A Great Parliamentary Moment ... and the Queen's Speech

The Queen's Speech is usually one of the highlight's of the parliamentary year - but this year it seemed very slimmed down (and as a small state Tory I have no problem with that) but the relative lack of business does demonstrate a certain lack of focus and direction on the part of the government. However, whatever Brown's last full parliamentary year hailed, it was unlikely to beat the statement by Speaker Martin, which really did give us a marvellous parliamentary occasion.

It wasn't really much to do with what he said - although the revelations about the police not having a warrant may cause problems for the Acting Commissioner - but the tone and manner of the Point-of-Order contributions that followed it. What followed was a general cross party debate, where party advantage wasn't pressed and where the primacy of the Commons was at stake. MPs of all sides showed the dignified and serious response that this situation demands. The contributions from former Tory Leaders Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith, former LibDem Leader Sir Ming Campbell, former Minister Denis McShane, former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg and Tory grandee Sir Patrick Cormack delivered well presented, relevant and forensic insights into the current problem - demonstrating why our parliamentary democracy needs former frontbenchers to stay in the House to use their wisdom and experience in such a way. And when Ashford MP Damian Green spoke it was to deliver a perfectly crafted and devasting attack on the whole affair.

This clearly isn't the end of the matter and it will go on; however I think a competent performance by Speaker Martin may guarantee his job for a while yet. However if this gets worse then he could yet be in trouble.

What made me smile was the govenrment mortgage plan; not in the Queen's Speech but announced today, knocking the Green affair off the top media slot. Deliberate? From Brown? Hasn't he given up spin?

Of all the comments about the LibDem Leadership this has to be the stupidest...

Somebody from Pinner, in Middlesex, has just texted BBC News 24 to say of Ming's resignation: "one down, now its David Cameron's turn".

This person needs help, either that or the people of Pinner do to put up with him/her.

A Leader in Trouble...

No, surprisingly not Gordon. Tonight's YouGov poll for the Sunday Times is pretty dramatic - showing a 3 percent lead for David Cameron, turning around his party's polling position. However the really interesting figure isn't the 41-38 Conservative-Labour figure but the woefully low 11% (yes, eleven percent!!!) for the LibDems.

Now that the yellow peril have some time before any election I wonder how long before Sir Ming gets a visit from the men in grey suits? This doddery old fool is dragging down his party day after day, and yet amusingly the sheepdog loyalty of his party (and bloggers) keeps him in post even when public confidence in him is through the floor.

Everytime a LibDem blogger bleats on about Sir Ming's good points it makes me smile because it helps ensure he stays in place and continues their decline.

Ming's judgement in question (again)

The leader's speech is a traditional conference set piece which should inspire the troops and win good publicity. The LibDem chief has, I'm told, failed on both counts. The BBC is leading on his claim that he isn't too old to lead the party and says that with age comes experience and judgement.

Sir Ming was wrong to do this - by even including it in the speech he has skewed his own media story. This is probably the one speech that will definitely get coverage and to waste it by fueling the leadership story is a classic example of his lack of judgement.

Added to his tax-the-rich call, his EU referendum u-turn and his closeness to Brown you have to wonder if he has any judgement at all.

Sir Ming sets a new low for a political leader

Ming Campbell's call for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU was clearly designed to be a political masterstroke, so how did it go so wrong?

Sir Ming has previously ruled out a vote on the EU Constitution despite promising one just 2 years earlier. He then suffered ridicule from the press and, more damagingly, his own side via the blogosphere. Then days later, Sir Ming aimed to trumpt his critics by calling for a vote on the whole question of Britain's EU membership. Instead of declaring this a brilliant act of democracy, the collective political wisdom of the nation stumbled backwards, stratched its head and said "what?!?"

The LibDems don't have a problem with Britain's membership of the EU - why call a referendum and then campaign for a "yes" vote? Doesn't this just give fuel to the UKIPers around the place?

