Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

I had decided to ask Gordon Brown a question at PMQs today – on listening to the people and learning (post disastrous election results last week) and suggest that if he had the guts he could prove he was listening by dropping the Post Office closure program. (Bad news for us by the way – none of our Post Offices were saved. We will have to get the info on why only a meagre seven in London were saved using FOI and then make hell let loose.)

Anyway – sadly I had to go to a funeral of an old uncle who died yesterday – so missed PMQs. On the radio coming back from the cemetery to parliament, blow me, I heard David Cameron ask exactly my point. That is scary! (For Nick's questions, see the write-up on Lib Dem Voice.)

Raced to Sky News lunch with Adam Boulton and crew who were lunching Lib Dems to discuss how their news could extend even further into plurality and impartiality through internet and so on. Gorgeous lunch – and always interesting to hear what the other side thinks. Adam seemed to think that Sky News was the Liberal Democrats of news programs – in as much as they are always having to punch above their weight against the terrestrials of BBC and ITN.

I do think – and so did most of us MPs present – that Sky has the best rolling news and breaking news. And although I didn’t see their election coverage (as the stupid row with Virgin robbed me) I gather it was excellent. So unlike the BBC TV coverage that everyone in blogland has been blasting to high heaven for its low grade and tatty approach.

Very enjoyable – and as Julia Goldsworthy pointed out – half Sky’s top ten fanciable MPs were present. So – we ain't got the power – but we sure got the looks!

Labels: adam boulton, david cameron, gordon brown, julia goldsworthy, pmqs, post offices

Well, well - so Vince Cable tried to ask a question at Prime Minister's Questions today - and it was ruled out of order. His heinous offence? Mentioning the Queen in his question:

It is reported that Her Majesty the Queen cancelled her Diamond wedding party because it would be ‘inappropriate’ to indulge in extravagance when the country faces recession and economic gloom. Is this another good example of Her Majesty’s unerring instinct for the national mood; or does the Government think she is simply overreacting?

Well excuse me - but what sort of out of date organisation is it that has this sort of ban? So much for being a modern democracy!

Labels: pmqs, vince cable

Yesterday Iain Dale interviewed me about Prime Minister's Questions and the Budget for Friction.TV. You can watch the result here - it was just a bit windy!

Labels: iain dale, pmqs

Looks like someone else isn't that keen on behaviour at PMQs either...

Labels: pmqs

It's on the Chicken Yoghurt blog and echoes some of my earlier views about PMQs.

Labels: pmqs

Another Wednesday, another PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions) in Parliament. What to make of today's Punch and Judy show between Cameron and Brown?

First - I guess, as Nick Robinson points out, that Cameron has forgotten his professed distaste for Punch and Judy, you say one insult, I'll say two back more loudly style of politics. Perhaps he genuinely meant it when he said it, but if so he's long since changed his mind.

Second -Gordon Brown really ain't that sharp or fast when it comes to PMQs. He was always going to have a tough act to follow after Blair who, love or loathe what he said, was a master of the art of question time.

Fraser Nelson rather wickedly desecribes Ed Milliband's apparent new role in the whole farago:

Ed Miliband seems to have a new job. He now sits next to Brown making theatrical grimaces and facial expressions of mock astonishment when Tories speak. Quite fun to watch. Oxford, LSE, Harvard – and he ends up as the highest-paid mime artist in Britain.

I see Mike Smithson (Political Betting) is speculating whether Brown might even be driven to trying to abolish PMQs. Well - if Brown is minded to, he could revolutionaise PMQs, improve Labour's standing, polish the image of politics and make the Tories look like silly - all in one go.

The answer? Turn down the volume and turn up the behaviour on the Labour side of the chamber. Imagine what would happen if all the Labour MPs started behaving like sensible adults - none of the screaming and pointing and exagerated facial expressions, none of the passing impressions of the rowdy pub bore who insists everyone in the pub MUST hear what they've got to say - and instead - behave like you or I would expect and be expected to behave in any other place of work.

In a blink, he would look statesmanlike, the Tories (if they don't follow suit) would look almightily daft in a one-sided shouting match, and who knows - PMQs might even end up fullfilling a purpose other than making politics look crap once a week.

But will Gordon do it? On past form, I'm not sure he's got the bottle to take a decisive act. Here's hoping though....

Labels: david cameron, gordon brown, nick robinson, pmqs

Gordon Brown has admitted that he thinks his weekly question and answer joust in Parliament isn't really achieving much. Good I say - that's my view too: we very rarely have exchanges that really hold the PM to account, and the whole "whose MPs can shout the loudest?" display of rowdy behaviour does damage to the reputation of Parliament and politics.

