PMQ - Where was the va va voom?

The first PMQ of Tony Blair's last session was a stilted affair. David Cameron used all of his supplementaries on the growing crisis in Sudan, perhaps determined to appear statesmanlike after the prime minister's effective attacks on his gravitas during the Queens Speech debate earlier in the week.

The result was a distinct lack of Punch and Judy. In fact it was more like Richard and Judy - lots of meaningless exchanges which brought about no real enlightenment. The atmosphere was lethargic, as MPs listened silently as the party leaders dumped platitude on top of cliche.

Cameron's line of questioning had some potential at the start. After praising the bravery of our boys in Afghanistan, he wanted to know why there were not more NATO troops there from other countries, and asked if British troops needed more helicopters.

Mr Blair replied in a liminal fashion. Our troops are in good heart. Reconstruction and development. The US and Canada have also lost troops. Working together. Credibility of NATO. Doing everythin we can.

Instead of attacking, Cameron switched to Darfur. There were a series of exchanges, the conclusion of which was that the crisis had to be solved by the Sudanese, with help from the African Union. Cameron asked the PM to ensure the Sudanese govenement would stick to t agreement, as if it was in his power.

Mr Blair responded he would do everything he can. He also heaped praise on international development secretary and Blairite deputy leadership contender Hilary Benn.

Cameron failed to make any impact by asking about a subject that Mr Blair has no direct control or influence over. It may have been statesmanlike, but it was dull and a waste of time.

Thank God for Ming. In what is becoming his trademark, the LibDem leader picked up on a small but significant news story, and successfully got stonewalled by the PM.

Will legislation concerning the renewal of Trident is to be published before the end of the year, Ming asked. Yes, was the response.

Seems innocuous enough. But wait - will the House of Commons (by which he actually means left=leaning Labour MPs) get to vote on a series of options and not just the principle of renewing the nuclear capability?

Ming was rewarded with a non-denial denial. The House would certainly get a vote, the PM said. He also reiterated his support for renewal.

Ming used his two questions to maximum effect, exposing a rift in the Labour party potentially as divisive as 90 day detention was at the start of the last session.

There were few moments of levity during the PMs appearance at the dispatch box.

London Tory MP Derek Conway, a rotund ball of moral outrage, caused a few titters by raising the soaring costs of the 2012 Olympics, and what he termed the "drunken sailor spending attitude of Ken Livingstone."

There were the usual Tory questions about the NHS (consultants are being sacked in my constituency - oh no they are not - oh yes they are - record investment in the NHS - police are being sacked in Wales - on no they are not - record investment in police - repeat ad nauseam)

Finally, the veteran of PMQ and two-time leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, managed to get under the PMs thick skin. His verbal hand grenade of a question was a masterful example to Cameron and others in how to insult, insinuate and belittle, while all the time appearing to have a query:

"Will the Prime Minister undertake to stay out of the clutches of the Metropolitan police until the end of the week, because we are looking forward enormously to his visit to the Scottish Labour conference on Friday? Is he aware that every time he attacks the SNP, support for Scottish independence soars to new, unprecedented levels? Will he promise to launch another furious assault on us this coming Friday?"

Blair got angry for the second time this week, and his own MPs loved it:

"Yes, I will and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. It is because by ripping Scotland out of the UK we would damage the economy, living standards, health service and education in Scotland. He has no positive proposals for Scotland because the only policy that he has has been rejected twice before and will be rejected a third time."

And a piece of trivia to take home with you. Although premanently associated with Islington, in an answer to Labour MP Meg Hillier the Prime Minister revealed he used to live in crime-ridden next-door London Borough Hackney - opposite the Holly Street housing estate, to be exact.

Olympic Shambles

I was pleased that London won the right to host the 2012 Olympics last year. Not because I thought it would have a transformative effect on the city - London is too big for any one event to hold the attention of the entire metropolis.

Not was I particularly impressed with the regeneration of Stratford. That would probably have happened anyway. As for the 'encouragement' the Olympics will give to the millions of fat children in the UK, well i doubt the Games will have that effect.

No, I love a good fight, a nice long-running bitching session, and the seven year build up to the Games looks set to be the biggest bitch fight in modern times.

Today, Tessa Jowell was hauled before the DCMS Select Committee to explain to MPs just how much these Olympics are going to cost. The summary of her answers was that she has absolutely no idea.

The first estimate was 2.4bn - at this stage the Olympic bid had cross-party support. Last week it was revealed that the initial calculations had not factored in VAT or increased security costs. It was estimated that the Games might cost 5bn.

In front of the Select Committee, Tessa joked that some estimates put the cost at 18bn. Funny. But not when we consider the shambles that was the Millennium Dome. Or the Scottish Parliament building.

A report to the London Assembly tomorrow will put the total cost of the Games at 8bn. London Mayor Ken Livingstone has already promised that London council tax payers will not be asked to contribute more than the 38p-per-week extra charge they are currently paying for the 30th Olympiad.

The good news for Tessa Jowell and London Mayor Ken Livingstone is that neither of them will be in office by the time the true cost of the Games are known. They will both be former politicians, no doubt with front row seats at the opening ceremony, but they will both point the finger at everyone else for the inevitable over spend.

The Tories, likely to be in power in 2012, have few options. They cannot cancel the Games. They cannot raise more money from Londoners. It seems that all UK taxpayers will end up footing the bill. It is also clear that the Lottery money currently spent on other new causes will be diverted to keep the Olympic show on the road.

