PM supports Israel, no matter what.

There have been some angry whisperings from the Foreign Office about the PM's continuted shoulder-adjacent stance with the Americans vis-vis all world affairs.
The UK now isolated completely in its support for Israel's war crimes against the Lebanese, mandarins are slowly starting to leak out the level of anxiety this policy stance is causing.
So it has been revealed that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan telephoned Jack Straw at home to express his bewilderment at Blair's attitude and to beg Straw to try and talk him round.
Kim Howells, Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, clearly wants an immediate ceasefire, along with everyone else in the goverment.
The position of Margaret Beckett is not one to be envied. A few months into the job, she has to balance a PM who is religiously devoted to the Yo' cult of Bush and the neo-cons with her own department and the rest of the international community, who think the Yo' cult is full of dangerous simpletons.
Back in the day, the FCO used to actually direct, plan and control Britain's interests abroad. Now it is, like every other department bar the Treasury, just an outpost of No. 10. This movement of power to the centre began with St Margaret of Handbag. Bored of beating up miners and witchhunts against the gays, she decided to take over Foreign Affairs and appointed her own special adviser to give 'perspective' on all the lies and evasions that the FCO do so very well.
The upshot was the resignation of the side-lined Foreign Secretary, the lovely Geoffrey Howe. His subsequent resignation speech in the House was the beginnning of the end of La Thatcher.
The seriously flawed American plan seems to be to allow Israel to continue to destroy Lebanon, as it is all part of that old favourite, the war on terror. TWOT is used in all sorts of guises these days, from Russsian imperial expansion into Chechnya to Indonesian internal repression to, it seems, Israeli use of collective punishment.
TWOT can be used to justify any crime.
It is a shame that Margaret Beckett, that loyalist of loyalists, stalwart of the Labour movement, will not be the one to stand up to Blair and TELL him that we must be more even handed. It is hard to see how any meaningful debate with the Muslim community here and abroad can start when out entire foreign policy is Muslim bad, anyone else good. We are standing on the sidelines cheering Israel on as it reigns death and terror on innocent Lebanese, whose crime is to be alive. It is a shameful position, truly shameful and one that every single one of our EU partners rejects in favour of NO killing, NO bombings, NO air strikes
One can only hope that the Labour party will see some sense at the party conference. This last act of dictatorship by Blair might be the catalyst that sees him become a former prime minister at a time of our choosing, not his.

Westminster is a village

Last night went to a gay networking event at the very plush Langley bar. Well when I say plush, it was no more or less well-designed and laid out than any other London bar. They just seem to think that they can charge about 3.50 for a bottle of beer and that no-one will bat an eyelid. It is like a sophisticated game of chicken - customers will not complain about being over-charged because that shows they are too poor to be in the venue in the first place. Well let me make a stand - it's disgusting the amount of over-charging for alcohol that goes on in London.
Before going to the Langley we were in a bar called Trash Palace, a kind of indie venue. Pints of Carling? 1.50 each.
The event was run by villagedrinks.co.uk and there was an good turnout of political types. It was nice to see Welsh nationalist MP Adam Price there talking to what I assume were constituents. Lots of researchers and parliamentary aides were there, and I had a nice gossip with some guy from the Liberal Democrats. It seems they all knew about Simon "hello is that mantalk, I saw ur nice advert on the telly" Hughes. The Oaten affair was something of a shock to the whole party.
Despite the ludicrous pricing, it was an excellent event - and it was nice to go to a gay event where there were no camp teenagers or wheezy pensioners! Well done villagedrinks - next time try to make it less "posh" though - no one cares about that but you.

Oaten faces reality

Mark Oaten has announced that he is to stand down at the next election. The MP for Winchester may have been motivated by the LibDem loss of Winchester council earlier this year.
Despite concerted efforts to rehabilitate his image - including interviews with his wife in the Sunday papers - it seems he has finally bowed to the inevitable. As long ago as March LibDem MPs were dismissing out-of-hand any suggestion that he might come back onto the front bench.
Oaten says he wants to concentrate on development issues when he leaves parliament.
He also seems to think he is a media celebrity, in the mode of Jade Goody. He appeared weekly in the BBC's Politics Show as one of four MPs starting a new fitness regime.
The comparison with Goody is apt - there is a serious amount of self-delusion in both. If Oaten thinks he is going to be the new Charles Kennedy he is mistaken. There is no public love for Oaten. He would do better to follow the model of the late John Profumo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Profumo) , and devote himself to anonymous good works.

Trouble with broadband

Trouble with broadband ... still having problems publishing the site today! This means that new content cannot be put up on politicsjunkie.co.uk for the time being. Also the bottom frame of the website which should have been deleted keeps appearing as a "cannot find server" which is most frustrating. Please bear with us as our dedicated team of monkeys attempt to repair the problem!

Apologies to all those who just can't wait to read what politicsjunkie makes of the current Prescott news (still dead man walking) and the end-of-term reports on the Cabinet (mostly Cs and Ds)
These stories and many others will be posted on the blog later today if the website publishing is still not working!

Commons Cafe

Just returned from lunch at the House of Commons - going to their works canteen is unlike any cafe ever been to.
For a start, on Monday mornings the whole building is packed with tourists in groups of varying sizes being shown round. While loitering in the Central Lobby, I spotted shadow cancellor George Osborne (much taller than you would expect), international development secretary Hilary Benn (very expensive looking suit) and Labour MP Russell Brown (tiny! Blears-esque).
In the canteen, I stared longingly out onto the terrace beside the Thames, but it is reserved for MPs and their guests. The food was like everything sold in the Palace of Westminster ie: 1994 prices. Shockingly cheap.
In the queue I spot former Speaker Bernard Weatherill, looking older but still as dignified as ever - you may remember him as Speaker before Betty Boothroyd - he was the first televised Speaker. I asked him how he is doing - he did his neck in watching the golf, he tells me.
The canteen is an excellent place for MP spotting. There was Piari Khabra, the oldest MP at 82. Oh and Peter Bone, an imposing Tory with a very patrician nose, accompanied by grandee Sir Peter Tapsell. Father of the House Alan Williams wandered past and disappeared into the area closed off for MPs only.
The place was packed with fresh-faced young researchers, and as I discussed my lunch mate's upcoming book, I spotted plenty more MPs who are on my 'to interview' list.
Chris Mullin, former minister, campaigned for the Birmingham Six and successful author, is one of them. The Channel 4 adapatation of his excellent political novel, A Very British Coup, is currently being re-run on ITV3. Or perhaps ITV4.
In any case, it concerns the election of a proper socialist PM in the 1987 election, and the efforts of the security services of the UK and the USA to discredit his goverment. Well worth watching - I highly recommend it.

August - our promise to you.

As parliament lurches through these last two days of the session, everyone is talking about summer holidays.
Do not be fooled into thinking that everyone just goes on one long skive from now till October! This summer there should be lots of plotting and rumour going on in the Labour party - will they have a totally new leadership by the start of the next session?
For all the talk from Blair loyalists about staying on till 2007, John Prescott has been making it pretty clear that change is imminent!
politicsjunkie will be reporting on all the August stories right here on the blog and there will be more interviews posted during the coming weeks.
September of course is as different story - with the Tory and LibDem conferences there should be LOTS to talk about - we might even have a new PM by then!

MPs to get a vote on Trident renewal

Jack Straw has told MPs that there will be a vote in the House of Commons on whether to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent.
There have been persistent questions about renewal at PMQ, with left-wingers like Jeremy Corbett annoyed that the government seems to have made the decision already. Many MPs were shocked that Gordon Brown seemed to say he would both retain the present Trident system and renew it, at an estimated cost of 20 billion pounds.
The current missiles were ordered from the Americans in the 1980s, and the House did not vote on the decision then. Trident will become obselete by 2020. As Britain needs American permission to launch the missiles, there are issues around just how independent the UK nuclear deterrent actually is.
The vote could see large amount of Labour rebels voting against renewal - only retention was mentioned in the 2005 Labour party manifesto.
Jack Straw told MPs:

"The position of this was set up by the Prime Minister two weeks ago when he did point out that we were the first government to give the House a vote over decisions to go to war.