So kudos to Gordon for this in The Independent today:

Gordon Brown has expressed his growing disillusionment at what he considers the poor quality of the weekly battle of wills across the despatch box.

Mr Brown fears the 30-minute sessions have become so noisy and bad-tempered that the public will be increasingly repelled.

But the report then goes on:

He has made it clear he has no plans to change the event.

Well - why not? He's Prime Minister, he's there at PMQs taking centre stage role nearly every time and if nothing else - he could have a quiet word with the Labour Chief Whip about the behaviour of Labour MPs.

So come on Gordon - let's have some action to back up your words!

Labels: gordon brown, pmqs

Well - Nick did well! As readers will know, I think too much attention is given to PMQs, but given that it is - certainly better to do well than not, and Nick did well.

He played it straight with a question about the sort of real issue that hits so many people - home fuel costs - rather than going for a Westminster hothouse story. Keeping your home warm, and being able to afford it, is a big issue for many of my constituents - so good on Nick for picking that topic.

He moved a few places in from where Lib Dem leaders usually sit / stand. I've not seen how this came over on the TV, but it seemed to work well in Parliament - as he was surrounded by Lib Dem MPs, rather than having opposition MPs heckling straight into his right ear.

Labels: nick clegg, pmqs

Interesting (and good!) to see that my piece about Prime Minister's Questions over on Liberal Democrat Voice has generated quite a lot of comments - and, despite my general scepticism about the quality of comments on many political blogs, a good quality debate too.

Several Tories - hello Justin! hello Roger! - have joined in too, but no-one it seems from Labour. Curious that. I could understand only getting comments from Lib Dems on a Lib Dem site, but getting comments from Lib Dems, Tories and those of no apparent political party - but no obviously Labour comments - seems a bit odd. Any thoughts why?

Labels: pmqs

As you may just have guessed from some of my previous blog postings about Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), I'm not exactly a fan. As I've written on Liberal Democrat Voice today:

But the point at which I draw the line in defending my profession [politics] is Prime Minister’s Questions. What an awful testosterone-fuelled bear pit of badly behaved boys (and it is overwhelmingly boys!) that is!
...
In the absence of a few ASBOs being dished out to the serial hecklers and shouters, what then is to be done?

For my suggestions - you'll have to go and read the article!

Labels: pmqs

Minced by Vince! Poor old Gordon Brown in Prime Minister's Questions yesterday - from 'Stalin to Mr Bean' is a perfect description of the PM's journey thus far. As one who thinks PMQs is just playtime for little boys - I have to say that 'soundbite' did make me smile (to my chagrin). The Labour Party woes know no end. A disaster a day keeps Labour in dismay. The faces of the Labour troops on the benches told it all. They must be devastated by such goings on. Vince and Chris Huhne have now asked the police to investigate.

Also yesterday, attended the Parliamentary launch of the report that came out of our trip to South Africa to look at business and how it is dealing with the AIDS and HIV pandemic. It is an excellent report from Business Action for Africa - so congrats to them and to SAB Miller, Anglo American and Meurk who were the key three companies involved in our trip.

The recommendations are about how to make partnerships work - as it is clear that the South African governemnt, NGOs, donors and business all need to work together to really create a proper delivery of health services to the nation.

It's just the beginning - but it is an excellent report. John Hutton (Secretary of State) was there as we want him to use Government influence to push this agenda - and hopefully he will be a strong advocate for this - using business as a full partner.

Interestingly, and unbeknown to us, John has a brother living in Capetown and is fully au fait with all the issues around AIDS there - so undertood the issues from his own personal experience.

Labels: chris huhne, gordon brown, pmqs, vince cable

Sunday night - so did my stint on Radio 4's The Westminster Hour again. It was reasonably lively tonight. No prizes for guessing the main topic - leadership! Both Brown at PMQs and Ming.

I am so fed up with this Prime Minister's Question Time (PMQs) rubbish. The House loves it. The media loves it. It is a great spectator sport (blood sport that is) but it is not the way to judge leadership or to hold the PM to account - at least, not if you are a grown up. It's boys behaving like boys do - and I don't mean that as a compliment!

Can you imagine anyone in the real world behaving like that? Can you imagine in your workplace that sort of shouting and disorder passing for normal at meetings where the manager answers questions from staff or the directors answer to shareholders? I think not! Yet in the majesty of Parliament - we have the behaviour of the playground. And our political system is meant to rest on this sort of behavour. Not impressed!

