JUST IN CASE YOU'RE MISSING PMQs

Here's a stream of consciousness...

Doug Elghorn (Catterick South Central) asked the Deputy, er, Something if she had any plans to visit Catterick to see the massive improvements which the Labour government had made since coming to power in 1997. Harriet Harperson (for it was she) blanched at the notion of leaving London for more than a few hours and said she would rather clean Nicholas Soames’ belly button fluff out.

‘Fatty’ Soames rose at this point to make a point of order, advising the house that his belly button had not been visible to the naked eye since 1971 so he recommended she go to Catterick instead. Mr Speaker thanked ‘Fatty’ for his intervention, then asked why he was wearing stockings and sitting in this lovely big chair. An assistant sat him down.

Little Billy Hague then rose to his feet, craning to see over the Despatch Box. He spoke for several minutes in that strange, affected ‘professional Yorshireman’ voice but not one word was distinct. Harriet responded that he had never made such sense and perhaps he had had 14 pints that morning. At this, everyone groaned and threw order papers at her for bringing up this tired old attack once more.

Billy rose once more and asked, slightly more clearly, if the Honourable Lady had any plans to challenge Gordon for the leadership of the Labour Party. Harriet responded by shuffling her papers, giggling, doing bird impressions. She regained her composure and denied the suggestion emphatically in a monotone.

Billy asked once more if the quiet seaside town of Southwold would be the scene of a bloody coup as former allies of the Prime Minister turned on him in a Night of the Long Knives. He asked which one of the Cabinet would be Brutus to Gordon’s Caeser? Harriet rose looking utterly perplexed at the torrent of muddled references and asked Billy if he had any relations called ‘Spooner’ or ‘Malaprop’. Billy looked cross and hitched his shorts up higher as he rose for a third time, this time shouting: ‘Listen you stupid cow, are you going to shove Gordon out of the way or not?’

At this Mr Speaker rose majestically, broke wind and sat back down again with a contented sigh.

Harriet said she would do what was in the party’s interests – as she believed would the Prime Minister. As she spoke a piece of paper dropped from the despatch box showing a grey man with short dark hair and a terrible suit on a simple gallows with a woman executioner laughing in the background.

Patsy Lewknor (Auchtermuchtie and West Livingston) told Harriet she was looking well today and complimented her on her outfit. She then reminded her that any new Prime Minister might wish to put more women in her Cabinet to better reflect the make-up of the country. Harriet thanked her for the flowers which were delivered that morning and said she would take that on board. She then winked melodramatically.

Ed Balls said he’d shagged all of Girls Aloud while Yvette Cooper said she once went out with Ant or Dec, she wasn’t sure which.

Vince rose and asked Harriet if she had ever considered turning on her leader since he was surely in large part responsible for the government’s failure to plan for the current problems in the country. He said he was a keen dancer but that he had never learned to ‘pussyfoot’ around a failed leader. Would the Labour Party now change their tune and dance to a different beat or would it be the same old rhythm all the way to the General Election Blues?

At this the House rose in adulation for Vince being clever and mildly interesting when he spoke. Several journalists wept openly as he was offered the monarchy but politely declined as he sat down, looking too clever by half.

Harriet said we were in difficult times but that it would be wrong to apportion blame to any individual. She then, rather obliquely, turned to her colleagues on the Labour benches and asked ‘Who’s the big blue Express train in Thomas the Tank Engine who’s always getting the others into trouble and who no one likes’. She turned back to Vince and said the world had experienced a global slowdown but that she could ‘Make it Happen’ for Britain’s economy given the chance. Vince looked smug.

Little Billy Hague rose once more and asked Harriet in his soft, supposedly serious voice, whether she supported the Lisbon Treaty, now that Britain had ratified it. Edward Leigh at this point turned so red that he was visible from space. John Redwood began to fizz strangely. Harriet responded that the Treaty had been supported by this Parliament and that ratification was the right decision.

