Uk politics

The Lord Sewel scandal makes me feel proud to be British. For here, thanks to some glorious John Wilkes-style dirt-digging by the Sun — in your face, Leveson! — we have a proper political scandal. This ain’t no yawn-fest about MPs claiming the cost of a Kit-Kat or accidentally favouriting a gay-porn tweet: sad little pseudo-scandals which in recent years have tainted the good name of ignominy. No, the fall of Sewel is a full-on, drugged-up, peer-and-prostitutes scandal, of the kind Britain used to be pretty good at before the square Blairites and cautious Cameroons took over. The disgracing of Sewel is a reminder of British politics at its saucy

‘Lobbying,’ writes William Waldegrave in this extraordinary memoir, ‘takes many forms.’ But he has surely reported a variant hitherto unrecorded in the annals of politics. The Cardinal Archbishop of Cardiff (‘splendidly robed and well supported by priests and other attendants’) had come to lobby him (then an education minister) against the closure of a Catholic teacher-training college. After discussion the archbishop suggested their respective entourages leave the room. Face to face and alone with Waldegrave, the archbishop told him he had a distinguished 16th-century ancestor, who was a candidate for beatification. The unspoken implication was left hanging. ‘The Roman Catholic college duly closed,’ adds Waldegrave, ‘and I heard no more

What does John Major have in common with Nancy Dell’Olio? Click on the image to read in full. Clearly, a love of speech-writer-style paragraphing, sans-serif fonts, and free drinks. (I’m sure Major’s a lot of fun – he’s always been my favourite prime minister – but would he really have put those words in bold?) The best thing about no longer being a parliamentary candidate is that my inbox has been liberated from its endless national campaign spam. ‘Support us!’ they cried, ‘Then, support us some more!’ Even though I already was. It was inexhaustible briefcase verbiage – written either by someone who hadn’t thought about it all, or, sadly,

Some Labour MPs have been expressing their regret at the fun and games they indulged in to get Jeremy Corbyn onto the leadership contest ballot paper back in the heady days when this was about ‘broadening the debate’, rather than the guy actually having a chance of winning. Now that another poll suggests he could be in with a shot, the fun and games looks rather less fun. That’s why Tony Blair was so forceful this morning, and that’s why MPs such as Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna have been so agitated in public about the matter. But those in the party who are horrified that Corbyn is gaining so

Tory MPs are currently hearing from Lynton Crosby at a special meeting of the 1922 Committee on his election victory. Many of them are wryly amused that they are having to applaud a campaign that they found restrictive, uninspiring and negative – and which they think relied on Alex Salmond as a bogeyman, not the Tories’ own appeal in order to win the election. But they will be applauding the Wizard of Oz nonetheless today because whether or not he did, as he claims, know all along that the party would win the election outright, he did run a campaign that led to an election win, and there’s not much point

In the past few minutes, Ipsa has confirmed that it will give MPs a 10 per cent pay rise that means they’ll get £74,000 a year, backdated to 8 May 2015. This, for those who are shouting at their individual MP for giving himself or herself a pay rise, is a decision that MPs cannot resist, although a number of them spoke out in favour of or against the move. David Cameron had pleaded with the independent body to drop plans for the pay hike, but today Ipsa Chair Sir Ian Kennedy said: ‘Parliament gave IPSA the power to deal with the vexed issue of MPs’ pay – independent of

Labour is in an almighty mess at the moment. Those involved in the leadership campaigns are surprised by how the mood in the party has changed from quite open acceptance of a need to change in the days after the election defeat to angry dissent when change is suggested, as evidenced by the reaction to Harriet Harman’s welfare policies this week. The party isn’t quite having a row about what it should stand for at the next election, preferring instead to argue about how it does opposition for the next eight weeks, most of which are in Parliamentary recess. Here are the various options for what Labour does, both in

Andy Burnham has been vociferous in his opposition to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, and made his views clear at a stormy meeting of the Shadow Cabinet this morning. He followed that meeting with a speech to the press gallery about his candidacy to become Labour leader in which he repeated his opposition to that legislation. He even went so far as to lump Harriet Harman in with George Osborne in one of his jokes, which won’t stop sniping from some sections of the party that Harman is behaving in a ‘Tory’ manner (this comes as a great surprise to anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to

The SNP’s 56 MPs will vote against relaxing the hunting ban on Wednesday, the party has announced. The party’s stance was decided at a meeting of the party this evening, with the SNP saying it is ‘right’ that the party ‘assert the Scottish interest on fox hunting by voting against the Tories’ proposals to relax the ban’. There are only 90 minutes to debate the measure on Wednesday, but inevitably some of that precious time will be taken up with MPs asking what the ‘Scottish interest’ on this matter is. What this means now, as I explained earlier, is that the measure is likely to fail. It is one thing