Anyway - my verdict on this week was that I thought Brown did his best (following his delivery of his own mortal blow in terms of bad judgement) and Cameron just appeared like an upper class bully boy - famed of public school films.

As for Ming - yes Simon Hughes said what he said. But the way it was portrayed in the media was OTT. It was a statement of the bleeding obvious for any party - you always want to do better. So - pooh to all of that!

Labels: ming campbell, pmqs, the westminster hour

Sooooooooooooo - at last my number came up in the ballot and I get to ask a question at Prime Minister's Questions (basically - other than party leaders - MPs are picked at random to ask the other questions).

Although I think Gordon Brown had other worries today (like his political life) I managed my question competently (I thought) and was rewarded with a reasonably progressive answer. He was forced to admit that Haringey School’s funding deal needs “continued looking at” following my impassioned plea for a fair funding deal for the borough’s schools (the topic of my online petition).

I asked the PM to end the injustice that Haringey schools received on average £736 less per pupil than in inner London, even though local teachers are paid on inner London pay scales. Gordon Brown conceded the point and stated that outer London funding would continue to be looked into.

I will follow up with a letter as a chink has opened up and I am damned if our kids are going to get less than neighbouring boroughs for another three years until the funding formula is substantively reviewed. Waiting for a review may be fine in bureaucracy land - but those children aren't going to get those three years of education back again - and of course we don't know for sure what the review will even decide then, or on what timescale. So get a move on Gordon!

Labels: gordon brown, haringey schools, pmqs

As well as being my blog's birthday today, it is also three months on since my previous three month round up of the most popular postings on my blog.

So here once again is a list of the postings that proved the most popular with you, the reader, in the last three months:

10. Flooding in Muswell Hill: title says it all really.

9. Haringey Conservative turns UKIP: William McDougall switches parties.

8. More on Wood Green's Waterstone's: the sad loss of a local bookshop. Not quite sure why this posting did better than my previous / longer one, but there you go!

7. More on Brian Paddick and the London Mayor: see number three below.

6. Birthplace of TV at Alexandra Palace to be lost? An old posting this - but certainly a big local issue. That the new owner is also involved in football may help explain its interest.

5. PMQs: What do you think? Prime Minister's Questions - good for democracy or embarrassing weekly display of rowdy behaviour by MPs?

4. Tim Garden: August was marred by Tim's tragically early death.

3. Don't vote for me: no, I wasn't planning to run for London Mayor in 2008. But thanks for the online votes!

2. Should YouTube be closed: a posting about the decision by one teaching union to call for the closure of YouTube - because of its role in some bullying episodes. My view? "No" - wholesale closure would be an ineffective over-reaction. But click through to read more...

1. Fortismere School update: perhaps no great surprise that news of the future of a local school should have attracted the most traffic - and in fact this very posting topped the list in the previous three month period too. I hope my postings helped shed a little more light on what was happening during what has been a controversial episode.

What to make of the whole list? Well - it is good to see a mix of local, Liberal Democrat and national stories - which must mean there's a good mix of readers out there! It also looks like postings often pick up quite a lot of readership some time after they were first written (and hence the poor showing of the most recent blog postings in the list) - something to remember when I write them!

Anyway - thanks for reading - and we'll see what the next three months brings.

Labels: most popular blog postings, pmqs, youtube

One of the issues I'm pondering over the summer is what to make of Prime Minister's Question Time. To me - yes, it's great theatre and even fun at time but - it's utterly crap as a way of holding the Prime Minister or Government to account - and I doubt the baying mob moment where everyone (except polite Lib Dems of course!) is cheering or booing does much for the reputation of politics.

After all - what would you think of someone who behaved in a work meeting the way the boorish heckling backbenchers do at PMQs? So - you may have guessed I'm not impressed!

Still though I'd be interested to hear other people's views - what do you make of PMQs? Is it any good? Does it damage politics etc? Let me know what you think!

(Update: my fellow MP John Hemming has expressed his views on PMQs over at his blog).

Labels: pmqs

PMQs - and Gordon didn't have a good one - repetitive and unsure of facts or what to say. It's not so easy being PM as he expected.

Vince Cable had a question on the order paper and used it to batter Gordon over his head with the failure of Metronet - whose slide into economic meltdown was inevitable. There’s no sliding away from this issue for Gordon because when he was Chancellor - the PPP for the tube was his baby. Ken L went to court to try and stop this dreadful contract which cost something like £500 million in consultants and lawyers alone.