"Of course we should involve the House fully in a decision as important as the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and in practical terms it is inevitable that there will therefore be a chance for the House to express its view on this important matter in a vote."

PMQ - end-of-term panto

All three party leaders paid fulsome tribute to former MP Kevin Hughes at PMQ today. The 53-year-old former MP for Doncaster North stood down at the last election because of ill-health, and died of motor neurone disease over the weekend.
MPs were in a good mood, and Tony Blair in particular was on top form, at one point teasing the Speaker after being told off for talking too much about Tory policies. Or rather, the lack of any.
Some commentators were suprised that David Cameron did not return to bashing the Home Office, given this week's admission that there are hundreds of thousands more illegal immigrants as was first thought.
Instead the Leader of the Opposition chose to stick with a series of good one-liners. He started by asking for confirmation that the government's home infomation pack scheme was to be abandoned.
Blair replied that as a result of representations from the mortgage industry, the packs would not now be compulsory. Cameron commented that as the PM would be moving house soon, he should pay more attention.
There was then the usual exchange about Labour incomptence and "under the Tories" responses about high interest rates.
Cameron was trying to paint a picture of a goverment in decline, unable to enact its own legislation. As he listed these policies, there was a touch of end-of-term panto as his colleagues bellowed 'dropped!' after each one.
This gave the PM the opportunity to point out that Cameron only has four policies - a bill of rights, hug-a-hoodie, English votes on English affairs and withdrawl from the EPP - all of which have been trashed by his own MPs.
Blair was relishing the exchange, no doubt relieved that this is the last time he will face his opponent until October. Cameron did not mention the summer of Prescott, but instead hit the PM with a truly amusing riposte:
"I know the prime minister doesn't like being interrogated, but given how things are going with Scotland Yard he could do with the practice."
Mr Blair tried to respond with another list of Tory non-policies, but the Speaker wasn't having any of it. He told the PM he had been generous with him before with the lists, and suggested he be brief.
The session moved on, with a question from Dawn Butler about safer stations. Mr Blair amused his colleagues by starting to list Tory policy again - just a bit of fun.
Ming Campbell asked another set of excellent questions, this time he wanted to know why the PM will not criticise Israel's response to Hizbollah's rocket attacks.
Mr Blair called the events in the Middle East "tragic and terrible" but maintained his strongly pro-Israel stance, placing the blame for the situation squarely at the feet of Lebanon and Hizbollah.
Veteran Labour MP and former minister Michael Meacher also urged the PM to confront the US about its stance on the situation, and advocated negotiation
Mr Blair replied that without the pre-condition of security there can be no negotiation.
He also faced criticism from Evan Harris and Denis MacShane for not signing the international treaty on human trafficking. The PM said he was unhappy that under the treaty traficked people would remain in the UK after they had been discovered, but promised to reconsider.
Finally, the PM's holiday arrangements were the subject of two Tory questions. John Maples suggested that the Blairs eschew their usual Italian palazzo for a destination in the UK - therefore removing the need for John Prescott to stand in over the summer.
Robert Goodwill went one better, inviting Mr Blair to bring his bucket and spade to Scarborough in his constituency. He told the House that many people who holiday in the seaside resort end up retiring there.
Mr Blair mused on the dubious pleasures of bumping into Mr Goodwill on his promenades along the seafront, and wished all members a good holiday.

MPs Feel The Heat

Hemel Hempstead MP Mike Penning was irate at the lack of facilities for large numbers of memebers of the public, especially in this unusually hot weather, and raised the matter with the Speaker on Wednesday.
A large group of Penning's constituents had come to petition parliament - and were being forced to stand outside in temperatures of over 35 degrees. He wanted to know what indoor facilities could be provided.
Ususally large groups of petitioners would be accommodated in Westminster Hall. The Speaker said the hall was at present like a building site. There is a huge amount of building work at the front of the Palace of Westminster creating a new state-of-the-art 'visitors centre', which will no doubt be as security-laden as the rest of parliament, if not more.
The Speaker was sympathetic to the inconvenience of standing in such heat:

" The hon. Gentleman mentioned people who are demonstrating outside. They have the democratic right to come to Parliament and express their concerns to Members. The temperatures outside are exceptional; I have never experienced such temperatures in the 27 years that I have been coming to London every week—it was exceptionally warm when I was out at 8 o'clock this morning.
"I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to look into the possibility of at least making available water facilities—bottled water or cool water, perhaps—because it is unreasonable to expect people to stand in such heat. I will instruct the Serjeant at Arms to see what we can do, at the very least to find water for visitors."

The new centre is being dug under Cromwell Green, with ramps from street level. When complete, all visitors will pass through security at this sub-ground level, entering the Palace through the north door of medieval Westminster Hall. The ugly black portacabins containing x-ray machines outside the present St Stephens Entrance will be removed. There will also be no unsightly queues of people outside the building.

Could Labour declare bankruptcy?

It would certainly be unprecedented. But figures released by the Electoral Commisson today show that the Labour party is a staggering 27m (pounds that is) in debt.
The party traditionally relies on union funding to keep it afloat. But the unions are unsuprisingly unimpressed with the party's direction under Blair, and the cash is drying up.
This might explain the PM's desire to get as many donations (or loans) from rich businessmen. At this point in the political cyle however, this is not the time to be giving money to the ruling party. The smart money is on the Conservatives winning the next election, and any wise businessman wanting influence would surely have been put off by the shambles surrounding loans to Labour. Sir Gulam Noon's public statements over his loan to the Labour party show how giving money can backfire and damage one's reputation.
Although the Tories are also in debt, to the tune of 16.8m, they have more assets than Labour and a much larger group of rich people to tap for cash. Riding high on the polls, they should see an increase in membership and donations in the coming years.
Tory party chair pointed out that the party have more members than their two rivals put together.
What will Labour do? Where will they find tens of millions of pounds at a time that the government is dying on its arse?
We could easily see a situation where the party have to file for bankruptcy?
Listen out for more and more discussion of "state funding" in the coming months. The only real hope for Labour is that they can persuade the public that they should be paying for the political parties.

Yo Blair

Tony Blair has been at the front line of British politics for 15 years - Bush too. How come these two experienced politicians failed to notice the microphones all round them at a G8 lunch?
The casual conversation between the two has been picked over by the press - it was certainly something of a shock to hear the President of the United States greet our PM with the words "Yo, Blair!"
Does the exchanges over the Middle East situation expose Bush as a simplistic idiot? Probably. Not exactly shocking. What is shocking is the supine posture of Blair towards his more powerful ally. In fact at one point the PM offers to go out to the region to prepare the ground for a Condi Rice visit. Blair seems to think that it would be better for him to go out and fail than for the Americans to.
What are we to make of it all? And why did Blair send Bush a jumper as a present?
Full transcript here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5188258.stm

Blair speaks out

Tony Blair has said he does not think anyone in the Labour party has broken the rules over party funding, but refused to be drawn on whether he will be questioned by police.
He also defended Lord Levy, saying that he had done an excellent job as Middle East envoy.
In an interview with the BBC's Politics Show, Mr Blair made a strong defence of John Prescott. Attacking the media, he demanded to know what evidence there was against the DPM, and pointed out that planning issues ultimately rest with the Mayor of London.
Challenged over his own leaving date, he refused to speculate and committed himself to get on with the job. He also said that the public were not as interested in leadership elections as the media appear to be.
It was a robust performance from the PM. He seemed relaxed and in control. But he didn't say for sure whether he would be at the next G8 conference as PM.