The reason I was pleased that London won is that it provides journalists with great stories for the next six years and beyond.

The British press love nothing more than a good shambles, and judging by the past year of Olympics planning, they do not get more shambolic than this.

Scotland Yard Divas

When will the Met be talking to Tony Blair?
I dont know - I just thought I would ask in case any of you do!

The whole investigation has raised serious questions about the leadership of the Met. At the top there is Ian Blair, a man who seems more interested in his press image than his job. He thinks his role as commissioner is to be some sort of "voice" for the police - which it isn't. There are various bodies that represent police of all ranks.

Yet Blair thinks it is ok for him to phone MPs and try to influence how they vote. His egotism seems to be catching on among other senior staff at New Scotland Yard.

Take Dep Asst Commissioner Brian Paddick. The highest ranking gay police officer in the UK today talks to the press regularly.

Speaking at an employment advice day for gay teenagers, Mr Paddick expressed his dismay at being sidelined by the current Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, “because I spoke the truth."

"I have the opportunity to retire this year because I've served thirty years in the force, but I don't want to just grab the money and run. “I'm looking at what may happen when the current Commissioner retires."Mr Paddick made it clear that he thinks he is qualified for the top job.

Traditionally only officers who had served as Chief Constable of a smaller force would be considered for the Commissioner role.


"I may or may not have been asked by the Liberal Democrats to be their candidate for Mayor."Mr Paddick has previously addressed the Lib Dem Party conference.He added: "I wouldn't be comfortable as a Member of Parliament because I would be expected to attend divisions on the party line.

“But in general, the Mayoral candidates have been given greater leeway to be independent by their parties."

"Remember Ken Livingstone was first elected as an Independent before Labour begged him to rejoin the party."

HEY! I got an idea for you Brian? Why not try acting like a fucking civil servant? Why not keep out of the press? Keep your mouth shut and get on with your job. Maybe I am old fashioned but frankly the public should not have a clue who the Assistant Commissioners are.

He is not the only attention seeker. The recent loans for peerages investigation has revealed yet another top cop who seems in love with the media.

Dep Comm. Andy Yates has been dubbed Yates of the Yard by the more hysterical of our newspapers. No doubt he relishes the title and looks forward to stepping into the top job one day. His inquiry has been leaking like a sieve from day one. Why hasn't he put a stop to it?

Yet another rampant ego at the top of the Met. It is a sad day when a punter on the street like me knows who Cressida Dick is.

What the Queen said

The last Queen’s Speech of Tony Blair’s premiership has been dominated by security measures aimed at cutting crime, curbing anti-social behaviour and combating terrorism. The Queen, sitting on the throne in the House of Lords, told peers and MPs summoned from the House of Commons that the government intended to take “further action to provide strong, secure and stable communities and address the threat of terrorism.”The Speech lists government legislation for the coming parliamentary session. It is written by the government and formally read out to parliament by the Queen. Among the 29 new bills unveiled this morning, Her Majesty announced a climate change bill, which aims to reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, and will establish a new, independent Carbon Committee to work with the government on reducing carbon use.


The Tories and Liberal Democrats have been calling for yearly carbon reduction targets.The government intends to merge all terror legislation into one coherent bill, and will ask once again for 90-day detention without charge for terrorism suspects. The controversial three-month detention was rejected by MPs in the last session. Evidence obtained by wiretap will be admissible in court. ID cards will proceed. There have been six terrorism bills since 2001, and a new ‘super bill’ might not be debated until next year. The police are getting new powers to deal with serious and organised crime. It will become easier to deport immigrants who break the law or commit immigration crimes. There will also be new regulations for UK estate agents, who will be compelled to join a redress scheme.


Energywatch, Postwatch and the National Consumer Council (NCC) are to be merged into a super-consumer watchdog. In what will be a busy session for Home Office ministers, the Queen also announced tougher sentences for violent offenders and new powers to remove people who commit anti-social behaviour from their properties. Pensioners and disabled people will receive free off-peak bus travel across England for the first time. From April 2008, concessionary passes issued by local authorities will be recognised in all parts of the country.


The controversial Child Support Agency is to be abolished and replaced with a smaller enforcement agency. Single parents will no longer be forced to apply for maintenance if they apply for benefits. People who repeatedly fail to pay maintenance could have their passport seized or be placed under curfew. A new mental health bill will be introduced which will ensure that people with mental health problems receive treatment in the community. There will be a new, simpler definition of mental illness and an overhaul of the treatment regime.


The Queen also announced extended powers for the London Mayor and Assembly and a new independent board to enhance public confidence in government statistics. The Turner report proposals on pensions will be implemented, including restoring the link with earnings and the introduction of compulsory contribution schemes. Millions of women who have been deprived the state pension will now be covered.This year’s State Opening of Parliament was the 55th attended by the Queen.


There had been some concern that a back injury might lead her to miss the ceremony, but in the event the Queen was strong enough to attend. She has missed the State Opening on only two occasions, 1959 and 1963, when she was pregnant with Princes Andrew and Edward respectively.

Im A Celebrity! Are you????

My fashion sources tell me that Scott Henshall, the nobody designer currently squatting in the Australian jungle as a contestant on crappy reality show "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here" has more in common with Mark Oaten than just a receeding hairline.
That must be why his nickname is Scat Henshall .....