I was shoulder to shoulder with Ken against the PPP - for the very reasons that are now coming to light.

Make no mistake - these are Gordon's PPP chickens coming home to roost - and not so new Gordon is entirely to blame for this debacle.

Labels: gordon brown, pmqs

Brown was a great deal better today than last week - and followed PMQs with a draft Queen's Speech. Innovation - the ability to discuss and disseminate proposals before the Queen’s Speech - or does the PM just want his manifesto out there for an autumn election which gets called before the actual Queen’s Speech? Hmmmmmmm.

Then it was the Tory Opposition Day debates. There was a tepid motion, apple pie against which it was impossible to vote - however, it was based on the report by Iain Duncan Smith. In fact, I went to record for the Week at Westminster to discuss the 'back to basics' marriage proposals of the Tories with Diane Abbot and Nadine Dorries. Needless to say - Nadine supported her Tory colleagues and tried valiantly but unsuccessfully to argue that the £20 per week for married couples was the answer to all our ills. Diane and I were on the other side on this one.

To me - ludicrous to go backwards and propose a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. Yes - we all agreed that having two parents in situ was the optimum (although only Nadine thought they had to be married not just cohabiting) but Diane and I recognise the world we live in - not make believe. That genie isn't going back in the bottle - not for Tories or anyone. It was a fun knock around - better than having the boys in! Then I returned and sat in the last half hour of the debate itself - but listening to Tories bang the marriage drum just makes me wonder whether they have changed at all!

Labels: pmqs

So - Gordon's first PMQs. Ming scored today - with a joke! Gordon was saying that his door was always open to Ming - and Ming said 'Yes - a trap door'. It doesn't quite come over in print - but it rocked the House with laughter - the right sort of laughter. As for Gordon - I thought he was much as you would expect - serious, slightly ill-informed on some issues (as he said - he had only been in the job for five days - but excuses don't go down too well in the HoC) and he was trying to be conciliatory saying to most questioners - I will consider the points the Honourable Member has made. So - dullsville really!

Labels: gordon brown, ming campbell, pmqs

Tony Blair, clearly demob happy, made mincemeat of Cameron at PMQs today - as has been his wont recently. I don't know who is writing Cameron's stuff - but it is well bad! He chose to go at Reid on the paedophile issue - but Blair just turned it right round by quoting back votes in Parliament. Of course – you can argue over the meaning of such votes sometimes. But the point is - that Cameron's team should have seen this elephant trap - and they didn't. And yet again Cameron's blushes (literally) were not spared.

Labels: pmqs

International Questions today before PMQs - and I go in on Darfur:

Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): The Secretary of State has just said that pressure was important. Bashir’s agreement for the deployment of the force does not come into effect until 2008, so has the Secretary of State considered using the international spotlight on China, owing to the Olympics, as leverage to encourage China to use its influence with Khartoum to end the genocide and stop Darfuris being killed between now and when Bashir may or may not allow troops to be deployed in 2008?

Hilary Benn: We certainly have encouraged China and all members of the Security Council and other nations to play their part in encouraging the Government of Sudan to do the right thing. I welcome the fact that the Chinese have now appointed a special envoy, Liu Guijin. That, plus the effort made by China in November when we had the meeting in Addis Ababa, chaired by Kofi Annan, which came up with the proposals for the hybrid force that have now been agreed by the Government of Sudan, demonstrates that China has taken a greater interest in trying to play a part. But the truth is that every single country has a responsibility to do more and to use all the influence that it has, including, if required, the threat of sanctions, to ensure that fine words are turned into action, because action is what is needed.

So - he didn't really answer the key point - whether the Government has the guts to apply the screws to get China to help focus Bashir's mind on delivering on his promises - and earlier than he wants.

Labels: darfur, hilary benn, olympics, pmqs

PMQs today! Tony is obviously demob happy and enjoying life. He was very sparky today. Cameron had another bad hair day. I don't know who is advising him - but his choice of attack is failing. Lot's of stuff about asking what the 'new' Prime Minister will or won’t do. Firstly - he is no match for Tony. Secondly - the problem he has whenever he goes for health or education or useless ministers is that he always finds himself on the back foot because however different Dave wishes to present himself as - Tony reminds him of what the Tory party thinks and says - and usually quotes some killer Tory hostage to fortune to nail his coffin. It will be soooooooo interesting to see how it goes when Gordon is crowned. And Ming did well - but it wasn't hard given the open goal the Government's White Paper on Energy is in terms of its nuclear strategy.