But the biggest problem is this. I would probably (though not certainly) vote to saty in the EU but to reject the constitution. So what would I do in the LibDem referendum? If I voted "yes" it would seem as if I were backing the constitution, but if I voted "no" it would say I wanted to pull out of the EU.

This policy is so muddled, and so stupid, that it failed to achieve any of his objectives and just reinforced how shaky his leadership really is. This was badly thought through knee-jerk reaction - the kind we in the Tories were used to seeing under IDS. It looked good for five and a half seconds and then the reality of this latest rushed-policy sinks in.

Campbell, and by extension the LibDems, now have no credibility on this at all. I know some LibDems are tearing up their membership cards, others are openly calling on him to resign. If their parliamentary party could be ruthless with Kennedy, why aren't they showing more guts when it comes to useless old buffer Sir Ming?

Apart from Iraq, what are the LibDems for?

The LibDems spoilt their summer of silence with a brief period of media activity when Gordon Brown replied to a letter written by Sir Ming demanding the withdrawl of troops from Iraq. It is, therefore, a surprise that the next LibDem media hit is ... Iraq, again.

Apparently Sir Ming has made a video about the issue and will use their conference to put it centre stage. Why?

Is there a single person who doesn't know the LibDem policy on this? And, more importantly for them, is there a single vote still to be won with this issue?

Why are they not trying to expand their single issue USP and at least trying to make the next election competetive? The Tories learnt the long, hard way what this does to a party. Our experience with Europe tells us something. If you find an issue that your party loves but the country doesn't rate then don't expect to win an election by banging on and on about it.

Telegraph: Sir Ming is the problem

The Daily Telegraph today ponders what bloggers have bene discussing for weeks now - the decline, or at the best invisibility, of the LibDems. The biggest selling UK quality paper decides that their problem isn't policy but the leader of the party, and the Telegraph launch quite a ferocious attack on poor old Sir Ming. Some LibDems have had the guts to say what lots more must be thinking - that he simply cannot stand the pace of a general election and hasn't got what it takes to even be the leader in peace time.

However, whereas a few months ago LibDems I know in Norwich were actively talking about having time to dump him as leader, nearly all of them now believe he will lead them into the next poll and the time for change has passed. This is a sad state of affairs for their party. Are they really willing to throw away everything Kennedy achieved because of this one man? It seems to them, and now me, that a bad result is what they have to go through to get rid of him.

This all reminds me of the dying days of the IDS leadership - only then the Tories had the time to allow Howard to heal the party, whilst the LibDems are having their IDS moment on the potential eve of an election.

Live Blogging PMQs

As this is probably the third most important PMQs Cameorn has faced (behind his first with Blair and then the first with Brown - both wins for Cameron) I thought I would live blog my views on how all sides do.

Brown flanked by Labour Deputy Leader Harman and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith - looks good for TV. They are wearing matching white suits!

Tory MP Phillip Davies raises the issue of the release of dangerous prisoners without tags. A strong political start. Brown hits back with support from various organisations. Brown says they were only allowed out 18 days early. Well, that's OK then! Jibe about the Tories not having enough money to pay for extra prison places.

Stroud MP David Drew raises the flood issues and says that it cannot take as long as it does to get mains water re-connected. Why should this sort of crisis mean that people should be without water for so long? Brown sends wishes to all those impacted by floods and praises those working to get the situation sorted. He looks a little shocked that it was his own MP that raised this. Brown is now reading a pre-scripted answer and failing to look sincere. He is, however, providing a very full answer. Brown says he is visiting the area today, taking Tory and Labour backbenchers with him.

Cameron rises to prolonged cheers from the Tory cheers. Cameron pays tributes to soldiers killed in Iraq. He then praises councils and emergency services in their work against the floods. Cameron says he wants to look to the future ... will the Environment Agency and councils now work together to reduce impact on critical services. Cameron looks consensual and Brown returns in kind. Brown lays out the focus of the inquiry into the flooding. Brown welcomes the stance of the Conservatives on this.

