It’s happened twice since I was first elected: in the aftermath of 9/11 and in February 2002, after the Queen Mother’s death.

It’s quite a dramatic event when it occurs, and although there isn’t usually a vote during recall debates, there’s usually a good turnout of colleagues eager to be part of a historic occasion.

The only problem with recalls is that if they happen too often, the the standard needing to be met to justify it could be lowered. For example, in 2002, a publicity-hungry nationalist MSP demanded the recall of the Scottish Parliament because Scotland’s economy (he claimed) was in recession. It wasn’t, and the economy is largely reserved to Westminster, but you see my point?

Every year, there’s always someone who’s first out of the stocks, demanding a recall. This year’s winner is John Redwood, who has today written to the Prime Minister demanding as much. Libya and the release of Al-Megrahi seem to be his principle reasons. But he also has a shopping list of other concerns up his sleeve: quantative easing and the economy, the NHS, Afghanistan and the nature of the devolution settlement. He also cites the need to debate “several good (select) committee reports” published since the recess started.

Phew!

Now, these are all important issues, of course, but because something is important doesn’t necessarily mean it justifies a recall.

Interestingly, John also tell the PM: “Since we last were permitted to do our jobs…”, as if MPs need Gordon Brown’s permission to be MPs. I certainly don’t, and have been working for my constituents during the recess, as have, I’m sure, virtually all MPs. Obviously JR feels he can’t do his job as an MP unless he’s speaking in the chamber of the House of Commons.

That’s not the view of most MPs (of all parties). Even if parliament is not recalled, that shouldn’t (and doesn’t) affect MPs’ ability to represent our constituents and debate issues of importance, even if that debate takes place on the internet, where (shock! horror!) non-parliamentarians can respond and take part instead of simply watching it on BBC Parliament.

Not John Redwood

JOHN Redwood has cracked a joke at Labour’s (and Alan Milburn’s) expense. And it’s a good one!

Alan Milburn has been made the Czar of the greasy pole. It is time more was done to promote social mobility in Britain.

Isn’t this kind of thing mentioned in the book of Revelations?

John is an obviously intelligent bloke who has a reputation for bringing an expert level of detailed analysis to his subjects, particularly the economy. But I detect an element of emperor’s new clothes in most of his writing, and his post on Ruth Kelly is a perfect example.

John, remember, is probably the only Tory MP who still thinks Railtrack was a good idea! As we all know, it was, in fact, an unmitigated disaster for the railway network and for the country. And John Redwood was a member of the government which created it.

He starts off his attack on the railways by lamenting the absence of services from his local station before 4.00 am. And there were so many such services under the Tories, weren’t there? Is the current Conservative Party pledging to introduce them? No.

When he writes of his plans to catch a Eurostar service to Paris, he does so through gritted teeth, almost as if he believes that the money spent on creating a high-speed rail link to the continent was not well spent. When he writes: “No wonder people find it difficult doing more with the continent when such a crucial link as London-Paris is so poor”, he seems oddly ill-informed about the commercial success and popularity of High Speed 1 (or HS1) since it opened last year. Let’s remind ourselves that it was indeed the Conservative government who pledged to build HS1 but it was also the Conservatives’ finance package which had to be rescued by John Prescott after it failed to deliver the capital needed. HS1 was built because of a Labour government. I accept that that may not necessarily be an achievement that impresses Mr Redwood.

Then he refers to “the government’s worst form of travel, going by air.” I wonder which government-owned airline he meant? Which government-owned airport did he plan to use, do you think? What was he talking about? Does he regret the fact that civil aviation is, rightly, an entirely commercial business? Does he believe a future Conservative government should intervene more in such an industry? As far as I know, the only intervention the Tories want to make is in vetoing Heathrow’s third runway, a move which would be a disaster for our country’s economy.

John Redwood writes: “Ruth Kelly, like her predecessors, has failed to take decisions to expand network capacity.” And yet, I know for a fact that he is very well aware of the government’s guarantee of 1300 additional railway carriages to be delivered before April 2014. If he wants to talk about forward planning, fine: let’s talk about his own government’s record on rail.

I have no problem whatsoever with the railways being in the private sector. But can we just remind ourselves of the reasons why the Tories privatised in the mid-’90s? The first was political: John Major felt he needed to prove himself to his party’s right wing (including John Redwood) by supporting a flagship privatisation project. He needed to do so in order, partly, to emerge from his predecessor’s shadow. The second, and more important, reason was that the government wanted a way to manage the expected – and, to them, welcome – terminal decline of the railways in Britain.