Billy jumped up triumphantly, his catapult falling out of his pocket and said ‘Ah, but what about the pledge to hold a referendum over Europe in your 1997 manifesto?’ ‘What about it’ responded Harriet. Billy rose rather too quickly and had to have a restorative Spangle before speaking: ‘Your government promised the people of Britain a referendum’. ‘And?’ retorted Harriet, the sheer stupidity of her responses brilliantly wrong-footing the child genius opposite. Billy rose falteringly this time: ‘Do you plan to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?’ he whispered. Harriet barked back: ‘Of course not, dimwit. We’ve already ratified it.’

At this, Labour MPs sat dumbfounded that her dim responses seemed to have worked. Several Tories donned Army fatigues and pledged to beat back the alien tide and the Lib Dems nodded sagely, not having understood what had just happened but united in their support for Europe.

Lembit Opik rose to cheers and adulation from the dictaphone he was holding. He asked Harriet what the government would be doing to address problems in Weston super Mare following the recent pier fire. Would her government (at this Harriet grinned a grin that would have frightened a hungry lion) do more to address the concerns of the residents of Weston who were worried that the recent tragedy had given Lord Archer of Weston super Mare an opportunity to get back on the radio and TV. Harriet said they government planned to bring in emergency legislation which meant that Archer could only appear on TV or the radio if his voice was dubbed by an actor, to avoid upsetting too many people.

John Redwood rose and pointed with his strangely glowing finger. At this, all the pot plants in Wokingham suddenly revived. He left the Chamber to fly home in the basket of his BMX.

Finally, David Davis rose, wearing a poor garment and sandals. He gazed meaningfully into the middle distance as he spoke, asking Harriet if she believed that locking people up for 42 days without charge was appropriate for country which valued civil liberties so highly. Harriet responded that she believed that 42 days could be justified in some extreme circumstances and that the police should have all options available. She then referred to her response to Lembit Opik and mentioned Lord Archer as a prime example of someone who should be locked up for considerably longer than 42 days.

Mr Speaker shouted ‘Udder, Udder’ as he does and the session ended with a mass exodus, leaving three MPs to discuss a range of matters which would cost British taxpayers billions of pounds and which would profoundly affect all our lives – but the canteen had a ‘two for one’ deal on brioches which all the others wanted to take advantage of.

HARRIET JONES, PRIME MINISTER

Well, not quite. Penelope Wilton I could respect.

It is interesting to see Harriet Harperson taking on the role of Gordon Brown while he's away. I make no secret of my disdain for her but reading an article about her new role it occured to me that, if I was a panicky Labour MP looking for an alternative to Gordon I might not be persuaded by the questionable charms of evasive Jack Straw, clever but insipid David Miliband or the impossibly unlikeable Ed Balls. I might even question the prospects of Alan Johnson, the best of a bad bunch.

However, a woman who was elected to a senior position by the party just a few months ago, who has surprised many people with her competent performances in Parliament, who - let's be shallow since it does count with voters and commentators - is relatively photogenic and, perhaps crucially, who Gordon actively dislikes and does not trust, might be just the person Labour is looking for to drag it out of the mire.

She might even be able to wrong-foot the silver tongued pedaller (sic.) of spin himself since his attack has so far been levelled at his hero, Blair and at the dour and depressing Brown. Harperson might just bring something fresh to the whole petty squabbling.

I can't say the prospect pleases me as I genuinely don't rate her as a politician but it might be worth considering if you were a desperate Labour apparatchik. She would represent a clear, fresh break with the past for many people, perhaps including a large number of key female voters

CYCLING IS A TORY ACTIVITY. OH, AND THE DALAI LAMA IS GOING TO PLAY FOR ARSENAL NEXT SEASON

On the question of whether cycling is a 'right wing' activity, another dificult question comes to mind which must be addressed before this original proposition can be suitably demolished.

That is whether it is reasonable on a blog which aims for a lighthearted yet sensible approach to issues of the day - both important and less so - to refer to the comments of a Parliamentarian as 'utter bollocks' or is this a step too far.

I cannot decide so I leave you, dear reader, to read between the lines of this post to establish how I would respond to the latest Tory lightweight's contention.

One final thought must be offered. This is the party which purports to be the next government. If that does not induce an involuntary shudder in you, get on your bike and vote Tory.

KARADZIC CAUGHT. CELEBRATE.