Cameron thanks Brown - Speaker stops Labour shouting down Cameron - he "names" a Labour MP for barracking. Cameron asks if councils will be forced to fund the first part of the flood repair bills because Brown has previously said that the insurance would cover 100%. Brown says that funding available will be 46million for just 2 counties. Brown not answering the question about percentages. Brown says flood defence spending has been increased.

Cameron asks what the government can do to make sure that insurance companies pay up speedily. Does the PM think that the hardship funds locally will be enough? Good questions from Cameron and he has come across well. Brown talks about crisis grants to help the uninsured. Brown says he wants to make sure people insure in future.

Rosemary McKenna, a Scottish Labour MP, asks what we can do to return confidence in broadcasters. Brown says he'll look into it.

Campbell, the LibDem Leader, rises to some cheers and pays tribute as Brown and Cameron have done. He says that he has seen the work on the ground - a jibe at Cameron. In the review set up, Campbell asks, will there be a detailed assessment of all impact on all critical services across the country and not just those in flooding areas? Infrastructure should be safe from flooding, and that includes all sites across the country says Brown. He offers Campbell the chance to look at the terms of reference.

Campbell now raises the Stern Report and the economic consequences of climate change. Will Brown spend the money to combat climate change? Brown says that he has increased spending on flood defences. He avoids Campbell's question.

Eric Illsley says that the smoking ban and high taxation is impacting on bingo clubs. Would Brown meet with him to discuss the issue? Brown says he will.

Graham Brady, the Tory MP who quit over grammar schools, raises to ironic cheers. He asks if Blair was right to give up £7bn Euro rebate? The Speaker tells off the Tories this time! Brown says the Tories don't support the enlargement of the EU ... a weak answer.

Dari Taylor asks about looked after children. Brown gives a strong answer and says he will meet to find a way forward.

Cameron leaps to his feet to raise the EU Constitution - to more ironic cheers! - and says that 90%-98% of the constitution is the same, according to the Irish and Spanish PMs. What % does the PM think is the same? Speaker Martin tells off Labour MPs again. Brown says Tories back on the old agenda. Brown lists objectives secured by the government and says Cameron should back the constitution. Brown quotes Ken Clarke saying the Tory position was absurd.

Cameron hits back by quoting Brown - who promised a vote and then backtracked. Cameron lists the good and the great who say that the constitution is the same. He presses him for the percentage that is the same. Brown continues to avoid the question, he falls back on a long-winded quote. Still no answer to Cameron's question. Tories getting restless.

Cameron asks why he doesn't wake up - and quotes the Trade Minister saying it is the same. Ah! say the Tories. Cameron says that if Brown wants to reintroduce trust into politics he will hold the vote. Brown says Cameron back to the old agenda - didn't take long after Ealing Southall by-election. Wheels are coming off the Tory bicycle ... lucky he has a car coming after him! Good joke, but Brown fails to answer the question again. Overall, a marginal win for Cameron but not his best performance.

Islington MP Emily Thornberry asks about the Royal Mail Strike. Brown says inflation is more important than wages.

LibDem MP Sir Robert Smith asks the PM to bring the British forces home from Basra and put them into Afghanistan. Brown says numbers are down and basically the answer is "no".

Mary Creagh, a Labour backbencher, asks about the need to change the law so that people are not scalded by hot water. Brown thanks her and says that she has done a great campaign. Guidance will be given to hot water installators. He will meet her.

Angus Robertson, SNP, says opinion polls puts Salmond ahead of Brown. Will he back Jack McConnell to be the Labour Leader? Yes, says Brown, and Labour have done well in Scotland. Hopes the SNP won't wreck the economy.

Lindsay Hoyle, Labour, asks if the government will back the new aircraft carrier building to support industry. Brown says yes.

David Heathcote-Amory, Conservative MP, asks what the PM will do to heal English and Scottish drift. Brown says 70% voted against independence ... throws it back to Cameron, does he support devolution?

Groans as Chris Bryant asks about child poverty - a good question, well put and those MPs who groaned must feel silly. Brown gives a list of statistics to show how Labour are making things better. Yawn. Nothing about the future here.