Queen to open Parliament

HM The Queen will be well enough to perform the State Opening of Parliament tomorrow.
The arcane ceremony takes hours, so I hope Her Maj rests her back.

The exciting contents of her speech should include yet more Home Office legislation as well as another Education Bill - probably - I haven't checked - but as this government has passed a new Education Bill every year since 1997 it is worth a punt.

LibDem research reveals that this government have created over 3000 new offences since they came to office!

Interview with David Starkey

Despite his reputation as the rudest man in Britain, Dr David Starkey is on good form when I speak to him. I approach the interview cautiously, aware that a badly phrased question might bring a volley of his trade- mark abuse down upon me.

In the event, the 61-year-old former Cambridge don and gay rights advocate is a pussycat, laughing, joking and even indulging my schoolboy questions about English history.I even interrupt him a few times and escaped unscathed.

Starkey is much more than the television controversialist the public know and love. His approach to history, during a career spanning four decades, directly challenged the accepted idea that big changes come from big causes.

His area of expertise is the Tudor period, and his focus on the domestic intrigue at the court of Henry VIII cemented his reputation. The way many of us learn history is as a series of big events. Starkey thinks that approach is outdated. "That is the kind of heresy that I was taught when I was both a grammar school boy and also at Cambridge.

"It is perfectly clear that very big events can have small causes. Henry VIII's passion for Anne Boleyn really is the only reason why we had the Reformation. Catholicism was doing well in England, Henry had been the most passionate supporter of it, and the only thing that changes all of that was Anne.

"It's like that wonderful quote from 'The History Boys' from that Northern lad who com- plains that history is, "just one fucking thing after another." I don't actually believe that is what it is solely, but there is an element of it that is like that."

Starkey's atheism has actually led him to take religion more seriously than many historians of the generation before him did. "I always say there are only two types of atheist – Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists!

"I admit freely I am a Protestant atheist but it means I do have an emotional understanding of what I am writing about, and that is vital as a biographer.

"One of the things I have tried to do as an historian is show that you must take the values of the people that you study really seriously.

"The absurdity is to think that the past must be like the present. It is absolute disaster for an historian to impose his own values on the past."

Starkey's spiky persona is part of his media image and one he readily plays up to. His behaviour on Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze' led The Daily Mail to dub him 'the rudest man in Britain'. He says that epithet has subsequently earned him an extra £100,000 a year.

"Your reputation, be it sweet or sour, grows with each programme. There are obviously different David Starkeys knocking around in the media universe, which of course is a great advantage.

"The reputation for being tough means that when people first meet you, a new TV director or whatever, they are usually pretty much on their Ps and Qs. Then of course they discover that I am really quite human.

"All you have to do is behave with average politeness and people think you are the nicest thing since sliced bread. You very rarely actually have to be demanding or difficult. I think I have several reputations and we won't go into some of them – not even for The Pink News."

His recent TV success means he no longer lectures, as he had done for nearly 40 years, first at Cambridge and then at LSE. He thinks that academia is more bitchy than the media could ever be.

"I still sort of teach. Last night I was up in Kendal where I am the president of the local history society. I regret in some ways that I no longer have time to do the real thing but equally I don't regret marking essays, having to deliver the same lectures year after year and I certainly don't regret having to sit on committees."

Starkey was born in Kendal in 1945,the only child of a Quaker family. The poverty of his early life might well explain his delight at accumulating cash from his years of hard study - he was paid £2m for the ongoing three-part Monarchy series for Channel 4.

His early childhood was tough and his overprotective mother was a strong influence on his outlook and attitudes. Born with two club feet, he felt an outsider, but overcame his disability as well as a breakdown at 13, to shine at grammar school. He left Kendal and his mother behind, enjoying a glittering academic career as an under-graduate and then a fellow of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

London, with its social opportunities for gay men, led him to the London School of Economics, where he taught history from 1972 to 1998.

In 1993 he met his partner, book publisher James Brown. Starkey describes his TV work as teaching, but to a much larger audience, the same lectures but this time with millions of students.

Part 2 of the Monarchy series, which covers the Wars of the Roses to the Restoration, is released on DVD on 20th November.

The series is an outstanding academic and televisual achievement, a radical reassessment of the development of English identity, culture and politics, using the monarch, the central institution of national life, as the focus of how the country was formed.

Starkey's trademark blunt delivery and mastery of his subject makes it a fascinating watch, as he stitches the story of the monarchy from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth II into one coherent narrative

"If you are dealing with monarchical regimes, the personal is the political, as indeed it is within quasi-monarchical regimes like New Labour or Bush's White House. They are not dead, I only wish court studies were dead, but they are alive and horribly well."

The third and final series, from James II to the present Queen, will start on Channel 4 this month.Will historians in the 22nd Century be talking about monarchy as a historical relic?

"I am not a betting man myself, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it either way. My instinct is that monarchy is looking surprisingly durable. If you look at the European model in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands or Spain monarchy is absolutely central.

"Another outcome is that we drop the whole show and decide we are just a big state called London."

The third series tells the story of the monarchy in recent times. He identifies the Queen's Silver Jubilee in 1977 as the turning point for the institution

"Up until then the Queen had kept the show on the road in exactly the same way as her father and grandfather, keeping it as it was in 1917.