Gremlins - no, not the film

sorry to all those who are having slight problems with www.politicsjunkie.co.uk
for some reason the site is opening pages without frames
this may have something to do with the fact the site is now so large that uploading it all takes over two hours and then times out
we will try to fix it over the weekend!
thanks

Cameron Delays Leaving EPP!!

It was one of the only clear policies David Cameron actually had. In the course of the leadership campaign late last year, he wowed Eurosceptics by promising to withdraw the Conservative group of MEPs from the right-of-centre European Peoples Party.
Cameron shocked my commentators by sticking by the policy when be became leader. The main issue with the EPP is that they support a federalist future for the EU. The Tories announced they were going to establish a new Euro-sceptic grouping in the Parliament.
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague has spent the last few months going across Europe to try to find other parties to join the group. EU rules state that there must be MEPs from five member states to be a proper parliamentary group.
It seems Hague failed. Under intense pressure from the likes of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, most of the right-wing parties have decided to remain in the EPP. In the end Cameron has been forced into a humiliating climbdown. Instead of withdrawing immediately, the Tories will remain until after the next Euro elections in 2009!
Eurosceptics denounced the leader just after Mr Cameron signed a joint declaration with Czech Civic Democrat leader Mirek Topolanek proposing a new group.
Even the Czechs had to concede, as leaving the EPP would have jeapordised negotiations for a coalition government in that country.
All this is a disaster for Cameron's internal leadership. He may be riding high in the polls, but the Tories very nearly lost the Bromley by-election. While most of the press coverage was about the LibDem gains, not enough attention was paid to UKIP. They nibbled away a considerable amount of votes, obviously people who do not feel that the Conservatives are Euro-sceptic enough.
Those 2009 Euro elections should be interesting - after all UKIP already have TWELVE MEPs - it could be that the Cameron effect will cleave away a large rump of disgruntled Tory voters.

MP acts like Fascist Wanker

The delectable Kerron Cross, assistant to Andy Reed MP wrote a short piece yesterday on his blog about aspiring Prime Minister John McDonnell.
“Interesting message on John McDonnell MP’s Westminster office answerphone at the moment, which goes something like this:“You are through to John McDonnell’s office, this is a very busy office, so in the interests of serving our constituents this office is closed for business on Wednesdays, and we only accept messages between 10am to 1pm Monday to Thursday.”Obviously that’s messages between 10am to 1pm Monday to Thursday, except for Wednesdays, I presume. So from this I take it that John McDonnell’s office is open 3 hours a day, 3 days a week. I bet he is grateful for that 10,847 majority. He may need it.”
However, Kerron then received a number of phone calls from John McDonnell’s office threatening him with legal action and also threatening to report him and his boss to the Chief Whip under the new Yellow Card rules.
Recess Monkey is outraged that this overreaction from McDonnell, in particular his willingness to stomp on the little guy and make the kind of fuss that could lose someone with a less understanding boss his job.
If you are as peeved as me, please email John McDonnell, copying your comments to me for publication.
Furthermore, if your boss is so inclined, please fee free to have them table the following EDM.
Conduct of John McDonnell MPThat this House calls on the Member for Hayes & Harlington to retract his threat of legal action against blogger and staff member Kerron Cross, notes that Members are in a much more powerful position than their staff; and calls on Members to exercise restraint when in dispute with other Members’ staff.
Incidentally, if you are a blogger then please write up this story in solidarity with Kerron.

Socialist MP will challenge for Labour leadership

A Labour backbencher has announced that he will stand for party leader when Tony Blair steps down.
"The Labour party don't do coronations - but we don't do assassinations either. I want to see Tony Blair depart with dignity" John Mc Donnell told the BBC Daily Politics programme.
McDonnell insists he is not planning to challenge Blair for the leadership before he decided to stand down.
The MP for Hayes and Harlington is a respected old-Labour figure and currently chairs the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs.
Although not an attempt to topple Blair, it is a warning to Gordon Brown that he will not be handed the leadership without a fight.
McDonnell points to the hundreds of thousands of party members who have left the Labour party since 1997. He thinks that the New Labour project was a mistake, and advocates a return to socialist principles.
The Hayes MP is a former deputy leader of the GLC, but unlike his old boss Ken Livingstone, McDonnell keeps the red flag flying.
In announcing his candidacy, he said it was not a move against Blair but against all of New Labour. For the moment he is the only person to have declared himself - we will not know the date of any election until Blair decides to step down.
However, there is serious pressure on the PM to announce a date at party conference in September.
While it is highly unlikely that McDonnell will end up being the next PM, at the very least today's announcement means that Gordon Brown will have to fight to succeed Tony Blair. He will also have to defend his record and that of the last 9 years of New Labour to a party falling out of love with the whole project.

Blair on form at PMQ, but LibDems making the good points

Several interesting things happened at PMQ this week. David Cameron used all of his six supplementary questions in one concerted attack on John Reid's Home Office. The Labour backbench took great delight in mocking the new hoodie-friendly policy of the opposition. Blair shined and Cameron struggled, despite some good one-liners. And the LibDems asked all the good questions.
The PM began by telling India that we stand with them against terrorism - and to that end he also paid tribute to yet another British soldier killed in Afghanistan.
The mood was very much end-of-term, and the 'hilarity' started early. Labour MP Doug Naysmith wanted to know if "hugging a hoodie" would help reduce crime. The backbench dissolved into giggles as Tony Blair attempted a little levity of his own:

"I have to say that I have never felt like hugging a hoodie, other than, possibly, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton —and even that sparingly."

The MP for Lanark is, of course, Jimmy Hood. Geddit? He went on to scorn the opposition attitude to ASBOs.
Cameron's response was smart - but then he has lots of good lines - he just fails to make the best of them:

"If the Prime Minister wants to turn this into a session in which I answer the questions and he asks them, he can always call a general election."

Then he was off - why were voluntary police force mergers being blocked? Not sensible at this time, replied Blair. Three weeks ago the PM was all for mergers - even forced ones. What has changed?

Blair said that he had listened to representations AND they are still on the agenda AND voluntary mergers were to be encouraged.

Cameron seems to have hired some comedy writers in the last few weeks:
"Has not the Prime Minister been wasting police time?" He moved on to ID cards. The project was in trouble, and senior civil servants are saying it might not be up and running before 2026 - even Mr Blair will be gone by then.

The Tory leader saved his last two questions for what he thought would be the issue of the day:

"This week we have seen police mergers abandoned, ID cards delayed, tax credits completely defrauded and, after all that, we have discovered that we have a Deputy Prime Minister who thinks he is a cowboy! Apparently, he is "really looking forward" to standing in for the Prime Minister over the summer. Please tell us that that is not going to happen."

An interesting thing happened. Blair did not rush to the defence of his deputy. He waffled on about all the policies the government was pursuing - automatic mode as Gwynneth Dunwoody called it. The closest he got to answering the question was: "I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the arrangements are exactly the same as they have been in previous years."

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Perhaps even the Prime Minister is unsure if Prescott will make it to August.

The other interesting thing is that, in a complete reversal of last week, the Speaker did not intervene at the mention of Mr Prescott's ranch holiday. Later on, the MP for Blaby, Andrew, Robothan, who had been prevented from asking his question last week, got to ask it again - in full:
"In 1997, the Prime Minister wrote of the ministerial code:
"In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government...I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code."
"Last week, he told the Liaison Committee:
"If there is reason to believe someone has broken the Code, I will take action".
Well, there is the valuable transport union flat that the Deputy Prime Minister occupied as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, there is the behaviour with a junior female office subordinate, which would have led to the sacking of a civil servant, and now there is Philip Anschutz's hospitality. When will the Prime Minister live up to his fine words and call in Sir John Bourn to investigate these allegations of breaches of the ministerial code?"

Blair tried to paint it all as support for regeneration - the Speaker was on his feet twice in ten seconds - clearly no-one liked that answer, no matter how many new homes the PM promised.

