Politics

IPSA, IPSA, IPSA.  If there’s one thing exercising MPs across all parties at the moment, then it’s the new expenses regime in the Commons: the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.  I won’t run through all of their grievances here, mainly because you can find good summaries here, here and here.  But they are already a frustrating mix of seemingly legitimate concerns (about staff wages) and outrageous whining (about not having taxi fares paid for before 11pm)(erm, pay for them yourself). The latest news is that John Bercow is going to intervene, to “ensure the new rules are interpreted reasonably and that MPs are treated courteously.” That may not sound like much,

It is quite telling that David Cameron’s first newspaper article since becoming Prime Minister is for the Daily Mail, and even more telling that its central message is, “you still have a Conservative Prime Minister”.  There then follows a series of reassurances about Dave’s political motivations (“I believe the state is your servant, never your master. I believe in the common sense and decency of the British people”) and about the policies contained in the coalition agreement. One line that jumped out at me, though, is this rather inspid description of the Tories’ radical school reform agenda: “We’re also giving parents, charities and other organisations the opportunity to set up

A week ago, I wondered whether the Labour leadership contest might produce a “cuts candidate”: someone prepared to responsibly debate the fiscal situation as part of their campaign. But, as Danny Finkelstein has noted, none of the candidates so far has even mentioned the deficit, let alone suggested solutions for trimming it. Their wilful silence on the issue is starting to look bizarre, to say the least. The worry, though, is that it will also prove dangerous.  So long as the d-word doesn’t get a look in, Ed Balls is blissfully free to do what he does best, and bang on misleadingly about “investment vs cuts”.  He certainly seizes the

In a move of breath-taking audacity, David Cameron has just announced that there will be a ballot of the parliamentary party to establish whether or not members of the government payroll vote will be able to be full voting members of the 1922 Committee. This may seem like a small technical change but it is of massive importance: it would hugely limit the power of Conservative backbenchers to hold the government to account. When the Conservative party has been in government, the 1922 Committee has been the voice of the backbenchers. It is how they have held Conservative ministers and prime ministers to account. Cameron’s move, if successful, would effectively

With Ed Balls and John McDonnell announcing their candidatures for the Labour leadership, it’s clear that Labour’s soul-searching period has now begun in earnest.  Speaking in front of the cameras just now, Balls reeled of the lines that he’s been priming over the past week: “listening … immigration … listening … beyond Blair and Brown,” etc.  While McDonnell was keen to separate himself from the other candidates, describing them as the “sons of Blair and the sons of Brown”. Both of them might care to read David Lammy’s appraisal of where it went wrong for Labour – and where it went right for Cameron – in tomorrow’s issue of the

I would like to defend the coalition from allegations that there has been a deplorable Tory concession on the Human Rights Act. Tearing it up was never in the Tory manifesto. Dominic Grieve, who drafted the Tory plan, is one of those lawyers who is rather passionate about the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and praised it in his maiden speech. I had many conversations with him about this: for Britain to pull out of it, he said, would send an “odd” signal to the countries on the fringes of Europe whom we were trying to pull into our orbit. Grieve’s plan was to propose a Bill of Rights