"Darling, you can't do that! In fact she had a very good try up until the Silver Jubilee, with the whole notion of the family monarchy as the great representative British family.

"Since then it has fallen to bits and Diana was the final coup de grace. The monarchy itself looks in surprisingly good health, but it is so simply by accident.

"Back in 1997 when Tony Blair was still fresh and washed behind the ears, it looked to be really quite at risk. Once that insidious sense of betrayal and dishonesty and warmongering became attached to Labour politicians then republicanism, which has never really been a significant movement in Britain, fades away again."

The tension between Western and Muslim values has become a major issue in recent years, and Starkey surprises me by being broadly supportive of the controversial comments made by Pope Benedict about the nature of Islam.

While pointing out that the Catholic Church has a lot of apologising to do before it starts to point the finger at Islam, citing the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Latin America among the many sins of the Roman Church, Dr Starkey thinks that Benedict's point about the nature of Islam is correct.

"There is nothing in Islam that corresponds to "turn the other cheek", to the pacifism that I think is the authentic tradition of the New Testament.

"Islam spreads in a completely different way from Christianity, which spread through the Roman Empire by conversion and an almost willing acceptance of persecution.

"Islam spreads by conquest. Mohammed even conquers Mecca. Also it has a very clear doctrine of holy war, and it does not make a distinction between church and state.

"Jesus, living under the Roman occupation, gave us the famous phrase: 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's'. That does not exist in Islam and I would argue that that distinction is the key to why Christianity and progress are so closely related.

"The separation of church and state is the spirit of freedom. It is somewhere that we can escape from the crushing weight of authority. This is why I think the history of Western Europe is a history of progress and the history of Islam is not."

That separation between politics and religion may also be the reason why gay and lesbian people have gained their rights in Western societies, and Starkey has been a leading advocate of those newly acquired liberties.

He was a vocal advocate for gay rights throughout his career on radio, and has been patron of the Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality (TORCHE) since 1994.

If history shows us that big changes can have small causes, how small a cause would it take for gay rights to be swept away? Starkey is optimistic that there is not too much to worry about. "It would take a revolution of consciousness for that to happen. There is some sort of religious revival in England going on, but it is so inchoate and disparate and takes place against a background which is so overwhelmingly secular, materialist and consumerist.

"It would need some huge slump or political, military or economic crisis. On the other hand, I do believe passionately that freedoms always have to be defended, that we always have to be aware of the threat to them.

"The threats are much more likely to come from politicians than the Church. The whole security-driven response of New Labour and the Republicans in the States, that is where the danger is."

The nature of British society is where he derives that optimism that gay rights will not be swept away with a sudden change of government. The place of the monarchy within British life is also likely to remain for the same reason.

"The great thing that drives British politics for most of the time is inertia, and the monarchy is the great beneficiary from that.

"Because most of us have decided that politicians of what- ever stripe are such absolute awful shits, the monarchy looks to be quite safe just by way of a reaction against that."

Monarchy: The Complete Second Series will be released on a two disc DVD set on 20th November, priced £19.99. Starkey's Last Word is currently on More4 on weekday nights. The third series of Monarchy will be broadcast on Channel 4 throughout November.

This interview first appeared in the November issue of The Pink News - www.pinknews.co.uk

Midterms provide hope for Hillary in 08

November 8th 2006 was a bright new day for liberal Americans. The nightmare of the last 12 years, of Christian Republicans in charge of the federal government, of hostility to gay rights, women and abortion, is finally over.

The Democrats now have control of the Senate, by one vote, and a commanding majority in the House of Representatives. They now control the all the committees and business of the Congress, and will reintroduce the checks and balances on the power of the President so far absent in the six years of Bush.

There will certainly be investigations into the conduct of the war, and we can expect to see many key Bush advisers taking a trip up Capitol Hill to explain themselves.

Perhaps it is best that Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has been asked to go now. He will no doubt be busy enough explaining himself to Congress for the next two years.

His replacement, along with all other Presidential nominees, will be grilled by a Democrat controlled Senate committee. This means no more rightwing judges being appointed to the Supreme or other lower federal courts.

We can also expect to see a Congressional investigation into the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the US Armed Services towards gay and lesbian personnel.

The British press have been telling us that this whole midterm election was about Iraq. I disagree. I see some very encouraging signs that the American people, concerned as they are about rising casualty figures, anxious as they are to see a withdrawn from that American disaster, are also returning to domestic issues.

Since 2001, the Republicans and the President have managed to keep the people’s focus entirely on the “war on terror.” Domestic politics have stagnated. Bush has also been desperate to keep the Religious Right onside, and has fed them titbits such as a new amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage.

There will be no such amendment now. A liberal woman, who represents San Francisco and is a vocal supporter of gay rights, now controls the House of Representatives.

Nancy Pelosi, from January just a heartbeat and a pacemaker away from the Presidency, is a loyal friend of the gay community, and we should be heartened that she will help mould the Democratic Party’s vision for post-Bush America.

‘Gay’ was a wedge issue for the Republicans. It was like a ‘get out of jail free card’ for them. They knew that homosexuality was something they could use to get the Religious Right out to vote.

That is why, just before his 2004 re-election, Bush started talking about his new Constitutional amendment, fully aware it would never be approved, but happy to have a go at gays and speak to his religious voters at the same time.