After Cameron, Ming rose majestically. Looking very dapper and very confident, he pointed out that Baroness Scotland said in December 2003 that the UK has higher standards for extradition than those in the US. Last week the PM said they were analagous. Who is right?

For the first time in the session, Blair tried to answer. He gave a classic left-right. The TEST applied by the US is analagous, and anyway these people would have been extradited under the old arrangements.
Oh. But the Attorney General has spoken to the US Justice Department about bail. Seems the LibDem leader's constant questioning over this matter had caused some Whitehall movement.

Ming's response?:

"That does not appear to deal with the contradiction between what the Prime Minister said last week and what Baroness Scotland said to the House of Lords. Will not the Prime Minister accept that the Government have negotiated an unfair treaty, against the interests of the British people, which was needlessly rushed through the House of Commons in Committee proceedings that lasted only 90 minutes, and that it is absurd to continue to act under it when the United States declines to ratify it? In view of the anxiety in the business community and both Houses of Parliament, will the Prime Minister now renegotiate the treaty?"

Slap! It is clear that all that stuff about Ming having gravitas really is true - and could be a vote winner. When he is on a point as strong as this, he makes the Prime Minister look like a little boy who can't stop telling lies.

There were some hostile Labour questions about nuclear issues. Jeremy Corbyn wanted to know how re-arming Trident would fit with the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the UK signed. Blair said we had got rid of lots of missiles since then - so there.

Julian Lewis wanted to know IF we did renew Trident, would the money come out of the defence budget. This was a silly question, guaranteed not to get an answer. See Ming for how to ask a real question.

Former socialist comrade Frank Cook wanted to know what happened to the Tony Blair he knew, the one who campaigned with him against nuclear waste in the 1980s. I live in the real world now, was the PM's response.

There was in interesting twist on the West Lothian issue. Tory Geoffrey Cox was annoyed that those bloody Scots make decisions in Holyrood about purchasing ships for Scottish waters from shipyards in his constituency, then cancelling them. Why are his constituents second-class citizens? Mr Speaker told him to shut up, thankfully.

Finally, Adam Afriyie, who the Speaker thinks is called Adam A-Free, made a bit of an idiot of himself by making a joke no-one laughed at and then trying to goad a veteran like the PM:

"May I compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on your visual acuity in spotting me between the two tallest Members of Parliament? It strikes me that if the head of a school, a charity, a public body or a council were to announce their retirement but refuse to set a date, they would be rightly considered both arrogant and self-centred. Why should we consider the Prime Minister any differently?"

What else could he say in response except: "Because there was an election last year that we won and he lost."

Galloway and a cast of thousands slam the government over extraditions.

In one of the most exciting Commons debates for some months, MPs have lined up to denounce the extradition of three British bankers to the USA.
Criticism has focused on the 2003 extradition treaty between the USA and the UK, whereby warrants issued by American authorities were no longer required to produce evidence to a British judge to extradite suspects.
The Speaker had ruled that many cases were sub-judice, which frustrated the efforts of several MPs to discuss constituency cases.
MP after MP complained about the unfairness of the current position. The debate was secured by LimDem Home Affairs spokesman Nick Clegg. The issue of due process of law has been a recurrent theme from the LibDems. At PMQ today Ming Campbell harried Tony Blair over the extradition of the bankers. The PM was forced on the offensive, and seemed to imply that bail would be forthcoming for the accused.
The facts are that although the crimes were committed in the UK, neither the authorities or the victim of the alleged fraud, NatWest Bank, wanted to press charges. It was only when US authorities investigating the Enron case asked for them to be deported to face charges in Texas that the men were cleared for extradition.
Many Tory MPs wanted to know why we were honouring a treaty the US has yet to ratify. There is pressure on American legislators from Irish Republican lobbyists not to ratify. Many MPs were still bitter that the US had consistently hidden IRA murderers from British justice.
There were a string of speeches from heavy-weight MPs, many of them barristers and QCs.
Former Tory leader and Home Secretary, Michael Howard, was followed by John Redwood and Patrick Cormack. Cormack was "full of apprehension" about the current uneven situation.
Labour MP David Winnick also opposed the extraditions. There were multiple mentions of the injustices of the USA under this administration, much of it from unexpected quarters. Douglas Hogg QC described himself as a "long friend of the US" but went on to express is disquiet at their current "attitudes towards legal process" and branded their prisons "an affront to civilisation."
There was a typically barnstorming contribution from Boris Johnson, incandescent at this betrayal of the rights of British subjects. Words exploded from the blond bombshell, charm and indignation oozing in equal measure. He was warmly praised at the start of his remarks by Labour MP Sadiq Khan, who said "He has become a friend - with a small f."
Riding this wave of mutual appreciation, Johnson went on to make much of the injustices of the current regime, and urged the Solicitor General (for the government) to examine the imbalance in the numbers - 45 go from the UK to the US, only three or four in the other direction.
Johnson is probably the most exciting speaker in the House, his huge rushes of energy and invective punctuated with Godot-esque pauses of immense length. He blustered and through on this occasion, rousing his fellow MPs and almost, but not quite, preparing them for the next speech.
A leonine George Galloway rose from the opposition benches, far above the LibDems. Tanned and newly-bearded, he looked like a young Yasser Arafat. Boy, did he let them have it. In ten minutes of focused rage, the Bethnal Green & Bow MP ripped apart any and every shred of cover the government front bench had.
Perhaps the most eye-popping moment was the intervention of Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Attorney General. He backed up Galloway's point about the Labour party complaining about the use of PR to bolster the case for the bankers in the media. Grieve read out the briefing note from the Law Officers Department on how to spin the story as Tories supporting rich bankers.
Galloway and Grieve - the new Morcambe and Wise.
The living personification of moral outrage grumbled: "The class warrior clothes no longer fit the members opposite." The Solicitor General was accused of pejorative language, referring to the accused constantly as the Enron Three.
As news flashed up on the screen that a banker's body had been found in a London park, Galloway came - oratorically that is: "extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, orange jumpsuits, cages in the Tropics, people being flown round the world to be tortured by the United States."
He sat down to total silence.

cash-for-peerages - more sleaze!

The BBC have revealed that Tony Blair's fundraiser-in-chief Lord Levy is up to his neck in this loans-for-peerages scandal.
Businessman Sir Gulam Noon lent the Labour party a quarter of a million pounds. He was then nominated for a peerage.
Sir Gulam filled out the paperwork required by the Lords Appointments Committee, and returned it to Downing St for them to pass on.
He then got a call from Levy informing him he did not have to declare the loan, only donations to the party. This is the same Labour party that introduced the 'anti-sleaze' legislation in the first place.
Although not technically illegal, the advice Levy is giving out certainly breaches the spirit and purpose of the law.
Whether or not there will be charges brought is still a matter for the police. Lord Levy, always a shadowy figure, will be forced out. The party never liked him anyway.
It is hard not to feel sorry for the 'Curry King', Sir Gulam. He has been exposed to a whirlwind of publicity for being public-spirited. He does not appear to have loaned money to the party to buy infuence, he has plenty of that already. He wanted to declare the loan until Levy intervened. Then to top it all he didn't even get a bloody peerage.

winding down

You can feel it in the air. MPs, researchers, House staff, all winding down slowly. The whole legislative PUSH that maintains the busy atmosphere of Westminster has become more like a lethargic nudge.
Look at last week's PMQ - they can't even get up the energy to fight these days.
The Finance Bill stumbled through the Commons last week, like i giant sleeping pill. God it was boring - everyone was bored.
People were talking and even they were bored - by themselves. Shockingly boring. Theresa Villiers was using her boring barrister voice, lovely Julia Goldsworthy strugged to try and whip up some interest.
All in vain - it is just the wrong time of the year for politics. Too hot and sticky. More important things to think about in summer.