Its difficult to overstate the significance of the taking of the 'Liar of Sarajevo', Radovan Karadzic, by Serb authorities. Together with the Butcher of Srebrenica, Ratko Mladic, Karadzic was the true, ugly face of aggression in the latest nasty conflict in the Balkans. His regular appearance on news programmes to deny anything was wrong turned my stomach then and the knowledge that he will now be subject to international justice is deeply satisfying.

Serbs should also recognise the importance of this event since it marks another stage in the rehabilitation of that country. This another significant victory for the moderates, as well as for the increasingly muscular application of international law.

JEEZ, NOW THEY'VE GONE AND CHANGED THE PARTY WEBSITE!

Wow, stunningly crisp new front page to the party's website (www.libdems.org.uk) with perhaps slightly too big a picture of Nickers on it but a really dramatic change. I'm getting lost with all these innovations at once.

I wonder what Dave would do...

NICKERS ON OUTSIDE HIS TROUSERS AND READY FOR ACTION

There's a short but interesting post from Nickers himself over on Libdemvoice in which he gives a brief pep talk about the party structure and says a General Election could come at any time in the next few months. Nickers has also been in the general media talking about how a LD government would cut taxes for those who need it nost (as mentioned in an earlier post).

There are reports that he plans to change the party structure to make it a bit more streamlined. Finally, in my inbox this morning there was a message about a series of 'real' commitments to sell to voters - and the list was good, Gruffalo fans!

The comments on many of the posts about this flurry of activity from on high have been critical, suspicious and generally negative. Well, I'm impressed. I voted for Nickers as I thought he had ambition and he is proving that to be the case.

He has been attacked on LDV for considering an election soon to be possible. No guys, that's just good leadership, whatever the prospects of such a contest, which most of us probably think unlikely.

I'd like to see a little less navel-gazing in general, particularly about the changes to the party structure - for after all, who gives a **** - and a bit more getting behind the leader who, let's be frank, has a bloody awful job but who has so far acquitted himself extremely ably.

AMERICA GROWS UP AND TALKS TO IRAN

Fantastic news that someone, somewhere in the US administration has come to their senses and realised that launching yet another war in the middle east (or west Asia if you want to be pedantic) will not achieve what they want it to achieve.

Instead they plan to talk to the Iranians in Geneva.

It's days like these that make you think it might just be all right after all. Well done the USA and please think about a little more of this.

TORY TAX TERRITORY TAKEN

Nice one Nickers with the headline today about a future LD govcernment cutting taxes for those who need it.

The BBC report is at http://tinyurl.com/6b28k3 (sorry, still can't do links...)

I'm very impressed with this approach. More of the same please!

PMQs, FURTHER REFLECTIONS FROM SOMEWHERE NEAR LARK RISE

The question from Nickers quoted the PM as promising to abolish boom and bust, but said we now have both, with energy and food prices up. He asked when the PM would act?

Gordon said employment at its highest level ever – 60,000 more in last 3 months, with lower inflation that Europe and the USA. He said his government was addressing the problems which exist.

Nickers then said the PM doesn’t understand the scale of this, with 5.5m people in fuel poverty, and more families with housing problems. The PM needs to step back and see the big picture and come up with some solutions to stop real misery in the winter. In response, predictably, Gordon reeled off a little list of all the fab things his government was doing. I fell asleep briefly.

Nickers was earnest and right on but he didn’t get any headlines with these questions, which is what the game is all about.

A foolish Tory asked ‘does the PM think the price of petrol and diesel is too high or too low’.
Sheesh, an open goal for Gordon, who said prices were too high and then launched into one of his more messianic speeches about what he has done to address the issue and save us all. He finished by lamenting that it is ‘just unfortunate the opposition won’t support these actions’.

Ken Clarke asked if the PM has decided how the unfortunate taxpayer is eventually going to pay for the mess he’s got us in. Is Ken looking towards a future Tory Cabinet, I wonder…Gordon reeled off his ‘how bad things were under the Tories’ list, to everyone’s utter delight.

Then Jo Swinson stood up, the sun dappling her brown hair and steadfast but feminine shoulders as she gazed earnestly at the Prime Minister and the assembled MPs gazing rapt as her cherry lips parted to speak (I was listening on the radio but creating a mental picture…). She asked about the problem of skin cancer, with 80,000 new cases each year, and asked how the government can justify taxing sun cream. Gordon told her the government has spent god knows how much to address cancer issues, and that waiting times for cancer treatment were much shorter now.

