Iraq Debate

How does having an inquiry into the Iraq war undermine the troops?
William Hague has just made an excellent point about demanding an inquiry within a year, but not now.
Over half the troops will be out by next February, he says. Why can't preparatory work start now on a report to be released in 2008?

God, William Hague is good at the dispatch box.

This debate should be interesting!

Village People

Tonight I am off to villagedrinks

It is a networking event for professional London homosexualists. By which I do not mean people who are professionally from London, or people that are professionally gay. I mean people who work in the professions (law, politics, the City) and are gay. And are in London.

Basically its like just an event that is chav free, and no-one is under 18 or over 60! Which makes it quite unusual for a gay night in London.

The organisers also are careful to price it out of the reach of students, with a 6 pounds door charge. On a Tuesday night.

Last time I spotted Alan Duncan, surrounded by a posse of posh Tory boys. The time before that I spotted Plaid MP Adam Price.

I figure if I am going to find a proper boyfriend who isn't either a slut, mental or stupid, this might be the place to do it.

Politics - showbiz for ugly people

When David Mililband made his statement on the Stern report to the House of Commons yesterday, my friend had just emailed me with a challenge. How is it that there are no good looking MPs?

Well in the "Britain's Next Top Model" sense he is absolutely right. There are not any lookers - a situation that might change after the next election if Tory A-listers Zac Goldsmith and Adam Rickett get elected.

Personally I have a bit of a soft spot for James Purnell, the pretty boy MP for Stalybridge & Hyde.

Some girl I met at a party on Saturday night mention that her MP, James Clappinson, is a cutie. Shows you doesn't it, women have no taste.

As I was not really paying attention to what Miliband was saying, I did envisage a situation where I would sleep with him - well he is in the cabinet.

It was the opposition bench that caught my eye - there was "Cameron's gay guru," Greg Barker. He really does not look like the type of guy to have an affair. This led me to muse on that old saying that power is sexy.

Looking at most of the powerful people in Westminster, it seems that the aphrodisiac of power would explain the affairs of Blunkett, Prescott and Robin Cook. None of them are lookers, all of them have serious personality flaws, yet women swoon over them.

No, it must be power. Though I have to admit that when I met Nick Clegg, he knocked me for six with his sheer charisma. But I didnt want to shag him!

Do you think an MP is dishy? Do let me know.

Humfrey Malins - top speech

During the discussion of Lords amendments to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, Nick Herbert gave a bit of a nervous performance from the opposition front bench. He lost his place several times, and I felt very sorry for him. It must be intimidating with John Reid staring at you as if he is about to take a bite out of your leg.

Not to mention the jargon that Herbert has to recite as if it is poetry:

"Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 are aimed at clarifying the defence for museums and galleries using realistic imitation weapons as outlined in clause 33. As drafted, the exemption applies only to public museums and galleries that do not distribute any profits. Amendment No. 42 removes those words, ensuring that private museums can also benefit from the exemption..."

Speaking for the government, Tony McNulty was fluid, focused and even found time for a bit of humour. Though it is hard not to be amused when Michael Fabricant's mane of hair is being wiggled in your direction:


John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative) Might I extract from the hon. Gentleman a confirmation that in pursuit of that objective, he will be at least deploying one of his usual charm offensives?

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
And he has plenty!

Tony McNulty (Minister of State, Home Office)
Someone else once said in this place that when he and a colleague undertook a charm offensive, he was the charm and our colleague was the offensive.

Lynne Featherstone was mostly good, speaking for the LibDems. Bob Marshall-Andrews made some sensible points about imitation firearms:

"Sales of airsoft machines are predicated on the machines being exact replicas of deadly firearms. The website of the main organisation involved suggests that it now has 22,000 members. If exemptions are going to be made to allow a group of that size to trade in imitation firearms on the internet or otherwise, a huge part of this Bill will be wrecked before it is enacted.

"If that happens, hundreds of thousands of people—perhaps millions—who have campaigned or supported campaigns will have to return to the campaigning ground, and an enormous advantage for this Government, which they thoroughly deserve, will be lost. In congratulating the Minister and the Department on the Bill, I ask my hon. Friend to take on board, as I know he will, the real concerns that exist throughout the country about these potential exemptions."

