Scandal

Andrew Gilligan explains why Lutfur Rahman’s victory in Tower Hamlets is a potentially alarming development. Obviously, this is a humiliation for Ed Miliband. The victory of a de-selected Labour councillor is bad enough, but what does he say about Ken Livingstone’s involvement in Rahman’s campaign? Widening those imploring eyes, offering an apologetic shrug and saying “Ken will be Ken” probably won’t cut the mustard this time. Perversely, Livingstone might benefit from Rahman’s victory, as it has allowed him to resuscitate his ‘Red Ken the insurgent’ pose – and you can’t get much more cynically subversive than this latest stunt. Questions will and should be asked of his close association with

Denis MacShane, the lachrymose MP for Rotherham, has been suspended following the Privilege and Standards Committee’s decision to report him to the Metropolitan Police. MacShane also got into scalding water recently when he castigated a member of IPSA’s staff with what might be termed ‘most unparliamentary language’. MacShane is one of the old guard who had a flagrant disregard for the public purse. But, even so, he has a point when it comes to IPSA. A bad system is no better than one easily exploited. Ben Brogan explains in his Telegraph column: ‘No wonder then that they, along with the MPs who survived the May cull, are frustrated by the

Exactly as the headline says, really. Interviewed by Mehdi Hasan in this week’s New Statesman, Sayeeda Warsi claims that the Tories “lost” at least three seats in the election because of electoral fraud. The article observes: ‘This is the first time a senior minister has made such a blunt and specific allegation about the impact of electoral fraud on the general election result. Can she reveal the names of those seats? ‘I think it would be wrong to start identifying them,’ she says, but adds: ‘It is predominantly within the Asian community. I have to look back and say we didn’t do well in those communities, but was there something

John Rentoul has already pulled the best passage from this preview of a forthcoming radio series on Gordon Brown. But I reckon that the testimony of Spencer Livermore, the former strategy chief in No.10, deserves a spot in the Westminster scrapbook: “Mr Livermore, who was Downing Street’s director of political strategy, regrets not warning about the downside of scrapping the election when Team Brown got cold feet as polling in marginal seats suggested only a slim Labour majority. ‘I don’t think it’s possible. Does anyone?’ the Prime Minister told his inner circle at the crucial meeting. The mood was ‘very, very sombre’, according to Mr Livermore. Ed Miliband told Mr

Let’s face it. This wasn’t a classic. Today’s PMQs featured a duel of the deputies. Nick Clegg, who leads part of the government, faced Jack Straw who’s so far from leading anything that he isn’t even a candidate in the race to head his currently driverless party. Unfortunately, Mr Straw had left all his good questions at home. He had to improvise at the last moment. Andy Coulson was all he could think of. He asked if Nick Clegg ‘was entirely satisfied’ that Coulson knew nothing about phone-tapping while he was editor of the News of the World. The only thing Nick Clegg is entirely satisfied with is himself and

Lucy Manning reports that Keith Vaz’s Home Affairs Select Committee will convene an investigation into the phone tapping scandal. Hauling Yates up before his eminence was a sleight of hand, calling for a second inquiry is as obvious as Jordan. Labour is confident and Coulson is their target. However, the Home Affairs Committee is more likely to examine the police’s inept investigations than the inner workings of a tabloid newsroom. (And so, according to Vaz, it will transpire.) Coulson will remain in the clear unless the CPS brings a prosecution on the basis of Sean Hoare’s new evidence. Labour will catch some collateral flak if this appeal goes ahead –

Up until today, the Hague-Myers story was confined to scurrilous rumour on Guido’s blog and the occasional cautious article in the Telegraph or the Mail; the rest of the media were uninterested. But, as James notes, Hague’s two extraordinarily frank statements, particularly yesterday’s impassioned denial to ‘set the record straight’, have forced the issue into the mainstream political debate. The personal always becomes political. What of William Hague’s judgement? John Redwood condemns Hague’s ‘poor judgement’ in personal matters before going on to cast aspersions on his policy judgements, particularly those relating to the EU. Iain Martin discusses Hague’s supposedly pro-Arabist sympathies: ‘Is Israel getting a fair hearing?’ he asks. Iain

The new parliament has drawn its teeth but the MPs’ expenses scandal continues. Throughout June and July, Westminster rumbled with aggravation about IPSA. There were whispers of MPs flying off the handle at IPSA staff; yesterday brought concrete reports of outright threats and intimidation. The accounts in this morning’s press are shaming, even by the standards of this saga of pornos and sugar-daddies. IPSA’s staff have been reduced to tears by raging MPs, they have been sworn at and told that the system they operate is a ‘fucking abortion’. Owing to legislation introduced during the previous parliament, I’d be prosecuted if I informed the guard on a delayed train that

Nick Clegg has made this statement on Channel Four News: ‘I have always been open that my personal opinion that the legal base is not justified for our going into war. That wasn’t the view of the previous government, this government as a whole, the new coalition government, doesn’t take a view on the legality of it. But I don’t think it is right for me to enter government and somehow completely airbrush out well-known personal views that I have held and expressed for a very long time. ‘I am the deputy prime minister, I am also a human being who feels with great conviction about things. I don’t think

If only PMQs were more like select committee sessions. Sure, the latter aren’t completely free from tribalism, even if it takes a subtler hue – but they are still considerably more insightful than Wednesday’s pantomime in the chamber. Frequently, they play like a demonstration of how democracy can, and should, work. Such was the case with George Osborne’s appearance before the Treasury Select Committee this morning.  The questions, particularly those on whether the Budget hits the poorest hardest, were generally measured and insistent.  But Osborne stood up well through it all, pointing out how any party in power would have to implement hefty spending cuts and tax rises.  And he

This afternoon’s education question felt like a pressure valve being released. For a week now, the story has been all about the heat building-up under Michael Gove. But, today, the Education Secretary looked far more comfortable, and managed to swing the blowtorch back in Ed Balls’ direction. The message that the coalition had been struggling to make previously came out clear and loud: the Building Schools for the Future cuts are a result of waste and bureaucratic mismanagement by the previous government. And Gove even came armed with examples, such as the £1.3 million paid to an individual consultant from the BSF fund. His point: this would be better directed

John Rentoul, who knows a successful Labour leader when he sees one, is having palpitations about David Miliband’s latest hustings speech. Everyone seems to be in fact. I’ve taken a look, following the Berkeleian principle that if everyone thinks something is important it invariably is. It’s a good speech. At last, one of the Labour leadership contenders has attacked Gordon Brown. Under Gordon Brown, Miliband argues, Labour’s failings, spin and high-handedness intensified. An expression about Sherlock and excrement comes to mind, but the first stage in a party’s renewal is to admit defeat, acknowledge failure and offer contrition. David Miliband has begun that process, which can only serve him well.