The legendary Republican ‘machine’ which had got the vote out for conservative candidates in every election since 1994 seemed to falter this time. Although the turnout was higher then expected, the Democrats seem to have developed their own party machine.

70% of Evangelical Christians voted Republican, according to The New York Times. That means 30% didn’t.

56% of women voted for the Democrats, along with 87% of Jewish people, 89% of black people and 69% of Hispanics.

The Latino vote is key to a 2008 Democratic Presidential victory, and many had feared that as strong Catholics they would vote with the Republicans. It seems that the God-based elections of the last few years will be out of fashion by 08.

The Dems have discovered their own wedge issues. Stem cell research is one area where many ordinary Americans disagree with the religious fundamentalists. In states like Missouri, the Senate challenger made stem cell research a central theme of her campaign.

The controversy surrounding campaign adverts by Parkinson’s sufferer Michael J Fox were supporting the Democrats is indicative of the emotions felt about the issue of research.

A state referendum voted in favour of stem cell research, Claire McCaskill was duly elected as Democratic Senator for Missouri, and the Religious Right did not get their way in the state, one which any serious 2008 Presidential contender must win.

The Democrats in Missouri and across the US managed to get out the vote among Americans who want stem cell research, who want a hike in the minimum wage, who understand the challenge of global warming. Suddenly the Republican tactic of wrapping themselves in the flag and quoting from the Bible does not seem to work.

Americans want solutions in Iraq, but they also want solutions to healthcare, unemployment, social security, education and the environment. The Democrats now have a chance to show they can make a difference.

Smear and scandal are the mainstays of American elections. Since 1994, the Republican machine has been the masters of getting down and dirty. This year they were the ones fighting off accusations of sleaze, with homophobic preachers and Congressman being exposed as gay sex addicts.

Gay issues were not really prominent in this election. Corruption and ethics were a major concern for 43% of voters, and included in ethics we assume is the Congressional pages scandal involving Mark Foley. Incidentally, his once-safe Florida seat fell to the Democrats.

Seven more states did vote to ban same sex marriages. Even the idea of a ‘gay marriage’ would have seemed inconceivable in the US ten or fifteen years ago. I think it is a strangely positive sign that religious leaders are so fearful of the concept that they rush to try and ban it across every state and even talk of a Constitutional amendment.

Gay marriage is on the agenda in the US, and it is not going to go away. The margins involved in many of these referendums are slim, meaning that many presumably heterosexual Americans support gay rights. The fact that states want to bar same sex marriages is merely a sign that one day they will be legal, even in America.

It will require a change of President to effect real change in gay rights, but the 2008 race is looking positive. The two main Democrat candidates at the moment both have a strong record on gay rights.

Hillary Clinton needs no introduction. Her victory speech just after her re-election as New York’s US Senator sounded like a clear bid for the top job.

The other front-runner at this early stage is US Senator for Illinois Barack Obama. He would be the first black Presidential candidate.

He is young, very good-looking, articulate and the ladies like him. He also made an impassioned plea for national unity at the 2004 Democratic convention:

“The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States.

“We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

He has gay friends. Don’t recall George Bush saying anything similar. Another positive outcome from the 2006 elections is that many of the rightwing gay-bashing Republicans who thought they were in with a chance of succeeding Bush, such as Virginia Senator George Allen, or Ohio’s Rick Santorum, suddenly find themselves unemployed.

2008 Presidential election is almost unprecedented in modern American politics. The President is prevented from the Constitution for running a third time. Usually the Vice President has a strong chance of taking the top job, as did Bush Snr in 1992 and Al Gore did in 2000. It is pretty clear to all that Gore did actually win the 2000 election.

But VP Dick Cheney has already ruled himself out in 2008, and everyone believes him when he says he will step down. The races for party nominations and the Presidency itself are wide open, there for whoever can convince the American people they deserve to lead.

Alan Johnson in bid for Deputy PM

Alan Johnson has publicly announced that he intends to stand for deputy leader of the Labour party.

The bid to succeed John Prescott now has two confirmed candidates, after a similar announcement by International Development Secretary Hilary Benn last week.

Mr Johnson ruled himself out of the leadership race and given his support to Gordon Brown, calling the Chancellor the "vastly superior" candidate to be the next Prime Minister.

Cabinet minister Peter Hain, constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman and backbencher Jon Cruddas have all said they want to run for the deputy leadership.

There have also been consistent rumours that former Home and Foreign Secretary and current Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, is interested in Mr Prescott's job. Straw's recent comments on Muslim women's wearing of veils has galvanised supporters who see him as a trusted and brave candidate.

Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson are the front-runners in the contest.

However Mr Johnson, Education Secretary since the May reshuffle, has stated he already has the 44 MPs needed to make a bid for the number two job. With those nominations he can stand for deputy leader. A third of votes come from MPs and MEPs, another third from the Constituency Labour Parties and the final third from the trade unions.

56-year-old Johnson is the first trade union leader to sit in Cabinet for 40 years, and can expect strong backing from his former comrades.

A postman by trade, London-born Johnson rose through the ranks of the Communication Workers Union to become general secretary.

In an open letter to Labour Party members, published on Friday, he said: "I am not putting myself forward for leader - not least because there's a more experienced and obvious candidate.
"But I will be able to assist, support, cajole and complement the person who carries the heaviest of all political burdens."

He pledged submission to the new Prime Minister, saying the deputy role mean being "subordinate to and supportive of the leader, (carrying) out whatever duties the leader sees as being essential to securing a fourth term in office".

