Why argue your case when you can smear your opponent’s name? According to this morning’s Telegraph, that’s the approach that a group of MPs are taking over the Sir Thomas Legg letters. The plan they’re apparently considering is to use parliamentary questions to find out details such as Legg’s pay, his team’s expenses and how much they’ve spent on media advice. One Tory MP tells the paper that there are “legitimate questions” about these things.  Hm. It’s not only a pernicious strategy, it’s also stupid.  Even if MPs manage to uncover some sort of hypocrisy on Legg’s part, do they really think it will divert public anger away from them? 

Despite the circumstances of his election, Speaker Bercow is showing scant regard for the party who secured his election. First, he recommended that ministers who sat in the House of Lords, particularly the Lord Most High, should be cross-examined by MPs, and today he gave Battlin’ Bob a severe dressing down in the Commons. The very damning Gray report was debated today, and Ainsworth can hardly have been anticipating this event with generous thoughts and easy gaiety. To avoid total disaster, the cunning Defence Secretary played the ‘George Carmen card’ – that is, release the evidence an hour before the debate so that none of the participants have the time

It’s worth reading Iain Dale’s interview with Ann Widdecombe in the latest issue of Total Politics. Widdecombe is, of course, standing down at the next election, and much of the interview concerns her future plans: she wants to appear on Strictly Come Dancing, for instance, perhaps as the feminine answer to John Sergeant. But, naturally, the outspoken MP makes some forceful points about the current state of British politics. Her conclusion?  That things are so bad she’s had enough. First, she attacks Cameron’s ‘A-list’ candidate selection policy: ‘We have gone for category rather than ability. We’re looking for more women. I’m all for more women, I’m all for more members

It’s worth following Andrew Sparrow’s typically excellent live blog of the Commons culture committee’s first public hearing into the recent NotW “phone-hacking” claims.  So far, the biggest revelation has come courtesy of Nick Davies – the Guardian journalist behind the story last week – and it’s one which will please the Tories: “Davies says he has the names of 27 journalists from the NoW and four from the Sun who used a private investigator to get information. Some of the requests were legal, like electoral register searches. But many were not. Davies says he does not want to name the names. “I’m a reporter, not a police officer.” But there

There was a wonderful outbreak of wit and erudition at Parliament this morning. The sketch-writers Simon Hoggart and Matthew Parris appeared before the Public Administration Select Committee to discuss the perils of political jargon. Simon Hoggart kicked off by imagining Churchill’s war-time speeches re-written by a local government wonk. ‘We will fight on the beaches’ turned into ‘an ongoing programme of hostile engagement in littoral sectors.’ The committee chairman, Tony Wright, wondered if his anxiety about jargon was misplaced. ‘Does this drivel matter or does it just irritate us?’ Matthew Parris pointed out that jargon is attractive because it confers an aura of learning and makes idiot politicians sound like

Trevor Kavanagh’s column in The Sun today has a little story in it which shows how tense relations are between John Bercow and some MPs. ‘Thin-skinned new Commons Speaker John Bercow is a “tosser”. Not my choice of words, although it fairly describes a man who is fast becoming even more embarrassing than disgraced predecessor Michael Martin. The offensive term was used last week in an angry spat with Mr Bercow by an MP who has since apologised in writing-at Mr Bercow’s insistence. The MP is now absolved. Speaker Bercow remains a “tosser”.’ Now, I’ve no idea of the rights and wrongs of this argument and calling someone a tosser