And another thing…

DANIEL Kawczynski is not a happy camper. Shewsbury’s Tory MP has written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, to complain that Paul Flynn MP used a room on the House of Commons estate to launch his memoirs.

Kawczynski has been gracious enough to “share” his letter of complaint with conservativehome, the site announced this evening, just as a BBC correspondent in Olden Days might have asked Harold Macmillan if he had anything he wished to share with the country.

“The rules of the House with regards room bookings are clear,” wails the grief-striken Mr Kawczynski, his lip audibly trembling, the theme from The Dambusters growing louder in the background as a Spitfire thunders overhead. “Any disregard of these rules causes me great frustration, as it brings the House, through use of its facilities by members, into disrepute; causing the standing of Parliament to fall even further in the eyes of the electorate.” And the same breeze which causes the Union flag to flutter proudly above him causes a loose strand of hair to fall briefly over his manly brow…

And he’s right, by George! To arms! This is something up with which we shall not put!

But hold on a minute – there’s more:

I recently held the launch of my book, a biography of Colonel Gaddafi, at the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers on Birdcage Walk. This I did at considerable cost as I felt and was indeed advised by Commons Authorities that to use a room in the Commons to launch my book would be inappropriate and an abuse of taxpayers’ money.

“… advised by Commons authorities”, eh? So, Daniel, did you decide that “the rules with regard to room bookings are clear” before or after you asked permission for your own book to be launched in the Palace?

In other words, Daniel asked if he could launch his book in the Palace first, and only put his hand in his pocket after he was refused. And now he’s complaining about Flynn’s launch, not because the event “brings the House into disrepute” but because Flynn was allowed and Kawczyynski wasn’t.

In fact, I’m guessing that the launch of Flynn’s book about his life as an MP was probably considered a more appropriate event to take place within the Palace than that of a biography of “Mad Dog” Gadaffi. But what do I know?

IAN PAISLEY has long been something of a hate figure in British and Irish politics. His battle cry of “No surrender!” came to define what was seen as the obstinacy and triumphalism of Ulster Unionism.

As with so many public figures, of course, his private demeanour was completely at odds with his public one. I found him easy to talk to and always courteous to colleagues of any party. One afternoon, shortly after the 2001 general election, Carolyn was waiting for me in the House of Commons family room, watching the live TV feed from the chamber in the company of another woman she did not know, as Ian made one of his typically firebrand speeches. Minutes after he had sat down he appeared in the room and spoke to the other woman who turned out to be his wife.

“Was that alright?” he asked, rather uncertainly, to which Mrs Paisley replied in the affirmative. I thought that was an interesting glimpse behind the ultra-confident, even aggressive, mask of a demagogue.

On another occasion, during the crucial (they’re always crucial, aren’t they?) talks between the Northern Ireland parties and the government at Leeds Castle in 2004, I happened to meet him outside the Members’ Cloakroom at the Commons. “So, Ian, are you going to be First Minister?” I asked. He shook his head, warily and wearily, and replied: “I don’t know. I just don’t know.”

I later joked to him that that was the most positive thing I had ever heard him say.

Hardliners like Paisley often create their own traps and limitations: the man who led the Unionist opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 and who famously planted Northern Ireland Secretary Tom King in a plant pot during one demonstration (or am I misremembering that one?) would never in a million years be seen dead in the same room as members of Sinn Fein. Would they?

But it was Paisley who did the deal and who became First Minister as a result. He surprised everyone by turning out to be as pragmatic as David Trimble, his sometime rival for the leadership of the Unionist community. And unlike Trimble, he managed to hold onto that community’s trust, even after walking into government side by side with Martin McGuinness.

It’s no surprise to anyone that he has decided to step down from Parliament at the general election; he’s served for 40 years, broken only by the by-election campaigns caused by his and the other Unionist MPs’ resignations in protest at the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

IT’S NO secret that I’m on friendly terms with Tory blogger Iain Dale. But his post today is nothing less than a peurile attempt to smear a retiring Labour MP in a way which, had it been directed by a Labour blogger at a Tory MP, Iain would no doubt condemn.

So, what has he said, exactly?

The anouncement certainly came as a surprise to SNP activists in Rutherglen and Hamilton West since they’ve seen McAvoy out and about campaigning for what they assumed was his re-election.

“…for what they assumed was his re-election.”? So, MPs only campaign for their own re-election? They don’t campaign for, say, their own party generally? My predecessor, Lord Maxton, helps out during most elections here in Glasgow South; according to Iain Dale, that makes no sense because he’s not standing for election. Go figure.

It could of coyrse (sic) just be absolute coincidence that his announcement comes after Jim Devine claimed a male Labour whip advised him to claim his expsenses in the way he did.

Er, yes, it could be exactly that – coincidence. Plus the fact that Tommy is 66 years old, which, in most people’s view, would make his announcement entirely understandable.

This claim was followed up by the Labour Party launching an internal inquiry to identify the whip whom Jim Devine fingered:

Inquiry? If Jim Devine fingered the whip in question, then there would be no need for an inquiry. If he refused to name the whip, then what would be the point of an inquiry? It couldn’t possibly come to any conclusion about the whip’s identity, any more than you can identify unnamed MPs who brief to journalists.