The best speech though, one with real passion and anger, came from Humfrey Malins. The veteran MP for Woking serves as a crown court Recorder and district judge in London. He explained the perspective from the bench:

"The single most prevalent crime, which is growing and growing and growing, is that of carrying a bladed article in a public place.

"In Committee, just over a year ago, I quoted some horrifying statistics from a Youth Justice Board survey carried out in 2004, which showed that 1 per cent. of pupils in England and Wales aged between 11 and 16 had at some time in the last year carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. for "defensive" reasons.

"That means that 60,000 of our children had carried a knife in school at some stage during the previous 12 months, which is horrific."

Malins spoke passionately in the defence of victims rights, and mocked the liberal attitudes of the LibDems:

"If Members went to the courts where I sit they would realise the prevalence of the offence of carrying a bladed article in public. They should listen to the witness who says that he or she was so terrified by the glint of the steel thrust at them in the street late at night that they had nightmares for months on end, and dared not go out into the streets for fear of coming across a possible attacker.

"The House has not got properly to grips with the issue of carrying knives. I say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) that it is all very well to focus on help, guidance and education, but tell that to the person whose life has been ruined by being threatened in the street with a nasty looking knife."

Malins was not impressed with government plans to increase sentences for carrying a knife:

"The number of people sent to prison for carrying a bladed article in public is extremely low. In the last year for which figures are available, of the 5,000 to 6,000 people convicted for that offence, a paltry10 per cent. went to prison. Almost 90 per cent. of people who carry knives in public know that, if they go to court, they will not lose their liberty.

"Furthermore, many of that paltry 10 per cent. probably received a sentence of about two, three or four months.

"So why is changing the maximum sentence from two years to four years suddenly considered to be a piece of magic that is the answer to the problem? It is not the answer; the answer to the problem is to enforce the existing law much more thoroughly, and, respectfully, in my view this Government have failed to do that."

Malins also had strong words for his fellow MPs:

"Much of our criminal law would be improved if we in this House legislated and spoke less, and saw to it that the police enforced the current law more strictly and forcefully.

"I have one final message for the Minister. He is a man of the world and a reasonable man, and he knows about the world outside—I know that he does—so he understands that knife crime is a terrible threat. Therefore, he must also understand that we cannot cure this great evil by simply having a little education here, and a little help there, and a doubling of the sentence as well.

"He must understand that the real way to deal with this problem is to get the police and the schools to operate a zero-tolerance approach to knives. There must be a tough, harsh attitude. We must make it clear to people that knives are wrong, and that if knives are present, they will be punished. Anything less than that simply will not do."

A quality speech for an MP who has been round long enough to know what he is talking about.

thanks to theyworkforyou.com

The Benn Dynasty and Labour

I am pleased that Hilary Benn is a serious contender for the deputy leadership. Although everyone bangs on about his father Tony Benn all the time, I have always had more time for the quieter Hilary.

Although the race to succeed John Prescott appears to be a crowded field, in reality none of the declared candidates have got the backing of 44 Labour MPs required to run for the deputy leader.

Jon Cruddas announced himself as a left wing candidate at party conference. He might get the backing of 44 socialist MPs, who might also throw away their votes in the leadership by supporting John McDonnell against big Gordon Broon.

Harriet Harman, bless her, is also a candidate. She thinks that Labour needs a female deputy leader, which I think is a bit defeatist - Labour needs a female leader. In any case, much as I love Harriet I don't see her as leadership material. She couldn't even handle Social Security - she lasted one year as a cabinet minister. She is a good lawyer, good enough to perhaps be Lord Chancellor. Bung her in the House of Lords!

The next four years are going to be the most difficult Labour have faced since the 1970s, because holding onto power is much more tricky than being in opposition, no matter how depressing not being in power might be.

It is certain that Brown will succeed as PM, probably elected in time for the party spring conference. His first PR disaster will be Labour meltdown in Scottish and Welsh elections. He is going to need a visible, super-loyal deputy who can rally the party in and out of parliament.

One of the great skills of John Prescott was his ability to reach out to ordinary people and talk like a human. Put simply, people like him.

Hilary Benn does have a good way with people and he and his family are loved in the Labour party. Although only in Parliament since 1999, and only in a minor cabinet post, all that lack of exposure to running (and of course buggering up) a major department could work in his favour.