Thanks for the questions

Thanks to all of you who sent in questions for MPs. Some of them were even ruder than I could have imagined - well done!
I interviewed Theresa Villiers last week so no more questions for her - she is the MP for Chipping Barnet and yes, she is well chippy.
Within 5 minutes she had accused me of libelling the entire Tory party, for implying that the parties they want in their new grouping in the EU were homophobic. Bloody barristers - always with the libel.
Anyway that interview should be up on the website www.politicsjunkie.co.uk in the near future.

IF you have any suggestions for me please email me. Who would you like to see interviewed? What questions do you have for MPs or any other politicians?

Someone suggested I try for an interview with Tracy Temple, who as you all know was John Prescott's saucy secretary. Given the amount of rumour surrounding the DPM's other extra-marital activities, she may well turn out to be just the first of many!

7th July - politicsjunkie reflects

July 7th 2005 was a landmark day for me. It was the day I got into journalism college.
The only thing on my mind that morning was my interview and test at Clerkenwell at noon. I was a strange mix of nervous and confident as I made my way to the tube station, going over interview questions in my head, preparing mentally.
No tube! Not a good start - but all I was told was that the Jubilee Line was not running - so I hopped on a bus. The driver got as far as London Bridge and said he wasn't allowed to drive into the city.
There was not very much information - there was certainly no-one in a panic. Station staff were sympathetic and told me I should walk into the city.
I was Belfast child - so bombs don't scare me. By now I had heard that there had been a series of explosions on the tube and as I walked through the streets of the City there were many others on the roads, calmly walking to their destinations. I rememeber distinctly thinking what a pleasant day it was to be out walking, how calm and focused my fellow Londoners seemed.
I finally arrived at journalism college, where they were a bit shocked I had turned up. I said something about being a bit of a crap journalist if a couple of amateurs with bombs would stop me getting here.
I sensed I was in already - the test was easier than I could have hoped. I even got to correct the interviewer. He thought asking who lives in the Palace of Westminster was a trick question as no-one does. It was a very sweet moment when I inquired with all the innocence I could muster: "So you have never been asked up for a drink in the Speaker's apartment? It is in the tower next to Big Ben. He lives there when the House is in session."
By this point I knew I was in.
The interviewer asked me about the bombs. My first thought was - it is not the IRA. Too much murder for them - they like event terrorism.
It was only when I got home and switched on the TV that I saw the enormity of what had hit London. I thought for a moment about going down to one of the bomb scenes to observe, be a journalist. I had no stomach for it - I had seen lots of bombs in my life. I know the scene - the eerie calm, the police trying to organise and secure the scene, dazed passers-by.
It was when I was back home that I started to feel it. An immense sense of pride in London and my fellow Londoners. People came to our city to try and terrorise us - to make us live in fear of our surroundings and eachother. They came to try to punish and divide us.
And everyone - every single one of us - did not panic, did not run screaming into the hills never to return. We got up the next day and got on with our lives. We mourned those who were killed. We fixed those who were hurt. We repaired the smashed tube lines and got on with being citizens of the greatest city in the world.
There are too many stories of individual courage and bravery. Often it is the smallest acts that can be the most touching. I remember hearing about people in offices streaming out into the streets to help walking wounded, taking them into their offices and cleaning them up, giving them a cup of tea, and phoning their family just to let them know they are safe. The staff at Great Ormond St who set up a field hospital in their canteen and dealt with wounded. No emergency plan is required to tell those dedicted nurses how to act in a crisis. The supermarket manager who gave his shop and anything in it to the emergency services, the bus drivers who filled their bus with walking wounded and took them to hospital.
So proud.
I remember about a month later, going through the pile of newspapers by my bed. I came across one that had never been opened. This pristine copy of the Guardian had a huge picture of cheering crowds in Trafalgar Square on the front page. The headline "One Sweet Word - London" proclaiming our shock success in securing the 2012 Olympics. The date - July 7th 2005.
Joy and tragedy. Happiness and pain. Two days that no Londoner will ever forget. Perhaps they attacked us because the eyes of the world were on London.
I did not hear the comments of our Mayor at the time. When I read them later they made me cry, for in his words Ken encapsulates what makes our city great, and why it continues that greatness:

"I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.
I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.
In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.
They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."

Prescott Hits Back - transcript

IF there is one thing more worrying than listening to John Prescott, it is reading his words on paper. Or a screen, obviously.
Prescott gave an interview to the Today programme on Thursday morning - here is a full transcript.

John Humprhys: This morning, it's been reported that Mr Prescott used his influence to help Mr Anschutz. Like every other news programme, we've been trying to interview Mr Prescott since his problems began, but he's always said no.
Last night, he said yes, and I spoke to him an hour ago. I asked him why did he spend that weekend with Mr Anschutz at his ranch in the United States.

John Prescott: Well, um, when the Dome was sold, John, in 2002, sold by Charles Falconer on behalf of the government, I actually took over the responsibility.
He came to see in that time in 2002 and said to me at the first meeting, look, we're very concerned about a hostile press over the Dome [laughs] - he could be true about that, can't he - and also he said that I'm very concerned that the government's supporting the Dome.
You're the new minister involved in it, and I gave him the assurance we were, and he told me about what was going to happen to the Dome. But he also asked me, could he meet me regularly to update, and I said yes, so he says he comes here about every six months, so I did see him, presumably with others as well, to have an update on that matter.
But since he wanted to discuss those issues as well, I made it very clear that I separated any planning decisions on this, and it was stated in Hansard, I think in August 2002, that it would be Chris Leslie - my minister - who dealt with this, and Lord Rooker would deal with all the planning matters.
So, we had those regular meetings of discussion. Now, the last one was in July of 2005. He knew I was in America and he said would you like to come and see a cattle ranch, which I was very much interested in, and also I said I wanted to talk to farmers, which I did, about the Doha, the negotiations, sugar beet industries, agriculture subsidies.
So I used the Saturday and Sunday, in between a 10-day meeting in America, to actually visit the ranch. The only time I met Mr Anschutz there was at the dinner for two and a half hours, where no discussion took place about the Dome, or planning, or those matters, because they had took place in our regular meetings when we were discussing the Dome.
And so that is why I took that opportunity, probably not only to look at a working cattle ranch but to visit one, I'm curious about it, I saw the cowboy films over my young years, didn't you? I was interested to have a look at it.

JH: Why did you say you had made a donation to charity out of your own money when in fact the donation to charity was made out of government money?

JP: I never said that, John. Not at any time did I say that. In fact, I didn't know there was a payment made by charity money. I mean, this is one of the difficulties of it.
I asked my Permanent Secretary, look, if I'm going to do this, is it OK, am I OK by the rules on this matter? Um, she came back and said that it was so.
I didn't know until later that the payment of it - and I always thought it was public payment - had done by arrangement of a payment to charity 'cos they didn't want to receive a payment.
Now I just assumed that was a normal thing that went on, and I discovered that it's not, but myself and other civil servants were involved in the recommendation of going there.
Once we found that the charity was not seen as a payment for it, then clearly you were into the issue of hospitality, which led me to have to reassess it.

JH: Why should the British tax...

JP: [interrupts] But be clear John, I didn't pay, I didn't, er, pay any money towards that charity payment, I wasn't aware it was a charity payment.
I just assumed that the whole thing, like hotels that are provided for me when I'm travelling through America, that was just the way it had been done.

JH: Why should the British taxpayer pick up the bill for you, and indeed your officials, going to stay with a very rich man to indulge your interest in cattle and cowboys?

JP: Well, I didn't say it's, er...as to whether the charity money should be used, that's a legitimate point made, and um, I, I never got into the details of it, I just assumed all those matters of paying for accommodation wherever they were made was cleared and arranged by the department and that's what happened, and you're quite right to raise that question, but in fact it wasn't one that was put to me.

JH: But, I mean, you'd gone there to have a good time.