Labels: ming campbell, pmqs

This week's Liberal Democrat News carries my latest column - and it's about how Gordon Brown might turn out as Prime Minister:

When I was first elected to Parliament, I looked forward to meeting and seeing in action close up our major politicians, many of whom had previously only been a face on the TV to me.

But Gordon Brown has been strangely absent from my Parliamentary experience. Despite having a huge influence that strays well beyond the Treasury, he rarely debates, rarely answers questions and even in his own Treasury patch leaves most of the Parliamentary speaking to his junior ministers.

You can read the rest of the piece on my website.

Labels: gordon brown, pmqs

PMQs and you can tell that Tony B is becoming demob happy. Wiped the floor with Cameron and was snappy and sharp in all responses. Big grin on his face and a class act. Shame that Brown boy is going to seem oh so dulllllll by comparison. And I don't even approve of PMQs as a grown up pastime!

Over to the mass lobby by Help the Aged for their Just Equal Treatment campaign. And three cheers for them. Fantastic turn out from Haringey - maybe as many as 50 - so took me ages to get the list of each of their own personal experiences of discrimination against the elderly – but it was really valuable getting real stories from real people about how the legislation we talk about and vote on in Parliament really impacts on people at the coal face. (You can see some photos over on my Flickr account).

On the list of issues raised (which is very long) were: can't get travel insurance easily over age 70 (if at all) and the prices shoot up astronomically; get fobbed off with cheaper and inferior quality generic drugs; the Council Tax (well, the Liberal Democrats would scrap it); incentives to work beyond retirement age (i.e. not earning less by working than would on pension); when health cuts are made they so often target the old peoples' services (true - chiropody etc) and much much more. So many questions to follow up on - and speaking as someone who wants to be an old person (it’s pretty good option given the alternative!) I declare an interest.

Labels: pmqs

Today was the first International Development Questions since I’ve taken over as the Liberal Democrats’ Shadow Secretary of State for International Development. The ways the questions work is that there is a list of questions that will be orally asked of the International Development Secretary of State or his Ministers and they are published on what is called the Order Paper. We precede Prime Ministers' Questions and have half an hour for questions and answers.

Each question on the Order Paper is answered by the Minister or Secretary - and then the author of the oral question can ask one supplementary, and also other people can join in. As Shadow Secretary of State - I get called by Mr Speaker to chip in on any question on the Order Paper that I choose - but with such a time limit it would be risky not to go on one of the first three questions as it can be quite a long time on one question if there are a lot of people standing to catch Mr Speaker's eye.

I decided to come in on Question 3 on the Doha Trade talks:

Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)
There have recently been warm words from Europe and America about reinvigorating the Doha talks, but I am not convinced that there is any real political will behind that. It was certainly not at the top of the agenda of the President's "State of the Union" speech last night. What new and different steps has the Secretary of State taken recently to break the inertia and take advantage of the different political landscape that now exists in the American Congress?

Mr. Thomas
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment as shadow Secretary of State for International Development. Let me repeat what I have said in response to earlier questions. The EC representative, Peter Mandelson, has taken part in constructive discussions, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his visit to the United States just before Christmas. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry held useful and productive discussions with their Indian counterparts last week, and we continue to talk to our allies in Europe with the aim of advancing the EC's position further.

There are signs of progress, but we still have some way to go. Obviously we need to do more to lock down the deal which, as I think is recognised by Members in all parts of the House, is fundamental if developing countries are to make the progress that we all want in order to achieve the millennium development goals.

We are also after the Government over the BAe scandal (dropping of corruption inquiry by Labour). Hilary Benn is the ministerial champion for combatting international corruption. So we asked him whether he had been consulted by the Government over their decision to drop the prosecution. No - said Hilary - they hadn't consulted him and that was OK because they did not need to. Now if I were Hilary I would be livid to not be consulted. We (my colleague Martin Horwood more accurately) were then hoping to get called in PMQs that followed so that he could then ask Tony Blair why he hadn't consulted his champion for combatting corruption - but sadly - Mr Speaker again failed to call a single LibDem on a supplementary. He hasn't called one this year!

Labels: hilary benn, pmqs, tony blair

Prime Minister Questions were not very inspiring today - tired old Prime Minister. Where's his sparkle gone? Mind you Cameron lost the plot. He went on the mess in the Home Office - but failed to hit home trying too hard to turn it around to the Conservative policy (one of the rarest commodities in politics) which is to have a Minster of Homeland Security. So he tried to turn a complete balls up by John Reid and the Home Office into a reason for a terrorism minister. Didn't fly at all.