Norman Baker rose, the sun dappling his bald pate, his cherry lips…no, bad image. He asked about BMI flying empty planes to keep airport slots open. Given the emissions produced by the aviation industry, would the PM address this issue of ‘ghost flights’. Gordon agreed that such flights ‘would be’ bad – i.e. not accepting that they happen - and agreed to look into this and write to him, so nice one Norman. This question made the BBC news.

A Labour MP actually asked a good question about the threat of eviction for families in social housing if their children were involved in anti-social behaviour. He asked what would be done to families living in owner occupier properties, which I thought was rather clever. Gordon spoke on the contracts to be signed with problem families, neatly sidestepping the question but hopefully it will be asked again as it needs consideration.

I haven’t listened to PMQs for some time but |I was pleasantly surprised by today’s discussion. Slightly more light than heat was created for once.

[NB: profound apologies to Jo Swinson for any offence caused.]

PMQs, THE VIEW FROM OXFORDSHIRE

Well, the last PMQs of the season offered a chance for Dave and Gordon (that always sounds like a sixties singing duo to me) to have one last pop at each other and they duly obliged

First off, a Labour MP asked a lengthy question and the Speaker eventually cut him off. Dave started his act with a comment about how it was good to see that you didn’t have to finish a planted question to get a planted answer

Dave’s assault was based on the idea of no one taking responsibility in government. He asked who thought up the knife policy to take those with knife convictions visit victims in A&E. Gordon failed to answer twice, simply telling the House about government policies like the ‘good conduct’ plans for families. Whatever he said, his resounding failure to answer was excruciating.

This is where Dave rather lost it. He decried the lack of an answer but moved on to car tax, pointing out that Gordon had previously said the majority of drivers would benefit from the proposed car tax changes. He changed the subject and thus lost his focus.

Gordon perked up. He hit home, pointing out that the Tories had previously supported tough choices for the environment and noted that Dave had said in 2007 that less polluting cars should pay less, more polluting cars should pay more. That’s not leadership, said Gordon. This was one of those rare occasions when Gordon got Dave square on the jaw.

Dave reminded Gordon that he had said he was useless a year ago and he hasn’t changed his mind since. Dave’s turn to land a blow and for every listening or watching to rejoice as it got interesting.

Dave asked about the government decision to halt the 2p fuel duty rise, which was announced today and whether it was related to the Glasgow east by-election, just as other decisions had been to do with other by-elections? Gordon quoted advice that the new car tax should be for second hand cars as well to be effective. He quoted the Tory slogan ‘vote blue go green’ and said it was meaningless

Dave got a good one in here. He said the slogan now is ‘vote blue, get rid of this lousy government’. He asked about Gordon’s failure to turn up to the vote on MPs’ expenses. Gordon intriguingly spoke of the actions of a few causing problems for all, a veiled attack on his own MPs it seems. He said there should be a cap on expenses.

Dave finished by saying there are tough times ahead and difficult decisions to be taken and asked, ‘shouldn’t the PM provide leadership and tell the truth?’ Gordon was able to strike home, saying that’s why he will continue to take tough decisions while Dave runs away from them. He mentioned several areas where Dave had ducked the issue and said he had no solution and no substance

The commentators in the Westminster bubble will doubtless read it differently but this was a points victory for Gordon. Dave attacked him but he ranged too widely. He lacked focus and Gordon was able to destroy his argument after a rocky start. The points this week go to Gordon. Does the fightback start here?

SPEED CAMERAS – TORIES TAKE A STAND

Clever Swindon Council says it wants to scrap speed cameras. Brilliant headline and great publicity for the Tory ruling Group. Apparently speed cameras are ‘a tax on motorists’.

Well, no. Speed cameras are a tax on motorists who drive too fast. If you speed you might get flashed. If you don’t, you won’t.

Now I know Tories are thick – they must be to vote Tory – but how difficult is that principle to understand. Its not speed cameras that are the problem, its people breaking the law.