JP: I'd gone there, signed off over a weekend, a good time to look at how a cattle ranch works, to see how the farmers on sugar beet were, and I had those talks, and as you know John, I've been actively involved in international politics - on Doha, on climate change - and this is, I was making a speech in Los Angeles and the challenges to America and Europe as to how we could deal with these challenges globally. How could you deal with agriculture subsidies.
As you know, in America there's a real problem with sugar beet, and also European agriculture subsidies, so here was a chance, not to just sit in a hotel, go by the pool and do nothing, but learn a little bit more about some international kind of, er, problems, and talk to them about it in the context of, in this case, the ranch and on a farm.

JH: You'd said there was no need to register it in the Register of Members' Interests. Then when Mr Mawer, the Commissioner, said he'd look into it, you decided that you should register it.

JP: This is the trouble with all the interpretations. I had decided to register when I realised this new information about the registration under the ministerial rules, and I'd done that before I met the commissioner.
And the only reason I was at the commissioner was because the, um, Mr Swire had written to the commissioner and I had to write right away, because he hadn't written is there something wrong here, he released the letter and it was important that I put my response out.
So I sent it to Sir Philip, and then I said to Sir Philip, can I see you? He didn't ask to see me. I said can I see you and discuss this matter?
He is looking at it from my role as a member of parliament. He has no responsibilities for the ministerial rules. And so I told him when I met him yesterday that I'd already taken that action.

JH: The fact is you had a total of seven meetings with Mr Anschutz...

JP: Well, if you work it out, from 2002, it works out about every six months. Yes, that's what he asked to do. And by the way, John, can I just tell you this.
He is a guy who comes along, buys the Dome, right, when everybody said it was a liability, now converting it into a very successful asset, was giving 10,000 new homes, 24,000 jobs, 400,000 commercial and retail space, five billion of private investment coming into the project, turning a poisonous bit of land into one of the best creates, er, recreates, er, of regeneration that we've seen, developing east London to its great advantage.

Now, if a man has to see me, I tell you what, John, if he comes offering that deal, I'll see him every three months.

JH: It will be a very, very successful asset if the Dome gets the casino licence [interrupts] - let me just finish the question if I may, and the charge against you is that you had used your influence to help the Dome to get that licence.

JP: Well, first of all, the Dome, the licence, casinos were not involved in the application and the sale of the Dome. Nothing to do with it at all.

JH: No, I didn't say that.

JP: No, no, but I'm just trying to make some facts clear, right? Secondly in those circumstances, I had no influence over the planning decisions in these matters, though ironically enough, the planning decision didn't have to come to my department 'cos the local government made it.
Now there were issues that were brought up, for example from time to time, controversially, publicly. How many casinos were there going to be?
Here's a man coming see a hell of a row going on, on your programme as well, John, about gambling and whether we wanted casinos or not, and in all those matters, the government decided in a gambling bill to say it's going to be an independent commission makes the recommendations about casinos.
It then goes to the secretary of state, in this case Tessa Jowell. She then makes recommendations to parliament. All these procedures were agreed by the er, Mr Swire, the opposition as well, and that will be decided by parliament.
I would never be having a decision on the casino in this case and it will be done by parliament after an independent commission recommendation.

JH: But the point is that documents had been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Guardian and Newsnight, that show your office knew that the granting of a casino licence at the Dome was a central feature, I'm quoting [interrupts] - let me just finish the quote if I may - and key plank of the company's business strategy and they also show that your officials pressed ministers in the Department for Culture, which is responsible for gambling policy obviously, to meet senior executives at Mr Anschutz's company, AEG.

JP: Well, I've no doubt my officials might have been talking about that, and it was being dealt with at the early stages by Lord Rooker and then other ministers had responsibilities 'cos I'd separated myself from that, particularly I was meeting regularly Mr Anschutz, right, and I think that was quite proper to do.

JH: But your officials weren't separated from it and you're the head of that department.

JP: Well listen, let me make the answer, and that's what I think the minutes are. These minutes reflect the getting together of officials from my department and I think from the culture department as well, right.
I haven't seen the minutes, I've just read what they're saying in the papers, but I did hear Newsnight last night, he didn't say I was involved in those discussions...

JH: Your officials...

JP: Yes, fine, well let's make that clear because it's seeming as if I was involved, I was not involved...

JH: It's your department...

JP: Well, I'm not involved because it's quite normal under all governments that you can separate the secretary of state from these decisions, 'cos it's inevitably involved in all sorts of discussions with people and that's normal under Tory governments and Labour governments.

JH: But it's normal for the head of the department, which is you, the boss, which is you, to know what your officials were doing and to give it your approval.

JP: I need to know that my officials are talking about the enforcement and the development of the contracts for all these jobs and houses so they have a responsibility but it's mainly the main department is the culture department, and they would naturally want to have a look what's going on.
And I've no doubt those discussions go on but John, we've got thousands of civil servants in all sorts of discussions. What they do is work to a remit and the remit in this case is to have a look at the contract, how is it being implemented and then to work with the department that has that responsibility.

JH: But you are the, if I may say, you are the deputy prime minister, you have enormous influence, and one of the rival bidders for that licence, Southend-on-Sea, say that your office pressured them to stand down in favour of Anschutz.

JP: Well, what become my office and me, first of all I wasn't involved in any way and categorically I can say that. In no way did I express an opinion, as I hear it's being reported in the paper, that I was supporting some link for the tender.
Absolute rubbish. Not involved, very clear about it. Now if you say to me [interrupts] - wait a minute, if you say to me, some officials have been talking through the process of a very controversial piece of legislation in the house, where there was much argument about what gambling, how many casinos, if you remember the Tories only wanted to be one casino, I think others wanted more, at the end of the day, that debate was settled in parliament. I was not involved in that process at all, except as a parliamentarian.

JH: So when Anna Waite, the former leader of Southend-on-Sea Council, said "it was made clear to me that pressure was coming from on high that there should be only one bid in the Thames Gateway area, and it should be the Dome, the suggestion was that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was using its influence to push their Dome bid, the whole thing stank from beginning to end", when she says that, she's not being truthful?

JP: Well, "stink and stank" like on your programme is coming from Tories, and there's a very active Tory policy involved here, quite frankly, with the media, and they've got their, they want to carry out this campaign, particularly against me.
But let me say again on your programme, I was never involved in any such action. People had better bring the evidence, but if you say to me, were there some civil servants down the line exercising some judgement on this in view of the circumstances, I wasn't involved in it, didn't even know about it 'til I read about it in the press, and totally reject any idea that I expressed any opinion whatsoever. Look, I know there's a media storm against me.
They don't like me, and to be honest, I don't like them. But in reality, you have to deal with the facts, not the papers are doing that too much, and what you're saying to me, officials might have been involved. I don't know for sure.
I was not involved because the suggestion was that at the end of the day, my meeting with Mr Anschutz was somehow giving him preference for a bid. It was not, I did not get involved, and there's no evidence to that fact at all, and I deliberately separated in 2002, made a statement to parliament, to separate the planning decision away from me.

JH: If there is a media storm against you, as you suggest, it's for a number of reasons apart from this. It began with the revelation of your affair with your secretary.
There are now reports, and they're circulating on the internet, as you know, that you have had other affairs. Is that true?

JP: John, you're doing exactly what you read in the papers. You did it once to me before on the Minerva building.

JH: I'm asking you a question.

JP: Well, and I'm trying to answer it my best way in the context of what you do, John. You'd remember that I had an argument with you. I tried to get on the air to deny it.
You suggested I'd made a planning decision in regard to a man who'd made a contribution to the Labour party. You wouldn't let me come on the programme...

JH: Not true, but let's not go down that road...

JP: No, but an absolute lie anyway, and it's never ever been corrected on your programme. That's the first point. Coming back to the point about, er, er, these allegations...