There is still confusion as to whether John Reid or John Hutton will be putting themselves forward as the best person to secure that fourth term. Left winger John McDonnell has pledged to stand, but there is skepticism he can get the support of 44 colleagues.

Last week, people close to Reid were signaling that a coronation for Gordon Brown was looking more likely, but Thursday former environment minister Michael Meacher indicated he might oppose Gordon Brown as a centre-left candidate.

Still to come ...

My hour in the net cafe is up! But I will be blogging with renewed fierceness when I am back up and running at home. SO much to say about the US elections, not to mention the mini-reshuffle in the Tories. Oh and of course the Met police interviewing Alan Milburn as a witness and writing to the Chancellor, the Dep PM and that LOVELY Ruth Kelly about loans for peerages! So much to talk about. TTFN

PMQ cancelled - Queen to miss speech?

As Parliament has been prorogued a day early, in preparation for the Queens Speech, that lucky Tony Blair will not be facing his weekly grilling today. Or next week, as the House will have five days of debate on the contents of the Speech after Her Maj graciously reads the drivel from the Throne. That happens on Wednesday.

There have been reports that the Queen may not be able to attend the ceremony this year, which would be the third time that she has not done it.

In 1959 and 1963, the Queen was pregnant and missed out on reading some quality speeches. In recent weeks the Queen hurt her back and has been advised by doctors to rest fully.

In the event that the Queen cannot attend, the Lords Commissioners, led by the Lord Chancellor, read it out instead.

Missouri Shows The Way

My mate Chase is in London for a semester, broadening his mind. He has been a great help to me in understanding how American politics works, and we have had many drunken conversations about how to make the world right.

It is great to know an American who is liberal, active in the political process and wants to serve in government. Plus he is cute as hell - so what's not to like?

Chase has been anxious about the very close Senate race in Missouri. Claire McCaskill, a kind of mid-West Hillary, fought a very strong campaign on the failures in Iraq and on other wedge issues like stem cell research. The campaign commercial made by Michael J Fox endorsing McCaskill caused some controversy, but it was also indicative of a positive change in Democrat campaigning. If the Republicans can throw around wedge issues like gay marriage to energise their base and conservative independents, then the Dems can do the same with social issues where a majority of Americans disagree with the religious right.

Chase need not have fretted that he was not back in his home state campaigning for his beloved Democrats. I felt his joy at McCaskill's stunning win, and felt the excitement of Hillary Clinton and new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making victorious speeches about America's bright future.

It is something you have to love about Americans - they are always hopeful about the future. The Bush doctrine of security and fear has always sat uneasily on a people who want to feel hope. A little dash of the Kennedy/Clinton magic should sweep the Dems into the White House in 2008, as long as they keep the message positive.

Lieberman Won't Die!

Former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman won his seat in the Senate as an indepenent - after losing his party's nomination.

The incumbent lost the Dem primary, with many unhappy at the Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq. But if proof were needed of the value of name recognition and campaign funds, this victory is that proof.

Lieberman will sit as an independent, although he is a membef of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. He will vote with the Dems, as will the other independent senator, Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, who has been in Congressman since 1991, becomes the first ever socialist to sit in the US Senate.

Blog like a chav!

Sorry for the lack of posts in the last few days. This is due to my home internet not working - the problem should be solved in the next few days.

So now I have to blog from an internet cafe like a proper chav. Living in Bethnal Green, it is hard to find a cafe that is not full to bursting with people already. It is shocking. I miss my internet connection so much. Please give it back to me soon BT!

US midterm elections

Next week’s Congressional elections in America could prove to be a turning point in the presidency of George W Bush.

From a European perspective, it seems Americans are always having elections. They elect Sheriffs. Mayors. District Attorneys. Governors. Lieutenant Governors. State Assemblymen. Fire Chiefs.

The country is engaged in constant electioneering, a never-ending round of fundraisers, town meetings and personal appearances. The ‘primary’ system of picking party candidates at federal, state and local level means that even though there are elections every two years, they all just seem to merge into one long process.

Even Senators, who serve six-year terms, constantly have their eye on the next election, squirreling away campaign funds and pocketing money from special interest groups.

Next Tuesday is Election Day. The entire House of Representatives is re-elected every two years. A third of states will be electing one of their two Senators.

There will also be elections for governors and other state-level offices and referendums in some cities and states.

There are 435 House seats being contested on 7th November, and the Democrats are confident they can take at least 15 from the Republicans and seize control of the lower house for the first time in ten years.

That will effectively cripple the last two years of Bush’s presidency, as the Democrats will want to expend all their efforts choosing and supporting their candidate for President in 2008.

That election is wide open, with no obvious Republican successor to Bush and the sitting president constitutionally barred from running a third time.

The Democrats have Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both strong candidates, already pulling in tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

If the Democrats manage to take the Senate as well, Bush will lose any control over the legislative process. The Dems need to unseat six Republican senators to achieve that, which is unlikely. But not unheard of. These are the first national elections since Bush was returned of office in 2004.

It is clear Americans have wearied of the war in Iraq, the Abu Ghraib-like scandals, and the President’s foreign policy failures. Many were very shocked and distressed at the White House’s mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. The images of American citizens trapped in a major city, with the federal government seemingly unprepared, did the President as much damage as a hundred car bombs in Baghdad.