LibDems down to just 12 % in new poll

On the eve of the Brown premiership, a new YouGov poll puts the Conservatives ahead again, but the sensational result is the LibDem share sinking to just 12%.

I have said time and time again that you cannot tell anything specific from individual polls, only the general trend of the polls over a few months. However if the LibDems continue to struggle in the 12-15 box, as several polls over a few weeks have had them, then questions are going to have to be asked about Campbell's leadership.

Ming Campbell is "completely divorced from reality"

Of all the stupid policies currently hanging around the necks of LibDem candidates and councillors around the country there can be nothing more stupid than today's so-called radical plan to build 1,000,000 new homes over 10 years.

Apparently this will be done by getting council's to buy land from farmers at a knock down price, give it planning permission and then sell it onto developers (at a profit). Can anyone see the problem with this cunning plan? Which farmer is actually going to do it?

The Country Land and Business Association has described Sir Ming's scheme as "completely divorced from reality". President David Fursdon said the system was "open to so much abuse" as councils would be deciding whether to grant permission for schemes that would make them huge sums of money. "And why is it that it's OK for the local authority to do something on the land when it's not for the private landowner?"

So now everyone who lives near farm land better ask their local LibDems if they plan to plonk houses on them. A bad idea from an increasingly desperate leader of an increasingly desperate party.

The Question every LibDem candidate will now have to answer

The moment that LibDem Leader Sir Ming stood up to do a speech that involved rubbishing Cameron and setting tests for entry into a Brown-led coalition, their party candidates up and down the country must have groaned a collective groan.

And what they feared the most has finally popped into my inbox. The big question.

If the Conservatives and Labour both get, say, 300 seats each at the next election who would you use your vote to sustain in office - David Cameron or Gordon Brown?

That is what one resident of Norwich wanted to know tonight and I am sure it'll be what a lot of people want to know before they vote. I know that several LibDem PPCs read this site, maybe they'd like to be honest and give their answer now?

LibDems? Honest? Don't hold your breath ... but they can't avoid the question for very much longer!

ICM Poll: Cameron 42%, Brown 29%

Over at pb.com they are discussing the latest ICM poll which shows Cameron back at the 40% mark but, more interestingly, with a 13 point lead if the Chancellor took over. Most of this swing to the Tories comes at the expense of the LibDems, but it will give Labour MPs and activists in marginal seats a lot to think about before they opt for the cash-saving coronation of Mr Brown.

I have argued over the last week or so that Cameron is moving further ahead as the best PR and media operator of the party leaders. LibDem Leader Sir Ming Campbell has had a quiet couple of weeks whilst Dave leads a lot of the political news. This seems, on the face of it, to pay off for the young Mr Cameron. It doesn't matter what he says, as long as he's on TV or radio saying it!

However, it has also been pointed out to me that the swing if Brown were Labour Leader (which is, incidentally, enough to put Cameron in No.10 with a decent majority) also sees large numbers of LibDems opt for the Tories. Is this because the thought of Brown is so scary that a lot of LibDems will vote for the only way to stop him ... i.e. Conservative?

I would be interested in what you have to say, but we have to agree that this is a decent poll for Cameron and a bad one for Brown (and, by default, for Campbell). But as we know, one poll does not an election win make.

My Predictions for 2007

Wales: Labour will lose their majority in the Welsh assembly with the Tories becoming the second party winning some surprising seats. At this high Nick Bourne will resign and the party will elect a younger, more Cameronesque leader.

Scotland: Labour will face a difficult election but will remain the large party in the parliament. Other parties will attempt to form a coalition but will fail, leading to a fragile Labour / LibDem administration limping on.

Labour Leadership: John Hutton will be the only candidate to take on Gordon Brown for the top job, with the election coming in June or July. Brown will win by a decent margin and Hutton will then refuse to serve in a Brown-led cabinet. Despite a big bounce in the polls, Labour's finances mean that Brown cannot go for a snap poll.

