And Another Thing…

WAS a government special adviser involved in illegal and systematic tapping of private individuals’ phones?

If the answer is yes, he will be sacked, then probably jailed. According to today’s Guardian (and the New York Times), Andy Coulson…

“actively encouraged” a named reporter to engage in the illegal interception of voicemail messages.

The right wing defence of Coulson seems to have focussed almost entirely on the fact that, since he’s a Tory, he can’t possibly have been up to no good. (Ahem!)

But while some in the blogosphere and in the media are getting all worked up about people’s sexuality and other non-stories, here is an issue that should worry us all. That the News of the World has pursued these activities in the past is not disputed. If it turns out that the Prime Minister, despite all previous warnings, employed someone guilty of these crimes, his own judgment will be called into question.

Even as you read these words, I can see the name “McBride” form on your lips: yes, what McBride did while he was a civil servant was unacceptable (though not illegal and nowhere near as serious as the charges against Coulson). And yes, it did say something about Gordon Brown’s judgment that he chose to keep him on despite warnings from colleagues about McBride’s briefings against Labour ministers. So the same rule applies to Cameron. If the allegations turn out to have any substance, Cameron will have to take full responsibility and sack the person responsible. Oh, hang on…

THE FRONT page splash in today’s Times is a truly bewildering choice when there’s so much actual, proper news going on elsewhere.

“Hawking: God did not create Universe” it reports (£). So what? Admittedly, Hawking is dead brainy and everything, but why on earth are his opinions on religious matters so important and authoritative that they should be given such prominence?

When it comes to science, we deal with facts, and theories based on facts. When it comes to God we deal with faith and personal conviction. Okay, so Hawking doesn’t have that, and that’s a shame.

But this is not front page news; it’s an overheard conversation at a dinner party – you know, the bit just before dessert and after the discussion about this year’s X-Factor.

SIX months after launching this blog in March 2008, I was chuffed beyond reason to be voted top Scottish blog in the Total Politics Blog Awards that year.

Now I’ve scooped the top spot for the third year running. Although I try to be blasé about this sort of thing, there’s no denying it gives me a tremendous amount of satisfaction. It can’t go on like this forever – the only way is down. There are some cracking blogs up Caledonia way and it’s only a matter of time before I’m brought low by some young buck (I’m looking at you, Breslin).

But in the meantime, a big thank you to everyone who included me in their top ten in the poll. Oh, now, don’t you start, you’ll get me going next…

The Total Politics Top Ten Scottish Blogs 2010 (last year’s position in brackets):

1 (1) Tom Harris MP
2 (3) Underdogs Bite Upwards
3 (2) SNP Tactical Voting
4 (7) Caron’s Musings
5 (4) Mr Eugenides
6 (-) Bright Green Scotland
7 (11) Stephen’s Liberal Journal
8 (5) Two Doctors
9 (-) Subrosa
10 (6) Malc in the Burgh

ON 15 June I sent the following letter to Alan Lockwood, “Independent” Compliance Officer (£78,000 pa) of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa):

Dear Mr Lockwood

I was interested in comments attributed to you in yesterday’s Guardian Online, under the headline, “MPs’ expenses: older generation ‘resisting’ new system”.

You are quoted in the paragraph which includes this text:

He said the system was needed to counter the perception of “enormous fiddling” but that most MPs were happy with it and only a minority “mainly of returning MPs [are] having problems adjusting”.

I would be extremely grateful if you could let me know on what evidence you base your claim that “most MPs” are happy with Ipsa’s new system. I assume that you have spoken to a majority, if not all, MPs in order to come to this conclusion, and that a majority of us have told you we are happy with the system. Was this in writing or in face-to-face discussions? If these discussions are taking place, it is the first I’ve heard of them, since one of Ipsa’s many failings is that it is notoriously difficult to get face-to-face advice from any of its representatives.

The reason I am concerned about the basis of your comments is that I have yet to encounter a single MP – new or returning – who believes that Ipsa is remotely fit for purpose. Indeed every colleague I have spoken to (so far) is of the opinion that Ipsa is a colossal waste of money and that its new expenses regime is petty, vindictive and illogical.

It seems from your interview, however, that you are more in touch with my colleagues than I am, so I would be grateful to view your response to the above points. I accept that you are a man of integrity and honour and so would never deliberately misrepresent the views of MPs simply as a public relations gambit.

Best wishes

Tom Harris MP

Eleven weeks and counting. Fear not – I shall inform you as soon as I receive a response. Or even an acknowledgement that they have received my letter. Or (more likely, bordering on inevitable) a statement claiming that no such letter has been received.

POLLY Toynbee isn’t a very happy bunny these days, is she?

She expressed disappointment in Tony Blair about 20 minutes after he arrived in Downing Street, then carped on about how wonderful things would be if only Gordon Brown took over. Then, four and a half seconds after Gordon declared he would do his “outmost”, she was berating the party for not removing him.

No doubt encouraged by her consistency, the blessed organ for which she writes endorsed the LibDems in the run-up to the election, and Polly duly expressed unconvincing surprise that Clegg’s party agreed to prop up Cameron’s government.

And now she thinks it’s “disgraceful” that Tony Blair’s memoirs – one of the most hotly anticipated political books in my lifetime and a surefire best seller – has been published on the same day that ballot papers are issued in the interminable marathon that is the Labour leadership election.

So what? Does she expect Labour Party members suddenly to slap their brows and say: “Bloody hell! I just remembered something – that bloke off of the telly, Tony Blair, who’s got that book out – didn’t he used to be leader of the Labour Party? Well in that case I refuse to participate in this sham and will henceforth join the Stop The War Coalition and/or the LibDems…”?