JH: I asked you whether you'd had any other affairs apart from that which is the one we know about.

JP: I've told you what the answer, I've given a statement about that. I made a mistake, I've owned up to me, that is life, and I've made a statement and I've certainly paid the price for it.

JH: Have you had other affairs?

JP: I watched Newsnight last night and the press, as you know - most people don't - and it's called, I think it's called the internet, isn't it, or blogs or something, I've only just got used to letters, John, I haven't got into all this new technology, but I watched the guy on television last night who does that, saying I have no evidence for these allegations I have made.

JH: So they're not true, are they?

JP: There's no truth in much of the stories that are made in the papers...

JH: So you have not had other affairs, I mean it's a quite straightforward question here.

JP: Listen, you're talking about a lot of people here who have in fact denied these stories, names have been mentioned, some of them are in the process of perhaps suing about it. I'm not going to get involved in that.
I've made my statement about making a mistake and I did all that, I'm leaving it at that, but I notice the guy who's making these allegations says there's no evidence for it. So why are you justified to keep on trying to push this. It hurts so many people...

JH: [interrupts] Because I wanted to give you - would still like to give you - to clear it up for once and for all and say I made that mistake with that particular lady, I have had no other affairs.

JP: I made my mistake and I've made my denials. It doesn't make any difference, of course, to what the press say, but I will keep on saying I'll get on with my job, that's it's to do with it.
People must judge me on what I do on the job. I know that's controversial, I've been in a lot of controversial areas. That's what I'm doing, John, that's what people expect me to do and I'll get on with doing my job and I'm not leaving it, I'm getting on with it.

JH: There are going to be people who are dismayed with that, including your own, some of your own MPs. Does it worry you that you do not have the support on your backbenches that you might like?

JP: Well, I'm going to ask you for the evidence. You're asking me for a lot of evidence. Who are the people on the backbench?

JH: Well, as you'll know, we've had an awful lot of quotes from an awful lot of people, most of them, as you rightly say, most of them have been off the record, mostly people have not been prepared...

JP: Well, how do I know the truth, John, you just repeat these allegations and you make it sound on your programme if it's true. I know Kate Hoey's said something, well that's up for Kate Hoey, she says a lot of...

JH: Well, Stephen Pound, there is a residual loyalty, there's quite a bit of affection, but everybody now recognises [interrupts] - let me finish his quote since you asked me for it...

JP: Stephen Pound wrote me an apology about what was said.

JH: He says everybody now recognises sell-by date is now approaching.

JP: When did he make that point?

JH: Well, he made that point months, weeks ago, several weeks ago.

JP: To which he wrote and apologised.

JH: Well [laughs], does that mean that he doesn't mean it any longer, what about Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, "I don't think it's tenable that he should retain Dorneywood", at the time of that particular incident. I mean...

JP: Dorneywood is gone.

JH: Dorneywood is gone, indeed, and lots of these things have gone.

JP: John, let me just say to you, let me just say to you, 'cos you're going to now, I hope you're not going to edit this programme, now that you've said [inaudible].

JH: No, this is not going to be edited.

JP: What I say, what I say to these colleagues, I bear in mind the point they're saying, I'm very sorry for what has happened. I do believe in a way it's not been good for my party or government.
Of course I'm conscious of that. All my life has been that. I have never had any other job, I've never had a penny off welfare. All I've done is this job. Now there are very few MPs who can say that. But when I get involved as I have been in these incidents, I am extremely sorry about it.
There's no doubt about it because I do feel in that sense that I've not added to the government itself, in a way it's a very negative position I've been in, but I'll get on with the job, I listen to what my colleagues say to me, of course I do, and I get on with the job, and I meet them all the time, I meet with the constituents as I go out, but much of, by the way like today I'll be out in Hull helping Wilberforce [the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation].
That was another part of the discussions with them with Mr Anschutz, he's doing a Wilberforce film, which is being celebrated of 200 years of Wilberforce.
Today I'll be opening the Wilberforce Centre in Hull with the president of Ghana. I mean, these are the things I'm involved in in the job, John, and I get on with it.

JH: But isn't the problem this, that you are the Deputy Prime Minister, that job requires a certain amount of dignity in its holder. The view is that you have lost that dignity, and in the views of many people, um, that you have become a bit of a figure of fun.

You know that as well as I do. Is it tenable that you should hold on under these circumstances?

JP: Well, I mean, others have to make judgements about that. I'll try to do my job, I can't avoid that.

They will make it clear to me in one way or another, right, and I have to take these things into account. But you became a figure of fun not so long ago, when you made that speech and somebody leaked it, John. You know the fierce storm...

JH: I'm not the deputy prime minister, though.

JP: Well no but you act very much like it, I'm bound to say, but you are paid by the taxpayer, are you not?

JH: Well, I'm paid by a licence-payer, that is absolutely true.

JP: You're paid by the taxpayer like me, and therefore there's always felt to be a certain obligation when you're paid by the public sector. They will make a judgement about that, John. I'll do the job to my best ability and that's what I will do.
Others can make judgement about it, but I know when I go round in the street, I do think a lot of this stuff by the press, the public are getting very wise to the kind of formula that's going on at the moment, somebody gets put in a paper like the Mail, you repeat it on your programme, like you did on that planning application, and people begin to worry, they talk and they ask you about it, and then they begin to make a judgement.
Of course, at the end of the day, it's always in the hands of the public, because we're elected officials. In my case, I'm elected by the party also so there are other people who have judgements, and there is also a process in the party, if a party wants to get rid of officials that it's elected, we have a constitution, a democratic one that allows that.
So they are the mechanisms by which if they feel that people are not carrying out the job properly, they can act. It's called democracy, John, and I recognise it.

JH: Isn't your situation a little different in that you can't resign, you're in an invidious position because it you did resign, your future is - let me just make this point - your future is so closely tied in with that of Tony Blair, if you resigned there would have to be an election and people would say, well, since he's gone, we might as well get Tony Blair to go as well, have a double election, you're tied in so tightly with Tony Blair that you can't go.

JP: Trouble with you, John, you read too many papers. You want to talk to people that know what happens. If I, if I resign, it doesn't mean there has to be an election. Read our constitution.

JH: If you resigned as deputy leader of the party, there'd have to be an election, wouldn't there?

JP: No, there doesn't. You just don't know, John. You make all these allegations because you read in the press before you come on this programme.
If you want me to read out the constitution, I'll do. If I resign now, there doesn't have to be an election. No. So you're quite wrong.

JH: So it is possible that you could resign, is it?

JP: Well, I could resign if I wanted to say I hadn't got it, it's always within my hands. I can also...

JH: But you're not going to, you're going to stay?

JP: I'm staying, as long as I believe I'm getting on with the job.

JH: And how long's that going to be?

JP: John, you've moved off from something you didn't know to more questions. This programme...

JH: Well that's what I'm paid to do, ask you questions. How long are you going to stay in the job?

JP: You had 20 minutes in this interview, that's more than you give anyone else, and in fact to that extent I'm saying I'm getting on with the job, make no doubt about it, take no notice of the headlines in these papers.
I always recognise it is the responsibilities of others that can make the decision about whether I'm worthy of support and a job in government, but while I'm doing it, I'll get on with the job, because what we've been doing for the unemployed, for housing, for regeneration and back to the Dome, turning a lousy bit of polluted bit of land into 10,000 jobs, 24,000 houses, jobs and retail, it's becoming the jewel of London.
And I tell you what, if it was done by an American, Anschutz, I say thank you very much you've helped us turn unemployment into jobs, homeless into houses. That's what I was elected to do and, by God, that's the job I'll get on with.

JH: John Prescott, many thanks.