The cabinet: At least seven current ministers will go - (obviously Blair and Prescott) but I think Armstrong, Straw, Smith, Beckett, Hutton, Jowell and Falconer as well. How about this - Brown is elected Leader and Hilary Benn his Deputy. In a move that angers a lot of people (and the Daily Mail), he appoints fellow Scot Alistair Darling as the new Chancellor. John Reid takes a lower profile role as Leader of the House, which allows Alan Johnson to be the new Home Secretary as a reward for not taking on Gordon. Ruth Kelly is shifted over to somethin like International Development as she is given more time to defend her marginal parliamentary seat. David Milliband will be given a promotion to a major spending department like Education. Hewitt will survive as Health Secretary. Dull but loyal Stephen Timms will creep up the ladder again - maybe to Trade Secretary? Des Browne will move on from Defence into a less potent job like Constitutional Affairs. As he failed to be elected Deputy Leader, Peter Hain is appointed the new Foreign Secretary. Hazel Blears is shifted out of the Party Chairmanship and is replaced by Douglas Alexander. Blears is given a difficult role such as Work and Pensions.

Shadow Cabinet: Cameron will flesh out his version of Conservatism and it will reassure both the right of the party and the Daily Telegraph. David Davis will take on a much higher profile role. Cameron will use the summer as a chance to set in stone the team he wants to go into the next election. Hague will take the title of Deputy Leader byt both he and Osbourne will keep their present jobs. May will be downgraded again but will stay in the shadow cabinet. Grayling will be promoted again, as will Villiers. Some of Cameron's key players such as Gove, Vaizey and Herbert will make the shadow cabinet.

Norwich: Labour will hold on at the 2007 poll but only as a result of a split opposition. The Greens will continue to make gains (plural) and Labour will hold their key seats. Conservatives to hold onto Catton Grove and make further gains.

National: Cameron will score very well across the country, partly because of his strength in England and partly because of the introduction of STV in Scotland. Labour have a bad night - another factor in Brown's decision not to call a snap election. The LibDems will score a net reduction in seats.

LibDems: Following a bad May poll, Sir Ming Campbell will retire citing ill-health. A leadership election will follow that will be fought by Clegg, Huhne and Lamb. Huhne will win - only just and the two losers will be his Home and Foreign Affairs spokespeople. Cable will carry on as Deputy Leader and Treasury Spokesman. They will be forced to repay the £2.4m Brown money but it will not bankrupt the party.

LibDems down to 15% in latest YouGov poll

I don't believe individual opinion polls *at all* and I put my faith rather more in the trends of pollsters. However, the sight of LibDems across the blog-o-sphere squirming about the latest YouGov is too much for a blue-blooded Tory like me to resist.

For a party that stands for "winning here" and being the "growing party", such a rebuff to the dynamic leadership of Sir Ming must be hard to take.

Seriously though my little LibDem chums - calm down, take stock, this is one poll so don't panic. If a 6 or 12 month trend shows you in the 15-18% box you can panic then, but not now.

Happy Christmas!

Ming's reshuffle

Ey, gads! You take a couple of days out with the family, you then find out that in your political absence a major political reshuffle had taken place ... oh, no, sorry it was Sir Ming's LibDems shuffling a couple of people you've never heard of around in jobs that didn't matter.

Professor Steve Webb (anonymous rating: who?!?!?!) has been asked to write their manifesto - this is, despite the thick trowl of sarcasm, very significant as Prof. Webb is very much considered to be on the left-leaning SDP wing of the LibDems.

Webb's old position as LibDem Health Spokesman is taken by North Norfolk's Norman Lamb (anonymous rating: haven't I seen you somewhere before deary?!?!). This is a good move for the LibDems as Lamb is one of their better performers but it could be a bit of a poision challace for Mr Lamb as his own constituency faces some pretty deep NHS cuts.