As Alan Johnson is discovering, having a large and vital department to run can start to hurt your chances of the top jobs. Johnson was a favourite for the deputy job among the bookies and Westminster watchers - until his U turn over forcing faith schools to accept a quota of non-believers.

The only serious rival to Benn is Peter Hain. Miliband has ruled himself out - no doubt got his eye on the leadership. Jack Straw? Not after the veil fiasco. Tessa? Lovely women and quite a competent minister - imagine how well Tessa could have done the job Blair gave to that Ruth Kelly person - but I can't see her being deputy.

Hain, Jowell, Straw, Harman. All these faces should be gone by the next election. They are old New Labour.

Johnson might well come back as a strong candidate. I do hope so, because the idea of Gordon Brown and any of the above old faces trying to present a 'new' image to the electorate will fail to shine in the shadow of Cameron.

Everyone on the Tory front bench seems new. Brown will be committing electoral suicide unless he gets rid of most of the 50somethings in his cabinet and starts from scratch.

Also I don't want Peter Hain to win. His big orange face upsets me.

The Politics of a Personal Life

The free paper LondonLite made much of yesterday's revelation that a leading Tory MP has left his wife and three children and embarked on an affair.

Given that the paper often talks about sexual liaisons in a knockabout fashion, runs speed dating competitions and sex tips, it seems strange that it took such a straight-laced tone when reporting what would appear to be a marriage breakdown. After all, the majority of marriages end in divorce.

The headline says it all. For anyone who thinks that the battle against prejudice has been won, consider this:

"Cameron stands by his gay green guru."

The 'gay' in question is Bexhill & Battle MP Gregory Barker. He was elected in 2001, your classic Tory, pretty wife proudly sporting a blue rosette, three adorable children aged 11, six and seven. A multi-millionaire who made his money in recruitment, not inheritance.

LondonLite reports that Barker 'left his wife and children for another man.' The facts are slightly different. The couple split in July, it is alleged that Barker has been having an affair with a male interior designer, but no proof of that is offered for that.

There are a few concerns this story raises. The first is the matter of sexuality. Gay and straight media alike are guilty of calling people gay or lesbian, merely because they have had a gay experience.

Bisexual people exist, and it is interesting that the gay community are considerably more bi-phobic than most straight people. A lot of gay men and lesbians regard others who say they are bisexual as liars.

Lesbians in particular seem somehow threatened by women who swing both ways. While it is true that a lot of gay men identify as bisexual as a way of easing themselves into their gay identity, that does not mean bisexuality is a myth.

Gay and lesbian biphobia makes it easy for the tabloids and the broadsheets to use the word gay out of context, to create lurid headlines that are factually incorrect.

Mr Barker has yet to make a public statement about how he identifies himself sexually, and it is up to him to decide if he is gay or bi or just pansexual. There are differences between those identities and gay and lesbian people need to confront their own prejudices.

This leads neatly to the second issue - is it really any of our business what MP Gregory Barker does in his private life?

The Tatchells of this world will jibber nonsense about his "anti-gay" agenda, an argument I shall deal with and ridicule in a moment.

But are politicians allowed a private life? The so-called public interest for this story is that Barker did not vote for some gay rights legislation. That is why journalists think it is acceptable for them to print a long rambling statement from his mother-in-law and wild speculation about whether Barker will be sacked.

To his credit, David Cameron has not so much stood by his shadow environment minister as treated the whole matter with the contempt it deserves. In a short statement to the press, Barker said, "I am entitled to a private life."

Is he? This is a profound question, as it will decide the sort of politicians and politics we will have in the future. I speak as someone with the passion, drive and intelligence to want to hold office. Whenever friends ask me why I do not, the answer is simple.

The press are homophobic, and I have done so many things in my life that would make headlines, I would not want them exposed. I would not want my mother to have to read lurid tales of drugs, group sex and other bad behaviour.

As political correspondent for PinkNews.co.uk, I speak regularly to gay and lesbian MPs, councillors and prospective candidates. All of them have to be so careful with how they act. All have to be aware that any accusation of immorality against them will get a lot more coverage in the tabloids.

What you do when you are in office is another matter, I accept that. But if we want representation we have to go easier on our MPs, otherwise all we will end up with are party automatons, never done a day's work in their lives, never got so drunk they vomited, essentially acted the politician from the day they were born.