Ming went on Iraq and pushed Blair to see whether - given that Bush is going to announce 22,000 more troops tonight - Blair is going to send any more British troops. He didn't answer as usual. So good question - but no answer!

Labels: ming campbell, pmqs

Early morning out filming for Sunday's Politics Show. They will have David Davis in the studio - and the bit they wanted me for was to ruminate on any potential threat from the Tories now they hug hoodies. Not sure that Davis is all love and sunshine; however - you'll have to wait for the program if you're interested.

I then watched John Prescott in horror. I don't know him really, as our political paths haven’t really crossed and he has only stepped into take the PM's role at Prime Minister’s Questions a couple of times since I became an MP - but it seemed cruel sport.

I don't rate PMQs as an exemplar way to conduct politics anyway. It is a blood sport and as such is quite compelling but actually pretty nasty stuff. However, just as with hunting, when the prey doesn't even have a chance it is sheer cruelty. Whilst T Blair can take care of himself - Prescott clearly can't. I don't suppose they will let him go before the Blair Switch project is complete - but it would be kinder to leave him with a last vestige of pride.

Labels: david davis, john prescott, pmqs, politics show, tony blair

Mad dash for Prime Minister’s Questions; I still haven't been pulled out of the weekly ballot for a PMQ (that’s how most MPs get to ask the Prime Minister a question – names go in a hat and are pulled out at random). Then off to Cardiff to the Youth Justice Conference. I am part of a panel of experts speaking and answering questions as the last session of the day. It was a huge affair - and Blair (Tony) had sent a video message to the 800+ attendees and Cameron will be there tomorrow for a keynote speech - hopefully still hugging hoodies.

On the panel - the Lord Chief Justice, the Welsh Assembly Member, the Chief Constable and myself were all roughly singing from the same hymn sheet. We are all sick to death of this 'tough' versus 'soft' political environment where in reality - it's what works that matters. It was clear from the panellists and the whole audience that those in the field are desperate to move away from the political rhetoric and get on with what works - which often is community sentencing or secure children’s units rather than crime school (prison). It has to be about changing behaviour not mouthing empty slogans. The Chief Justice was saying that the problem is that often people think community sentencing is a soft option - but it isn't. There is a project in Chard where community sentencing has meant that the re-offending rate is just 5%. Compare that with the 70% for young males coming out of prison. No contest!

Labels: pmqs, tony blair

PMQs - same old, same old. Bear pit behaviour - no score draw between Blair and Cameron - but Ming was really on form. It was on Iraq - and of course this is home territory for Ming and where he is at his best. Still - despite the barrage of suggestions that our military presence might be part of the problem rather than the solution - Blair is only conceding that 'of course they want to bring the troops home as early as possible - but not until the job is done'. When is 'done'?

The debate today is the second day of Modernising Company Law Bill and I sat in to listen to the part that I have had most correspondence from local constituents on - that is the section about regulation and audit for companies with regard to their ethical behaviour in purchase, behaviour and sales.

The Labour Government dropped some rules in this regard a little while back - and the amendments today are to try and introduce a wider remit for what is now called Business Review - a requirement to report on a variety of ethical behaviour issues.

The amendments widened that remit to include reporting and revealing things like the supply chain - for who a company buys from is just as important in terms of how ethical or not that company is as its own direct behaviour.

Sadly, the so-called Labour rebels withdrew their amendment on this before the vote. Our amendment was on bringing a formal audit to the Business Review - alone in the lobbies with the moral high ground as usual - we lost the vote. The debate continues.

Big lobby on Parliament today by the sub post office masters with the largest petition ever presented - something like four million. Not surprised - as per my entry on Monday it was down to the Lib Dems to bring a debate on the Post Office to the floor of the House of Commons as the Government won't even give it debating time - let alone save the sub-post offices that remain after decimation under both Labour and Tory governments.

Labels: iraq, ming campbell, pmqs, post offices

Prime Minister's Questions - the bear pit of Parliament. What to say? I could just get sniffy and say what a load of rubbish and it has no bearing on the real world or indeed, the success of the party. William Hague was tip top at PMQs - but a flop everywhere else and as Conservative Leader. But this is the arena where the media get their kicks. They just love it - this macho test of testosterone. And as the media love it – this is the bit that gets the most coverage of all we do in Parliament – and so for many people "Parliament" pretty much equals PMQs.