Conciidentally that was also the day (February 10th) that John Ward suggested Tommy McAvoy may be the whip;

First of all, who’s John Ward? Oh, he’s a blogger? Well, why didn’t you say, then? Case closed…

Ward doesn’t offer any evidence at all to support his conclusion that it was Tommy, other than because he’d eliminated some of the other serving whips at the time. And his in-depth knowledge of the whips is rather exposed anyway when he says that Helen Jones “may terrify the bejesus out of most Labour MPs”. Hardly a description that a single Labour MP would recognise.

Iain then dredges up some well-worn stuff about Tommy’s property purchases in London, almost as if, in some way, that linked him to Devine. Which it doesn’t. At all. In any conceivable way.

But as far as investigative or intuitive journalism goes, this is the “best” bit”:

Finally, and as an aside, I’ve noticed of late that suggestions for friends on Facebook have been throwing up a significant number of Labour MPs. It made me wonder if they were setting up pages as part of their re-election campaigns.

If it is for re-election why did Tommy McAvoy set one up if he was retiring anyway?

You see what he did there? “It made me wonder if they were setting up pages as part of their re-election campaigns.” It made him wonder? And if a piece of information causes a Tory blogger to wonder about the possibility of something, then that is evidence, is it? “If it is for re-election…” If. IF!

Iain clearly doesn’t understand either the Labour Party or parliament itself. Why should he? He’s neither a Labour Party member nor an MP (yet). Many Labour MPs choose to go through the mandatory reselection process which occurs during each parliament for one of three reasons: they want to stand again; they haven’t made up their mind about whether to stand again and want to keep their options open; or they intend to stand down but would prefer to announce closer to the election.

I was surprised to discover that Tommy is even as old as 66 – he’s certainly a very young-looking 66 – but who can honestly blame him for wanting to stand down after 23 years as an MP and 13 years as a government whip?

The claims Iain makes are entirely unfounded and unjustified. They are gossip, nothing more. And to suggest, with a nod and a wink, that Tommy has somehow been pressed by the party into standing down against his wishes is nothing more than a smear against a good man about whom Iain Dale knows nothing.

RING THE church bells! Alert the emergency services! Stock up on essential items and barricade the doors!

For The Times has revealed the stunning news that Cabinet ministers are not only members of the executive but are also (whisper it) politicians!

Cabinet members are using the opportunity of an official tour of the country in order to take part in political meetings with party members and trade unionists. No doubt a complaint has been sent to the police and charges are being considered…

Dearie me, but what a precious lot we are. Ministers of both parties have regularly taken advantage of ministerial visits to promote their own parties. Since the visits are taking place anyway, it would be ridiculous to insist that they restrict themselves to government activities, even if there’s some space in the diary to accommodate a little extracurricular activity. You might as well tell them they can’t have a meal or phone their families, since those are not strictly government activities either.

I vividly remember visiting a Network Rail signal control centre as the rail minister and then meeting the local Labour MP and some of his activists and having my photo taken with them outside the station. Local Tories present were most upset by this and complained to my private secretary who, as a civil servant, was obliged to take no part in my party activities. She politely explained that I was perfectly entitled to do whatever I wanted, provided I wasn’t using public money or asking civil servants to get involved.

This is all part of the modern trend to despise anything remotely connected with party politics – the only thing deemed even worse than politics itself. There are lots of reasons that people don’t vote, and one of them is surely that the media (and some politicians) are constantly sending out the message that party politics is A Bad Thing, that public money should never be associated with it and that it is something to be tolerated rather than promoted.

Well that’s codswallop. Party politics is part of our democracy and we should celebrate it instead of treating it like a sexually transmitted disease – to be sneered at and even combated, but never talked about in polite company.

And if any of the Cabinet fancy coming to Glasgow South, I’ve plenty of leaflets that need putting through doors.

THE LATEST in the series of BBC rip-offs podcasts asking MPs to name their five favourite (and one least favourite) movies is now online.

And my guest this time round is none other than Mr Speaker himself, the Rt. Hon. John Bercow MP. I’m genuinely grateful for the time he gave me to carry out this interview (only interrupted once for his meeting with Harriet Harman – see if you can spot the edit). He talks enthusiastically about his admiration for Churchill, is revealed as a hopeless romantic and isn’t afraid to cry at the cinema. And he isn’t too impressed with a certain rom-com about his favourite sport either.

It comes in at precisely 24 minutes and 29 seconds. Enjoy.

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup

AN APPROPRIATE story to follow on from my last post about when MPs should and should not help a constituent: a parliamentary colleague recently received an email from a constituent, a concerned mother who, on visiting her son’s student digs for the first time was appalled at the squalor in which he was living. She had contacted her MP to ask if he could “do something” about the state of the flat which, in the mum’s opinion, was so filthy it might contravene health and safety rules.

My colleague was perplexed; how could he help in such a situation?