Much to the disappointment of the Conservatives and, I suspect, John Redwood, today’s railways are a success story, albeit a success story with its own challenges. Performance as recorded by the industry-standard public performance measure (PPM) is today higher than than at any time since it was first measured. Safety continues to improve. There are more services than ever before and, crucially, more passengers are being carried than at any time in the history of the British rail network outside of the two world wars.

And when so much media attention is concentrated on the cost of headline advertised railway fares, it is easy to forget that regulated fares are no more expensive in real terms than they were when we came to office and that four fifths of rail passengers use either regulated or discounted fares.

Does John Redwood, I wonder, regret the fact that more private train-operating companies (TOCs) than ever before are paying the Department for Transport for the privilege of running services, rather than accepting public subsidy? The prospect of such a development would have been ridiculed in the days when he sat round the cabinet table.

But the challenges to which I alluded are significant: high demand means pressure on capacity. The modernisation of the West Coast Mainline – which Network Rail rescued from the incompetant hands of John Redwood’s Railtrack, bringing costs down from £14 billion to £8 billion – will mean a 50 per cent increase in capacity. Crossrail (which the Tories failed to deliver during their term in office) is going ahead, Thameslink is happening because of £5.5 billion of government investment, the Reading bottleneck will at last be dealt with thanks to a £425 million commitment from this government, and Birmingham New Street will at last be given the make-over for which Birmingham’s citizens have long been asking.

And that’s before the roll-out of the 1300 additional carriages.

Record investment in the railways, nationwide concessionary travel for pensioners and disabled people, new powers for local authorities to address declining bus patronage – these have all been opposed by John Redwood’s party.

His disdain for public transport speaks volumes about the Conservatives’ attempts to present themselves as even remotely concerned about the environment and their claim that, suddenly, after decades of antipathy towards passengers, they could care less about those who depend on it to travel.

Labour Party members often talk about our achievements and of how terrible it would be if the Conservatives ever got the chance to undermine them. Ruth Kelly’s departure is as good a time as any to remind ourselves that in the field of transport, our achievements are impressive and worth fighting to preserve.

We all know what happened next. But it struck me that the current Tory opinion poll lead, though significant in terms of per centage share, is a very recent phenomenon. Yet the Tories’ confidence of winning the next election is utterly unshakeable. The very idea that Labour might yet stage a recovery is not only fanciful but unthinkable (evidenced by the comments in response to this very post).

In terms of number of seats in the Commons, the Tories are worse off than Labour in the 1983 parliament (Labour under Michael Foot won 209 seats; the Tories under Michael Howard won 198). Election victories are only secured by a large and sustained opinion poll lead, criteria which, arguably, the Tories have so far only half met.

The public aren’t yet convinced that ‘Dave’ – the man who advised Norman Lamont and who personally designed the “patient’s passport” as a means of diverting billions of pounds of NHS funding towards the private health sector – can be trusted. He’s certainly no Tony Blair, however much he’s read the instructions.

Which brings me back to the original observation about the Tories’ opinion poll lead being a relatively recent phenomenon. I can honestly say that that degree of arrogance, where defeat isn’t even considered a possibility – has rarely, if ever, afflicted the Labour Party. We’ve always been aware that election victories are hard fought for, and hard won.

For the Tories, though, opposition – even opposition when they were reduced to a rump in the commons, facing a Labour majority of 180 – was never more than a blip, a mere inconvenience on the road back to power. And power, for the Tories, was never a privilege; it is their birthright, to be handed to them on a silver platter by an electorate that has taken longer than they expected to come to its senses. Any suggestion, nearly two years before the last possible date for a general election, that it might yet elude them, is to be mocked and dismissed with a wave of the hand.

There are those in the Tory Party who share the arrogance of Grand Moff Tarkin who, when the Empire seemed on the brink of victory, dismissed the Rebellion’s fightback against the Death Star with the words: “Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!” And we all know what happened to him.

There. I bet John Bloody Redwood never uses Star Wars references…

Thank you to everyone who bothered to vote.

Perhaps the first version of his speech to Demos also included the following claims:

Jeremy Clarkson is best placed to manage cycling policy

George Osborne is best placed to be the next Chancellor

Etc, etc…

Other suggestions welcome, but be warned: I will only publish those that I think are funny.

The results of the 2008 Witanagemot Club Political Blogging Awards have placed me second – just behind John Redwood – in the Best Blog by a Politician category and third in the Best Labour Party-supporting Blog category. I also scored well in the Best New Blog category, pipping Harriet Harman to second place.

Not that I care for such trifling baubles, of course. I seek not the adulation of the masses, merely the truths eternal… oh, who am I kidding? I’m a politician – of course I want votes…