So although it can make good entertainment, I doubt it helps politics (reputation and practice of) much. I have to say - when Blair is in full flow and horns are locked with the opposition - it does have that same excitement as a bull ring (not that I've ever been) or a heavyweight-boxing match (to which I have been and am totally ashamed of my liking for it).

However, after the general excitement and blood lust has worn off, I am now left totally unmoved by the theatrics. It has lost the thrill of the new - and when you hear Blair's mantra - the mantra he uses in response to almost any question is to talk about £x being put into y public services, with a few other statistics thrown in, and he says we’re on the side of the clichés – oops, sorry – we’re on the side of the many, the law abiding and those who like apple pie. Whatever the issue – it comes down to Labour have spent money on it, so all must be ok.

Even where it may be the truth - it is soured by its frequent repetition and the tangential (if any) relationship it had to the question. And the questions are the one shot a backbencher gets at the Prime Minister - so the least he should do is have the courtesy to answer.

What never ceases to astonish me, however, is how many questioners come to grief because their question is too long. Mr Speaker's tolerance for burbling on is strictly limited and he is wont to stand up and tell off the rambling questioner - who then sits down abruption with ruddy flushed and embarrassed face. You would think, would you not, that if you know that you are going to be called to ask a question because your name is on the Order Paper - you would have prepared for your 60 seconds in the limelight. You know the other members will start to jeer if you ramble on. You know Mr Speaker will cut you off. And you know that the Prime Minister will then cut you down to size because of your incompetence in questioning. And yet - time after time - I see really experienced members make this mistake - obviously carried away by the spotlight they forget how cruel the House is to those who stumble.

Boy Dave Cameron does the opposite. He over prepares. His soundbites are sometimes well worked out - but so studied that they fall flat. He has had some good moments - but to me - comes over as completely false - with no sense of belief behind his nifty nips at TB.

Does this all achieve anything other than the damage it does to the public standing of politics? The favourite answer of insiders is that it does have a big administrative effect – because everyone working in government knows that once a week, at PMQs, the Prime Minister may have to stand up and explain away their mistakes – and so in preparation for PMQs civil servants search out possible problem areas and demand explanations on behalf of the PM. Being put on your toes like this every week most of the year may help improve services at the front line, but I’m doubtful this is really the best way of doing things.

So can it change? Doubt it as long as the boys run the show. It is too close to their public school ya boo bullying for them to give it up. It obviously makes them feel like big boys with their 'friends' shouting them on from behind and jeering and making rude remarks about the other side. Some women join in - but to a much lesser extent. I think it is absolutely ludicrous. But as long as the media take their lead from this weekly ritual - it will persevere.

Labels: pmqs, tony blair

So - my first year (and a bit) as MP for Hornsey & Wood Green has come to an end. My conclusions thus far are that there aren't enough hours in the day, days in the week or weeks in the year - and cloning humans would be helpful!

It also has to be one of the best jobs in the world. It is the sheer scope of what has to be dealt with over any week that keeps the interest at boiling point. Being thrown in the deep end in terms of front bench Home Affairs spokesperson for Police, Crime and Disorder (and a list of other responsibilities) was a baptism of fire - but the only way to learn. Over the year I have written a diary of many of the things that I have done or thought on the day - but with the summer break just thought I would like to try and summarise and collect some of my activities, thoughts and impressions over this first year.

At the constituency end, a lot of the work is about taking up individual casework, trying to help and campaigning with local people to improve things - which is pretty much what I have been doing since before I was first elected to Haringey Council. (And it is interesting to see how the political culture in Haringey has changed since then. When my colleagues and I first seriously got stuck into local campaigning, the other parties were very snooty about delivering leaflets, issuing press releases, doing loads of individual casework, having a freepost address, and on and on. Of course, over the years as they lost elections and we won them they have bit by bit copied all the things they used to so look down on. Though it hasn't helped them much!).

So the constituency end of being an MP was somewhat familiar to me - although the intensity and severity of the issues that people bring to surgery in particular has been an eye opener.

At this point I should perhaps explain what "surgery" means - as one person did write to me (in all seriousness) wondering what sort of doctor I was and what I did with all my surgeries. It made me smile ... but the serious point of course is that the political class has a whole set of insider vocabulary - and it is very easy to over-estimate how much of the jargon (House, floor of the House, surgery, chamber, PMQs, EDM, etc etc) the rest of the world understands. So - for the uninitiated - my "surgery" is when constituents come and see my and raise any sort of issue they want. I guess the name comes from doctors - as when GPs hold surgeries people turn up with any manner of complaint.