Lamb's old job as Chief of Staff to Grandpa Sir Ming goes to youthful Kingston MP Ed Davey (anonymous rating: ah, it's thingy...). I had heard whispers that Ming was a bit fed up with Lamb's apparent pisspoor efforts and this may be the result of that feeling ... Lamb has certainly failed to give any spark or drive to Ming's leadership but to fair that is a pretty tough task. I don't know if this is true - Lamb does seem pretty good at any job he turns his hand to, but you never know what goes on behind closed doors ... especially LibDem doors.

Davey's old job as Trade Spokesman goes to Susan Kramer (anonymous rating: hmmm, looks familiar but no idea who she is) and her old Internation Development job goes to newly elected London MP Lynne Featherstone (anonymous rating: nope, no idea).

So totally underwhelming then, just like poor old Ming himself.

Anyway what has got my goat a little is the continual use of the phrase "LibDem Shadow Health Secretary". Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I think not, my little deluded yellow chums. Check the official definition of shadow cabinet or shadow positions - reserved for the principle opposition party, which is ... ah, the Conservatives!

Delusions of grandeur methinks. Get it right LibDems!

LibDems want to abolsih competition in school sports

LibDems around the country who want to be taken seriously as a force in British politics - even one that is a third party - must hold their heads in their hands and weep everytime something like this happens.

From the party that wanted rights for fairground goldfish comes the notion of abolishing competition in school sports, just as the rest of the nation finally agrees it is a good thing.

LibDem MP Sandra Gidley made the point in a recent House of Commons debate and I hope that the leadership of her party make her suffer for this. Why, I hear you think?

I am about the only person in my school who doesn't think that sport is the absolute cure-all for every problem in the system - including under-achievement and poor behaviour. I think PE is a nice run around a few hours a week, helps towards health and fitness and gives the kids a much needed laugh. I was the fat kid who was always last to be picked - but I didn't care because generally I enjoyed the sport despite being absolutely awful at it. But that aside I think the one thing it does teach the pupils is that you can't win all the time ... unlike academic subjects where "deferred success" has replaced "failure" in our lexicon, PE remains a bastion of reality. You win some, you lose some. Fact of life, etc etc.

Only the LibDems, who are becoming increasingly illiberal on such issues, want the blandness of "everyone wins a prize" to be injected into school sports.

I wonder what former Olympic runner Sir Ming Campbell would have to say about this...

Are we voting for ends or means?

The level of debate in the pastoral office at school has been raisied this week, as we move on from the future of the penny-sweet industry to political ideology and thought.

My good friend, colleague and Eaton resident is threatening not to vote next May. He is classic LibDem fodder (young, caring, pro-environment, basically a bit left wing but hates New Labour) but as I have scratched the surface of his beliefs he shows worrying signs towards authortarian Toryism.

Anyway, his complain was that the parties were "all the same these days." "Nonsense", I declared. I believe that is the lazy answer for people who don't want to think things through. Are you honestly saying, I went on, that all three parties have the same education policies, the same tax proposals or the same ideas on immigration?

"Ah-ha", he quickly rebutted, all of those things are about the micro-management of the system not about broad based ideological differences. Such an arguement got me thinking. In the 80s we had the classic Conservativism versus Socialism debate, personaified (if you like) by Thatcher and Foot. A classic cold-war battle being fought in British politics.

Name any three major party frontbenchers and I'd bet you they'd agree on the projected outcome for the country. We all want a strong economy, good education, a working transport system etc. However, where we disagree is how to achieve that - so politics is becoming about the means rather than the ends.

So, says my friend, he is being asked to vote for slightly differenent versions of management rather than for political leadership. Before he votes he wants to see a real battle of ideas - not the day-to-day policy of school funding, but of where we want British edcuation to go and do.

Maybe he has a point, I concluded. After all, Cameron, Blair and Campbell could probably draw up a "vision statement" on which they could all sign up to. So we, the voters, have no choice about where UK plc is going - just a choice of vehicle to get there.

Any interesting arguement and so much more worthwhile than guessing whatever happened to all those 80s bands you just don't hear of anymore.