NB: to avoid the charge of seeming too self-righteous I will admit that I once got a speeding fine, from a police radar gun. But you know what? I deserved it because I was speeding.

MUTILATION IN THE NAME OF GOD. NICE...

Watching a fascinating documentary on the Qur’an, I was suddenly shocked by a gruesome scene of a young girl - probably about 9 or 10 years old - being mutilated by her family allegedly in the name of her religion. The young girl screamed for them to stop and told them she didn't want this but her family went ahead regardless.

This leads me to a question: if God/Allah/Yahweh created people, what right do clerics or other misguided zealots have to mutilate people in the name of their respective religions?

I suppose this is one of those questions which will never be answered so I’ll have to ask God if I ever meet her.

I BOW TO EAT MY CRUNCHIE...

A couple of years ago I had an article published in Prospect (they had a space to fill...) about changing the national anthem to the beautiful, uplifting but non-triumphalist 'I vow to thee, my country'.

The BBC's Mark Easton recently commented on the website about how naff 'God save the Queen' is and asked for suggestions for a new national anthem. Today he published the results and it seems that 'I vow to thee...' came out fourth, although with 'God save Betty' first.

This is nonetheless heartening as the original idea - which I wouldn't claim as uniquely mine - was dismissed at the time but this informal poll suggests that it may yet have its day.

I may allow myself a tiny, but inclusive, cheer.

VATICAN, SCHMATICAN!

Apparently the Vatican is 'angry' with the vote by the Church of England Synod to allow women bishops.

I don't like to over-react but I trust the Vatican and every cardinal will hold in their hearts an image of me raising a friendly salute in their direction in a gesture indicating how highly I value their opinion.

I understand the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem has had the good grace to not get involved in the internal politics of another religion.

If only the Archbishop of Canterbury had any resolve whatsoever, he would tell them where to stick their views as well. But then he went to Rome and, somehow overlooking 400 years of English history, kissed the Pope's ring so his ability to stand up for the Church of England is plain.

Blancmange in the sun comes to mind...

WHAT THE TORIES CAN TEACH US: IT’S THE IMAGE, STUPID!

You have to admire David Cameron. He took control of his party when it looked as vicious and unelectable as it ever has following the brief rule of the alarming Michael Howard. Dave hugged huskies, rode a bike, tried to buy a windmill (but failed), introduced a tree, got a blog and generally said lovely things to everyone.

Nearly three years down the line, having got the support of many more people, Dave is now moving cautiously back to the core Tory agenda, which is self help – selfishness, if you want to be uncharitable – a moral approach to society, a smaller state and lower taxes. At least that’s how they would like to be seen and this current post is not the place to demolish their key beliefs.

Dave has condemned knife crime – who doesn’t? He believes that society is ‘morally neutral’ and that people suffering from obesity or who drink or smoke bear some responsibility for their conditions: once again, I suspect that most of us share this view, regardless of the varying approaches we would take to dealing with these people, which would move between condemnation and a desire to offer help and support. On the environment, well, families need help so lets let the planet go hang to boost sales of people carriers.

In short, he is gently humming an old, familiar tune which others are picking up gradually, including those core Tories who must have been a bit fed up over the last few years as they saw this ‘liberal-lite’ apologist take over their beloved party. It is a brilliant strategy and deserves praise.

Of course, the truth is that an incoming Tory government (still a statement which causes me to shudder involuntarily) will do nothing, change nothing, keep taxes where they are and generally maintain the same course, with a few tweaks round the edges for effect but the mood music is beguiling and at the moment it looks like being successful.

The key question for us two years away from an election is what we can learn from Cameron’s remarkable reinvention of traditional Conservatism? I think there are some very good lessons.

Firstly, you don’t have to ditch your core values when you revamp your image. If we changed our name or logo we’d still be Liberal Democrats, with all the values that unite us. However, that’s perhaps a bit too radical an idea for the moment

Secondly, you can connect with the public and keep those same core values. It’s okay to be populist – and you can still keep your soul

Thirdly, a good idea will win people over if it is well presented. We often suffer from a ‘holier-than-thou’ approach which may cheese people off as no one likes to be lectured. However, we have some great policies which would be popular - if only voters knew about them.