Anyway - my surgery has taught me so much about the real impact of the things we debate in Parliament. I could have told you that the Home Office wasn't coping within my first month as an MP. The length of time to get an answer - let alone the years to get a decision on asylum and immigration matters. And too many other problems with visas, residency, naturalisation, lost documents - an endless stream of the victims of Home Office failure. Unbelievable. And housing - the issues around housing have given me such a good overview of, not only the shortage, but also the issues around allocation.

In fact, in the chapter I have written to be published in a book in the autumn called Britain after Blair, is based in part on this experience. For what I see is a mish-mash of decisions, with poor reasoning behind them, no transparency and often highly unsatisfactory rules. Thanks to this muddled approach, people can wait decade after decade waiting to be re-housed in a points system where they never reach the top. And then there is the threatening approach to anyone who doesn't take what is offered, however absolutely dreadful it is. The threat is - take it, no matter how bad it is, or you lose your right to be offered again. Anyway - could go on and on - but you'll just have to buy the book!

Certainly, my direction is heavily influenced by my experience of my local constituents' problems - as indeed it should be - but I think most people think of an MP as someone at Parliament and see only that side - or the giving out prizes or the visiting things (the Queen Mum bit of the job). These are all important - but to me it's still people's lives that are the challenge. Of course - that challenge can then be expanded to lobby at the Parliamentary level to put the pressure on to change the way things are.

As for Parliament itself - that's been an experience and a half. I've learned how to lead on a Bill and take it through committee - which at committee stage is akin to being a lawyer. I've learned how to get called to speak in a debate (be very nice to Mr Speaker and advise him in advance of my wish to speak and special reason why he should call me), put oral questions (including one to David Blunkett and he was gone the next day - be afraid, be very afraid) and literally hundreds of written questions. I haven't been selected for a Westminster Hall debate (yet) or an oral question to the Prime Minister - but I'm putting in for the ballot and am determined to get lucky in the next session. (If you have any mystic seaweed I can waive to raise my chances in the ballot, just pop it in the post please).

I've taken school governors to meet the Ministers' officials and met with hundreds of different lobbies who have come about one thing or another. I've put in written questions and done masses of media. I've sponsored local groups who have wanted to come to Parliament to have a room for a debate and talked to lots of local school groups who have come up to the House, had a tour and then get to grill me for half an hour. It's quite different to the other levels of governance I have been elected to thus far - local council and London Assembly. They were more direct in a way whilst this is a legislature - and the immediacy and directness is less obvious.

I've witnessed and taken part in some of the great debates of the day on detention without charge, on ID cards, on religious hatred and so on. I have experience the Commons in sombre mode following 7/7. There is a lot of humour there too - some cruel but some just comradely. The formality and the format are not to my taste - but in the year I have tried to learn how best to use my time there.

Parliament is caught in a time warp in my view. They don't even use tracking changes for legislation and amendments which I find astonishing. So each time you get a new pile of paperwork - there is no hint as to what has changed since last time. But my time there is not to fight the fight about the traditions or to worry about the so called 'male' environment - my time there is to represent my constituents and my conscience and my party.

Labels: david blunkett, pmqs

Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) sees Cameron flounder for about the third week running while Ming does good. He goes on the dreadful situation in Palestine. Why oh why doesn't Tony Blair roll up his sleeves and work at the Middle East situation the way he did for Northern Ireland? The political will of Blair and Bush just doesn’t seem to be there to sort this out. The people of both Palestine and Israel deserve peace. It is the people who have been completely let down by the rulers - now and before. If the USA and we have muscle - then for goodness sake use it to force the road map through to peace before more generations grow up in fear or poverty and hatred.

After PMQs I am leading on the front bench on a Statutory Instrument on the floor of the House. They are usually done in committees but this is about bringing into being detention without charge for 28 days. It’s the issue on which we defeated the government's push for 90 days. There has been a delay until now because Dominic Grieve (a Tory) suggested that we needed a new code to cover the treatment of those being detained under this new order.

It has taken the Government all this time to come up with it. Considering the indecent rush with which they pushed to get the time without charge extended, it is a bit of a rum do.

We are all supporting the code, but I raise issues around how this is likely to affect a community (the Muslim community) which is already extremely tender from the mistaken crude associations that some people make that Muslim = terrorist. Anyway, the Minister acknowledges the points I raise - and the statute is made.

Labels: ming campbell, pmqs, tony blair