Prescott bullish over casino-gate

John Prescott defended his position on the Today programme this morning, claiming he never discussed the casino proposals of his ranch-holiday host, billionaire Philip Anschutz.
He told presenter John Humphries "I know there is a media storm against me - they don't like me and to be honest, I don't like them."
This was a reference to the blizzard of internet stories about other sexual liaisons during his time as DPM - there are alleged to be at least two other stories about to break.
Trouble continued for Prescott today with the release, under a freedom of information request, of memos and other communications between his old department, OPDM, and the DCMS, who have overall responisibility for casinos.
ODPM ask to be kept informed of all contacts with Anschutz's company that anyone at DCMS had. This seems to conflict directly with Prescott's claim that he had in interest in the casino licencing process.
Will the DPM survive these constant drip-drip of revalations? It would seem that no matter how bad things are, if he can make it to the Parliamentary recess he will survive the summer.
But the summer could be even worse - with Prescott nominally in charge of the country, the press will be hungrier than ever for dirt. If there is more than one affair, female Labour MPs will no longer feel they can defend his postion.
If some enterprising journalist can prove a more concrete link between Prescott and the casino billionaire then he will face more calls to stand down
And be assured, every enterprising journalist in the country is looking for that link.
It seems less and less likely that Prescott can run the country for 3 weeks in this sort of atmosphere.
What is the solution? Perhaps a judicious health scare would remove the DPM from government responsibility for a while. He could of course remain as deputy leader until the conference in September can pick a successor.
Or perhaps he can announce his intention to go at conference - putting pressure on Blair to do the same.
One thing is for sure - the old notion that politically nothing happens in August might be turned on its head this year.

Connection Problems

apologies to all politicsjunkie junkies who have been eagerly awaiting new posts - we have had computer problems here at politicsjunkie towers, but it all seems to be working now so expect an avalanche of political comment in the coming days!

Rights of Scots MPs raised at PMQ

PMQ was a lethargic affair this week, notable for some excellent questions from the LibDems and the recurring series of questions - and non-answers - about the financial state of the NHS. There was also an unusual intervention by the Speaker that is sure to raise some eyebrows at Westminster.
In what has become a grim weekly ritual, the PM started by paying florid tribute to the latest British casualties in Afghanistan. David Cameron tried to paint the ongoing mission as over-stretched. Blair responded that the mission is run by the Army, who had not yet requested additional manpower or equipment.
It was a difficult task for Cameron, who supported the invasion of Afghanistan, to try to imply that Blair was making a mess of it, while also supporting the actions of British troops on the ground. He failed to make any impact at all, and gave Blair ample opportunity to expand on the points he wanted to get across - democracy for the Afghan people, the importance of removing narcotics from the local economy and the fact that Germany, Italy and Spain have troops there too.
Minutes later a left-wing Labour rebel had a much more direct go at the PM over Afghanistan. Paul Flynn accused the government of driving Afghanis into the arms of the Taliban, and told Blair that bombs and bullets do not win hearts and minds. The PM dismissed him as absurd.
A long list of opposition MPs failed to learn the lessons of previous PMQ and moaned about closures of NHS services in their local area. They got the same answer as last week, and last month. Record investment in the NHS, X number of new nurses, doctors and consultants in their area, disappearing waiting lists. In the words of Gywneth Dunwoody, the PM went into automatic mode. Hardly effective questioning.
Rosie Cooper tried to turn the issue on its head by asking the PM to praise her local hospital - he did. Anne Snelgrove was the latest new MP to be told to stop waffling by the Speaker. Ian Paisley gave us a turn, condemning "Sinn-Fein/IRA" for boycotting the next meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The PM responded that what the people of that troubled province need is proper devolution.
Devolution was another recurring theme of this PMQ, with Labour MPs reacting to the Conservative proposals to restrict the rights of Scottish members.
George Howarth raised some laughs by pointing out that as London has a powerful mayor, with his own foreign policy, that perhaps London MPs should be excluded from some votes.
Blair described the Tory plans as utterly irresponsible, but did not put forward any solutions to the growing clamour for the West Lothian question to be answered.
Glasgow MP Mohammed Sarwar was angrier, wanting to know if he would be reduced to a second-class MP from a second-class country. Not while we are in power was the PM's response.
David Cameron came back with a pertinent question - why were 300 of the 500 injured in the 7/7 bombings still waiting for compensation. It was an easy question for the PM - the payments agency is independent from government. He was sympathetic but none of the blame was attached to him. Cameron gave him another easy ride with his last question about the role of the Muslim community - did he imagine the PM was going to say we don't want more engagement?
The leader of the opposition was failing to make a mark on the PM yet again. Blair is a master of PMQ, but Cameron will have to work much harder to make an impact. His questions need to be less inclusive and more brutal.
Ming seems to have got the idea. He used his two questions to maximum effect, speaking without notes and keeping them short and sharp. The PM said in March that the new arrangements with the US regarding extradition were not unfair - was he still of that view?
For the first time, the PM looked slightly uncomfortable. He understood the concerns people had, but said the new arrangements merely brought the US into line with our extradition policy with the EU, Canada, Australia and others. As a barrister, Blair must have known what was coming next.
As a barrister, Ming Campbell knew just how to play it. "Reciprocity?" he spat out. "what could more unfair then extraditing people to the United States under a treaty the US won't even ratify?"
The PM struggled to defend the "probable cause" test the US uses when it extradites as "analogous" - but he was forced to offer support and assurances to British citizens being taken to America.
Given the recent press revelations about John Prescott and a series of meetings with casino billionaire, it was natural someone would ask a question.
Andrew Robothan, who is the Conservative Deputy Chief Whip, was seconds into a question about the DPM when the Speaker silenced him. The Speaker said that as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had already announced an investigation, there would be no discussion of that matter in the House.
This seemed like a bizarre decision. Although there may be issues around the declaration of interest which will be subject to that investigation, there are larger issues of judgment that MPs should be allowed to put to the PM.
It will be interesting to see if anyone challenges the Speaker over the issue in the coming days.

The beginning of the end of the United Kingdom

Maybe it was the blow of England losing out to Portugal yesterday. This morning it was reported that David "Dave" Cameron is minded to make changes to parliament that would exclude MPs from Scottish seats voting on exclusively English matters.
This is the not first time a mainstream party has expressed a desire to rebalance power since Scottish devolution. It was a Tory manifesto commitment in the 2005 election. This time round though, people are starting to take notice.
Tories have been telling politicsjunkie for some time that they are unhappy about the present arrangement.
Much was made about Blair's reliance on Tory votes to get his education bill. Much less was said about the votes of the 59 Labour MPs from Scotland which were also vital.
Education in Scotland, along with the NHS, police and criminal justice are matters for the Edinburgh parliament. Scottish MPs were being asked to vote on legislation that would never affect their constituents.
The government have consistently refused to answer the West Lothian question, claiming there is no anomaly and that as Westminster remains sovereign it technically controls what can and cannot be decided at Holyrood.
At the same time, Labour also backed a series of regional assemblies for England - there is clearly a democacy defecit if there are assemblies in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland but none for England.
Cameron is on to a serious vote-winner here. More and more English people are starting to ask why our government is full of Scots.
Is Westminster the English parliament or a federal parliament? If its role is federal then we need a new English assembly.
But the people do not want them - they voted against them consistently in referendums - and by a large margin.
The Tory solution is to restrict the voting rights of Scottish MPs.
Guess how many Tory MPs there are with Scottish seats? I will give you a clue - it is less than two. It can only help the Tories if they can argue that 59 MPs should not be voting on English affairs. Even with a hung parliament, the Tories can effectively rule England.
Faced with a Scottish Labour leader, the Tories can make great play of Brown not being English, not even representing an English seat, but wanting to rule England. All the big decisions about England are made at Westminster.
The Labour party have ignored this imbalance of power for too long - now it looks set to blow up in their face.
politicsjunkie has long been of the opinion that Gordon Brown will lose the next election. With the Tories now making noise - and making sense - the opinion polls are starting to reflect that lack of public interest in a Brown premiership.