The key message is that the Tories have not changed one iota under Dave’s leadership. What they have done is re-connected with the public and they are reaping the benefits. Perhaps its time for us to put the endless policy reviews and votes on goldfish on hold for a few years and do a bit more selling of the excellent policies we have. As any good company knows, R&D is all well and good but it has to be paid for by shifting your existing products off the shelf.

Let’s get a bit more shallow and start connecting with people.

REASONS TO SUPPORT GORDON BROWN AT ALL COSTS

Because it is reported that Harriet Harperson is campaigning to promote herself as a stand-in Prime Minister should he be forced out.

Talk about 'the devil you know'...

IN PRAISE OF NICOLAS SARKOZY

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the French President for introducing me to a new sensation, to paraphrase Edmund Blackadder. He has made me warm to Peter Mandelson and his crusade to cut some of the cancerous French-led subsidy disease which continues to rot the heart of Europe.

Perhaps when Mr Sarkozy’s country stops taking half of all EU revenue, primarily for its pampered farmers, he can afford to criticise others.

ENGLAND EXPECTS

Ken Clarke is that rare beast, a Tory people like and respect, rather like the Blessed Vince, whose popularity goes far beyond our party. Clarke has come up with an interesting idea to allow English MPs only to scrutinise English legislation with it ultimately being passed by the whole House of Commons but, crucially, with Scottish MPs (the piece didn’t mention Welsh MPs) not being able to reject any amendments English MPs have put into the bill.

This is a useful addition to the debate over the legendary West Lothian question, although it seems much too messy for me. The government put up a Scottish MP – bland Labour apparatchik whose name escaped me as soon as it was uttered – on the radio who pooh-poohed the idea as unworkable, pointing out that MPs from London, Wales and Northern Ireland would also have to be excluded and lionising the union. Basically he wasn ‘t having it.

This is dangerous because the constitutional anomaly of England remains and the government must address it. I’m against an English parliament unless we have really radical change but a solution to the greater powers given to Scots through their own parliament must be dealt with. Similarly, the Welsh should have a fully fledged Parliament. There is no earthly reason why they shouldn’t.

What is needed is a bit of leadership, perhaps similar to the Scottish Convention which formulated plans for the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s. The trouble is that New Labour wants the problem to go away, the Tories basically want a single British Parliament and we have far too ambitious plans for a federal system which will not be accepted by any other party at the moment.

English politicians are failing England in not grasping this nettle and the government is lying when it says this is not an issue. It is and it is a ripe subject for serious political leadership which, at the moment, is distinctly lacking.

So two cheers for Ken Clarke, a raspberry for the fumbling Labour government and a raised, questioning eyebrow towards our own English MPs

THE YESTERDAY PROGRAMME ON RADIO 4

A ‘traditionalist’ Anglican priest was on the Today programme this morning spouting off about God’s ministry meaning that women must be treated as second class citizens in the church (I may be putting these particular words into his mouth…) and that there should not be women bishops. The point was made by the interviewer that it is because Jesus had 12 male apostles that the traditionalists believe that all priests should be men.

Well, my family vicar – buried my sister and my mother, christened me, my brother and my son, married me and my wife – is a lovely man and drives around in a huge Rover, his pride and joy. I’m not very good on the Bible but I seem to recall that none of the apostles had a car. Should vicars drive cars if the apostles didn’t?

Ah, but that’s different, I hear the cry go up. Society changes but God’s message is timeless. Well, society changes and so should the interpretation of God’s message by men to reflect that. We’ve given up stoning heretics and fallen women which I think is a step in the right direction (apologies to any passing Tories who find this difficult to comprehend).

My local vicar is a woman and she is respected by everyone in my community. When I call her by her first name my son gets mightily offended as she is ‘Mrs Knowles’ to him. My kids are therefore growing up with a woman vicar as normal and one day there will be women bishops. I do hope the traditionalists find a suitably pious rock to crawl under soon, so that the rest of us can get on with mumbling the Lord’s Prayer a couple of times a year and drunkenly celebrating Jesus’s official birthday at Christmas.

The moral of this particular offering? That we should stop trying to tell everyone how to live their lives, especially when it is being done in the name of 2,000 year old prejudice emerging from a fiercely patriarchal culture.