Then, the following day, a second email arrived, this time from the lady’s son: “I understand my mum has contacted you about my flat at uni. Please don’t bother doing anything – she’s always doing this. I’m quite happy where I’m staying.”

THE ELECTORAL Commission (moto: “No, we can’t!”) have warned that last night’s law change to force councils to count votes within four hours of the polls closing might be “unworkable”.

Well, yes, it would be if Electoral Returning Officers (EROs) are planning to have dinner with their families that evening. Or go to the cinema. Shame.

This is the point, you see: EROs are not accountable to anyone. They’ve been moaning for years about having to work long hours once every four or five years and now they’re using the increase in postal votes as an excuse finally to get their way.

Even today, the number of EROs who have decided to delay counts until the Friday are outnumbered by those who understand the importance of continuing past practice. How are those in the second category viewed by those in the first? Do the Friday Club look askance at their colleagues – some of whom will be overseeing identical counts in identical constituencies – and shake their heads mournfully in a “tut, tut, it’ll all end in tears” sort of way? Or do they fret that those doing their jobs properly will make the Friday Club look bad?

I think I can guess.

And now members of the Friday Club are wringing their hands in dismay: “Who do these bloody MPs think they are, telling me how to do my job?” No, we’re not telling you how to do your job – we’re telling you simply to do it. Efficiently and promptly. If you are incapable of doing it, then let someone else do it instead.

That’s what MPs get told all the time these days, and it’s good advice.

I RECEIVED a phone call this afternoon from Michael Wills, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. He was the minister who responded to David Cairns’ adjournment debate last week.

Michael was phoning to let me know that, following my previous EDMs on the subject, the government was now prepared to “do something” to ensure a Thursday night count whenever the General Election is held. He later told David Cairns and me that New Clause 98, tabled by the Tories’ justice spokesperson Eleanor Laing as an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, would now be accepted by the government. And so it proved; it was the first thing Jack Straw announced when he rose to speak in today’s debate.

The key part of the amendment is this:

The counting of votes in a parliamentary election shall start within four hours of the close of poll, save in exceptional circumstances.

Jack said the exact text would have to be amended to make sure it was legally workable, but helpfully said he would rather have the existing form of words on the face of the Bill in the meantime, in order to send out a message to returning officers, many of whom are planning to count ballots at a time more convenient to themselves.

The amendment was agreed without a vote later in the evening.

So a major step forward, and as much as we could ever have wished for when the campaign was launched. All we need to do now is hope that the relevant parts of the Bill now before the House make it intact to the statute book by the time parliament is prorogued in advance of the election.

THERE was a debate on Wednesday in Westminster Hall on the subject of “Accountability of Returning Officers”.

Why the odd title when most people present wanted to talk simply about their desire to have votes in the General Election counted as soon as possible after the polls closed instead of having to wait until Friday? The title was my idea, and a number of MPs submitted a request for a debate with the same title. “Save General Election Night” would not have been deemed an admissible title for a debate, since all debates must be within the remit of the government and a minister has to respond at the end to state the government’s position. “Accountability of Returning Officers”, on the other hand, is clearly a matter on which the Ministry of Justice have a responsibility (it could quite easily and justifiably have been called “Lack of Accountability of Returning Officers”).

David Cairns, the MP for Inverclyde, was chosen to sponsor the 90-minute debate so spoke first, followed by Eric Pickles and then me. You can read the whole debate here or watch it here. Here’s my bit. No doubt you’ll be amused by the fact that the BBC describe me initially as “Evan Harris, LibDem, Oxford  West & Abingdon” before correcting themselves a couple of minutes in. I expect he would be offended as I was.

I HEAR that a Sunday Telegraph poll tomorrow will confirm the recent trend of predicting a hung parliament.

In many respects, this is good news for Labour, following so many months when our complete electoral obliteration was being predicted. Nevertheless, my blood runs cold at the very thought of a hung parliament, whoever is the largest party. The temptation and the pressure to begin horse-trading with the minority parties would be immense. And in the event of “negotiations” between the LibDems and either Labour or the Conservatives,  the party manifestos would be unceremoniously binned in favour of whatever lowest common denominators could be salvaged from the talks.

There have always been plenty “comrades” whose sole reason for campaigning to get Labour back into power after 18 years of opposition seemed to be in order to give that power away to the minor parties. They wouldn’t even need the excuse of a hung parliament to enter a coalition with the Liberals if they got the chance.

Those unfamiliar with the situation when Labour and the LibDems formed a coalition government at Holyrood should also acquaint themselves with the phrase “the tail wagging the dog”. Because that’s how democratic whatever form of proportional representation forced on the country by the Liberals would be: the party that came third dictating to the biggest party – and the whole country – how it should govern.

Things seem to be moving Labour’s way, and for me (and for the whole of the country, believe me) the best outcome will be a Labour overall majority. But if that were not achieved (and let me make it clear: I still think it can be) then it’s important that whichever party formed a minority government isn’t forced, through threats of votes of confidence by the main opposition party, into bed with Clegg (31 is an uneven number, after all – Ba-boom! I’m here all week…)