Americans are jittery about rising petrol prices, a slowing economy and increasing poverty. Instead of making citizens feel secure, the President’s heavy-handed security measures have left his countrymen anxious, worried and on a constant state of alert.

Bush’s opinion poll ratings bump around the lower 30s, and if disaffected voters do decide to make the effort and vote, the Democrats could end up running the whole show.

These elections, called midterms as they fall two years into a Presidential term, are effectively a referendum on the governing party. In this case the Republicans are in control of both legislative branches and the Executive. It is a vote for, or against, the current administration, similar to a by-election in the UK but with a much greater political impact.

Dirty campaigning is mainstay of American political life, and these midterms have seen some shining examples of spin, manipulation and smear. The email and instant messenger pederasty of Florida Representative Mark Foley added some much needed dirt during the campaign.

His sexual exploits with teenage Congressional pages truly shocked many Americans. A Democrat explained to me that the Foley scandal has helped his party, because many conservative Americans will be disgusted enough, not to vote Democrat, but just stay at home.

This stay-at-home vote will prove pivotal across all the Senate and House elections. Probably the subtlest dirty trick of the campaign has come from Fox News. The rabidly pro-Bush cable news station, dubbed White House West, has been flagrantly captioning Foley as a Democrat across its bulletins.

To deflect from the pages scandal, the overwhelmingly right-wing American press have concentrated their fire on Democrat Nancy Pelosi. She is almost certain to become Speaker of the House if the Dems win the 15 seats necessary.

That would make her the third in line to the Presidency, which given the state of Dick Cheney’s heart could be worth a small wager. Pelosi would be the first woman to become Speaker of the House. The 49-year-old Italian-American represents San Francisco in Congress, and the Republicans have consistently tried to portray her as an ultra-liberal.

Opponents have accused her of supporting paedophilia, as she attended a gay rights march where the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association also had a small presence. The fact that she has publicly repudiated NAMBLA went unnoticed in the frenzy.

In fact, trying to paint a female Democrat as a danger to teenage boys does not appear the wisest tactic when it is now clear that the entire Republican hierarchy covered up Foley’s inappropriate behaviour towards teenage male pages. Democratic female hopefuls across America have used the Foley incident to subtly portray themselves as a safer alternative.

The Republicans, normally the masters of spin, have been knocked off their axis. The campaign ads that Michael J Fox made supporting Missouri’s Democrat Senate candidate Claire McCaskill’s stance on the use of stem cells highlighted a growing division in America over the future of medical research.

In the past, stem cells would have been a lightning rod issue for god-fearing Americans. It seems that the Republican Party’s ability to galvanise and energise the religious majority is waning.

The subsequent right-wing attack by shock jock Rush Limbaugh stated that Fox was lying or ‘acting’ his Parkinson’s disease symptoms. This was clumsy and clearly a lie, but it also showed how rattled the once-mighty Republicans have become.

The Florida Senate race is indicative of the changed fortunes of the Republicans (or Grand Old Party, as they are known). In 2000, Katharine Harris became infamous as the Florida Secretary of State who handed the state’s electoral college votes to George W Bush.

She won a House seat on the back of that infamy in 2002. A few years ago her challenge to incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Graham would have seemed savvy.

Yet in 2006, with Iraq in flames and the Florida economy suffering, she is certain to lose the Senate race, and Florida, a state with a Republican governor, will be sending a Democrat to Congress. There is a chance that Mark Foley’s seat will fall to the Dems too.

The Montana Senate race could see another defeat for the GOP, with polls indicating a win for Democrat challenger Jon Tester. This would be a blow to the ‘honest cowboy’ posturing of Bush, as Montana is one of the ‘red’ states (Republican) that ushered him into the White House.

Other Senate seats likely to fall to the Democrats are New Jersey and Virginia.

In Tennessee, a little bit of history may be made on Tuesday, as Harold Ford Jr is expected to take retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s Republican seat.

Ford will be the first African-American Senator from the Southern States since the Civil War. Recent racist TV commercials from his opponents, which appeal to a fear of , actually worked in his favour and are yet another example of serious miscalculation by GOP spin-doctors.

There are high hopes that Claire McAskill will take the Missouri senate seat from the dubiously named Jim Talent. Missouri is a bellwether state, meaning that it almost exactly mirrors the demographic, economic and political makeup of the nation. It has voted for the winning president in every election in a century, with the exception of 1956.

If McCaskill can win in Missouri, and on issues like stem cell research, then there is hope that Democrats can take back the White House in 2008.

There are around 30 marginal seats in the House that are expected to change hands. The results will not be clear until about midnight Washington time. By Wednesday morning we should know the new political map, hopefully a lot more blue than red.

36 state governors are up for election on the 7th November. In modern times, the governor’s mansion has proven to be the safest launch pad for the White House.

Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan and Carter all ran for President from the governor’s office and won. Republicans will be looking to some of these state leaders to run in 2008.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is certain to be re-elected as governor of Kahlifurniah, as the state is now called.

California is traditionally a Democratic stronghold, so the Big Austrian’s ability to reach out to voters is a quality the Republicans desperately need on the national stage.

Unfortunately the US Constitution reserves the office of President and Vice President for American-born citizens only. Arnie will not be breaking out of the Golden State and taking over the world.