Undoubtedly there are those, like Polly and others of the commentariat, who will never forgive Blair for Iraq. And no doubt there are many Labour Party members who feel the same way, though their vote is unlikely to be altered by the publication of a book.

But there are still many, many Labour Party members who remember Blair as an election-winning genius who, in office, was popular for an awful lot longer than he was unpopular. For those who want us to return to government sooner rather than later, Blair’s book will be a reminder that opposition doesn’t have to be permanent, and that great things can be accomplished by a Labour government, but only if we have a leader capable of appealing to voters beyond our own party’s core.

Meanwhile, be prepared for Polly to offer her full-throated support to the next Labour leader, whoever he is – for at least an hour and a half.

SEE if you can pick out the genuine glaring inaccuracy as featured in Ed Miliband’s latest maildrop offering helpful advice on how to vote in the leadership election:

• Make sure you number all squares 1 to 5 in order of your preference with Ed Miliband No. 1

• Place the ballot paper in a cross-cut shredder to keep your vote secret

• You only need to return your ballot paper immediately if you’ve voted Ed Miliband No. 1. Otherwise, you cannot return it until January 1, 2014.

Alys Tarr has some rather more sensible advice on how the system actually works.

IS THIS what the actual ballot paper will look like? Ed M’s got it in the bag, then.

From the latest Miliband the Younger leaflet:

Reminds me of the ballot paper distributed by whips on the day of the election of the Speaker last June.

THERE’S much talk in the blogosphere and wider media today about the Labour Party “tearing itself apart”, following interventions in the leadership election by Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, not to mention the alleged full-scale war of words between the brothers Miliband.

Ha!

And again I say: Ha!

You think this is division? You really think that Peter Mandelson expressing a preference for one candidate over another and – Shock! Horror! – giving reasons for that opinion is threatening to tear the party apart?

Oh, you poor, poor, innocent fools…

I’ve recently finished reading Kenneth Morgan’s excellent biography of Michael Foot. I had to steel myself before I read the account of Foot’s turbulent time as leader of our party (well it wasn’t actually my party at the time, but you catch my drift) with its constant and interminable battles – battles that were often physical as well as verbal – over the nature of socialism, the entryism of Trots and how to deal with them, CND, reselection of MPs, electoral college cock-ups, defections…

Two words: Deary. Me.

And you think that what we have now is remotely comparable? And the so-called “row” between the Milibands can be distilled into: “I’d rather he wasn’t standing against me and if I don’t win, Christmas is going to be a bit awkward at first.”

Can we just rewind to 1985, after Neil Kinnock had taken over? And I’m not just talking about his awe-inspiring “You end with the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council…” speech, which provoked a total rammy in the hall at Bournemouth and saw the welcome departure – literally – of Eric “Nasty Piece of Work” Heffer from the platform in protest at a leader talking sense (which at the time was against the constitution of the party). People forget about the other set-piece debate the following day, when Kinnock had to intervene personally to oppose a motion calling on a future Labour government to compensate striking miners retrospectively. And the conference defeated him! And you think 2010 is bad?

Annoyingly for the media and our opponents in the Tory/LibDem Party, Labour has remained remarkably united since May 6 and wil continue to be so, especially after our new leader is in post.

There are certainly disagreements, thank goodness, but the debate is between competing visions of a Labour Party that aren’t really all that different in essence. Oh, and Diane Abbott is also standing.

Yes, I agree that recent events have not been a pretty sight. Who could possibly have predicted that a leadership contest following a general election defeat would result in people having strong views on the subject? I certainly never saw that coming!

AS LUKE Akehurst sensibly put it on Twitter this evening:

Hoping for party unity as campaign ends. Choice between EM and DM ain’t benn vs healey

Indeed. More importantly, this ain’t no Blair v Brown neither.

Because the one thing we as a party must ensure against – and must not tolerate under any circumstances – is any kind of ongoing campaign by any losing candidate after the winner is declared.

The last Labour government would have greatly benefited had Blair and Brown both stood for the leadership in 1994 and then accepted the verdict of the party, rather than come to some grotty, ridiculous and unrealistic “deal” which served the party and the country so badly.

This time round, the main contenders are all standing. They’ve all had the opportunity to state their case. The winner will be the winner. All the others will be… well, they won’t be winners. They will have to set aside their ambition, difficult thought that may be. My heart bleeds. No, really…

Whoever wins – whether my preferred candidate or not – there will be no leader-in-waiting, no-one waiting in the wings, ready to take over when the time is right. There will be no tolerance for anyone egotistical enough – and with the monumentally poor political judgment – to believe that his rejection by the party in this contest was merely a temporary blip or passing phase that will be remedied when the time is right.

In the same way that only someone who’s been treated and received a certificate saying so can prove he’s sane, so the only politician who knows for sure that his party doesn’t want him to lead it is someone who’s stood and been rejected. They should take their certificates home from Manchester, frame them, then consider how best they can serve, either as members of the Shadow Cabinet or as loyal back benchers.

Rejection is hard, especially so if it’s by a narrow margin. So what? Deal with it.

1994: John Smith died on Thursday 12 May. It was agreed that the contest to find his successor would not start until after polling day in that year’s European parliament elections, held on 9 June. There then followed the largest democratic exercise ever attempted by a single party in modern political history. Every party member and every trade unionist paying the political levy was balloted.Tony Blair was announced as victor just six weeks later, on 21 July.

Six weeks.

2010: Gordon Brown announced his intention to resign as Labour leader on Monday 10 May. The following day he resigned as Prime Minister and party leader “with immediate effect”. By the time our new party leader is elected on Saturday 25 September, 137 days will have passed since that day.

Nineteen weeks and four days.

At this rate of “progress”, the next leadership contest, whenever it’s held, will take the best part of a year.