Over on the East Coast, New York state looks set to elect its first Democratic governor in 12 years. State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer expected to beat his Republican challenger, and is already being talked about in Presidential terms.

Meanwhile, the future looks grim for the present occupant of the Oval Office. A Democratic Congress will lose no time in launching inquiry after inquiry into the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Legislators are relishing a very public washing of dirty linen, designed to ruin any chances of another Republican in the White House.

There is even talk of impeaching President Bush, though likely Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has stated publicly she would prefer a lame-duck President to another impeachment.

Next Tuesday, we should start to see the end of the cold ideological war that America has been engaged in for the last five years. Democrat control of one or both Houses in Congress means that finally the Bush administration will be questioned and held to account.

It should make for an exciting backdrop to the next federal elections, including a brand new President, in 2008.

Hands off the House of Lords.

In a deep, drunken conversation with a government press officer last night, I suddenly discovered I am passionate about the House of Lords.

I don't want Jack Straw to bugger it all up with nonsense about party lists and elections and nonsense like that. Let us consider for a moment what we have before we chuck it in the bin.

Every time I sit in the gallery of the House of Lords, two things strike me. First, there is something really useful about having people involved in the democratic process who are not elected and therefore not in a position to be bribed or intimidated by party whips.

The fact they cannot be removed makes peers much more likely to stick to their principles - vital in a revising chamber whose specific role is to rein in the mentalness emanating from this government.

The second thing is that we have in the UK probably the best educated, most experienced, most widely read chamber in the world. When the Lords discuss Iraq, we are treated to the expert opinions of former Chiefs of Staff, Foreign Secretaries, Defence Secretaries, specialists on Iraqi culture, scientists, senior doctors, former ambassadors, and experts of every discipline.

And what do we propose to replace this House with? What does Jack Straw and the rest of that mob in the Cabinet think would be the best way to replicate the unique brilliance of the Lords? A chamber full of people appointed because of merit and appointed for life?

List systems. Bloody regional lists. Party hacks who were too mediocre to be MPs are kicked into a list of "reliable" candidates.

More elected party fodder, this time even more boring, gray, mediocre people. This lot with even less ambition and drive than the shower of backbench nobodies we already have wasting our time and money in the Commons.

More elections, less choice. All the talent that is present in the Lords will be lost, for this one simple reason. The Lords whose experience and talent we need the most are exactly the sort of people who don't bother joining political parties.

Like most people in Britain, they think politics and politicians are a lower form of life, along the lines of not wanting to join any club that will have them as a member.

But no, the New Labour vandals are ready to rip apart the only bit of Parliament that is working effectively and in the interests of the nation as a whole. To replace it with more expensive party yes-men, to give them complete control over the process from start to finish. No more irritating Lords amendments.

We must stop them! I propose that we just keep the present arrangement. Let the heriditary peers slowly die out. Cut the bishops from 16 to 8 and give the new seats to the other religions. Then appoint people. For life. And make sure it is the same sort of person. The Lords is one of the last things we have against the onslaught of a one party state.

Speaker goes mad!

PMQ has been rocked by an intervention from The Speaker, Michael Martin. At the end of exchanges between Tony Blair and David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition was asking the PM about whether he would be supporting Gordon Brown for the leadership.

At this point the Speaker made a bizarre intervention:

"Order, order. The Prime Minister is here to talk about the business of the government. Who will be the next leader of the Labour party is a matter for the Labour party. It is not a matter for the floor of the House."

The Tories went BANANAS. As they should, this was a truly odd thing to say. David Cameron sought clarification, starting with "are you honestly saying that ..."

It seems that The Speaker was honestly saying that MPs cannot ask Tony Blair who he is supporting as his successor. The Speaker at one point threatened to suspend the session. It was the most vocal display from the Chair in many years.

Cameron tried again with "Who would the PM like to be the next PM," and The Speaker allowed that one, presumably as that is the business of government.

This was yet another intervention from The Speaker. Barely a day goes by when he is not on his feet, trying to tightly control what can be asked. Earlier in PMQ he cut the PM short for even mentioning Tory policy, as he has done in previous weeks. Perhaps The Speaker is trying to appear even handed.

The exchanges between Blair and Cameron all concerned the NHS - it was pretty much an even match. Usual stuff - cuts in the NHS, the Chief Medical Officer says things are bad, chair of the BMA is dismayed, the real failure is endless targets.

The PM responded in kind: lots of statistics, reduced waiting times, lots more money than there was under the Tories. Neither heat not light from these exchanges. What was interesting was that the packed Labour benches were CHEERING the PM after every point he made about the NHS. Clearly the whips want to demonstrate unity after yesterday's rebellions over Iraq.

Ming asked about an Iraq inquiry. Blair told him that the troops have a UN mandate AND the support of the Iraqi goverment AND the Liberals are trying to undermine our brave boys. Again, a draw.

The session started with DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson, using his question to slag off republican terrorists who set off firebombs in Belfast last night. The PM decided to empahsise the hopes for peace at the St Andrews conference. Then, in the sort of tit for tat nonsense that poisons Northern Irish politics, a republican called Eddie McGrady was called to ask the second question. He clearly has not learnt how long a question is supposed to be in his 19 years as an MP, and came close to being told to sit down. He bitched about changes to the education system in the province.

Mr Blair quite equably pointed out that if the fighting children that constitute the Northern Irish political class could work together, they could decide the future of the province themselves.