Mr Cameron is right to just ignore sniping at his trusted colleague over his personal affairs.

The more hsyterical gays in our broad community were quick to try to portray the unfortunate Barker as some sort of homophobe.

Their "evidence" for this was that he had voted against some gay rights legislation, such as allowing gay couples to adopt.

Let me explain why he did. It is the same explanation of why he voted for the civil partnerships bill in 2004.

It's called being a party politician. For those of you too busy highlighting homophobia that does not exist, let me explain how that works.

MPs represent a particular party. The leader of that party decides, through a system called whipping, what the party thinks about issues. The MPs are then directed how to vote by the party leadership.

From 2001 - 2003, that leader was Iain Duncan-Smith. It was the Quiet Man who ordered his MPs to oppose gay rights legislation. Some did defy him - notably Michael Portillo crossed the floor of the House to vote with Labour.

I would not expect a new MP, gay, bi, lesbian or anything else, to defy their party and ruin their career by voting for a bill that, given the huge majority Labour have, would certainly have passed anyway.

Gay moaners need to try and gain some understanding of how politics actually works. David Cameron, also a new MP, voted against something he believed in.

He did not get a reputation as a rebel. He got himself up the ladder to the extent that as party leader he can say sorry for the previous homophobic position of the party. His genuine desire to make the Tories more inclusive means a lot more than what way he was instructed to vote at the start of the last Parliament.

Finally, Greg Barker was elected to represent the people of Bexhill & Battle. They voted for a Tory MP, not a gay activist. Surely his job is to honestly represent the views of his constituents, many of whom no doubt do oppose gay adoption.

It is nonsensical to demand that gay MPs only represent what the gay community thinks. They are party and constituency representatives first and foremost. The good thing about having gay and lesbian voices in parliament is that those voices are heard.

It is naive and dangerous for activists to expect MPs to vote against the wishes of their constituents and their party just because they prefer boys to girls.

Just like it would be ridiculous for Ruth Kelly to be a Catholic first, a Labour party member and constituency MP second.

PMQ - Back to Normal!

After the boredom of last week, the opposition leaders returned to form at this week's PMQ.

Tony Blair gave his customary confident, comfortable performance, David Cameron had some good jokes and Ming asked a principled question that the PM failed to answer.

There is a strong sense that everyone is just waiting for the change of leader, which is frustrating for Blair, the only person who knows when that new leader will start.

Young Tory boy Stephen Crabb had the first question, and used it to very good effect, asking the PM to close a loophole that allows British companies to invest in the repressive Burmese regime.

The PM made the right noises but promised nothing. The next question was so clearly planted it was almost funny to watch. Natascha Engel. Something about tax credits helping thousands of people in her constituency. So Tony Blair got to make a dig about "uncosted and uncostable commitments" from the Tories before the Opposition Leader had even got to his feet.

Cameron used up his first four supplementary questions on the Youth Justice System, currently "in crisis." No, its much better than it was in 1997, replied the PM. Also, we send people to jail for breaching ASBOs.

Cameron accused Blair of living on another planet - adult prisons had run out of places and police are being diverted to act as jailers.

The PM pointed again to the National Audit Office report, which gave Youth Justice a nice shiny gold star, and said that there are a further 8000 places being built. Strange how no one bats an eyelid at a Labour leader boasting about putting more people behind bars and expanding the penal system.

Or a Tory leader sticking up for the NHS. "If he wants to talk about cuts, let's talk about the 20,000 jobs he is cutting in the NHS.

"Now, Prime Mininster, back to prison. That has a certain ring to it!"

The opposition MPs lapped this all up as the PM responded that Tory tax proposals mean cuts, and that since 1997 there are 300,000 extra staff in the NHS.

Cameron built up to his big soundbite, and it seems his original pledge to avoid Punch & Judy politics seemed to have been firmly forgotten:

"It doesn't matter who is in charge, Blair/Brown, Brown/Blair, this country isn't safe under Labour!"

The thing about Punch & Judy is that Blair is clearly the puppetmaster. He dismissed Cameron's soundbite by casually remarking that the boyish Tory leader sounded as if he spent time rehearsing his line, then returned to a bit of "under the Tories crim doubled" and finished with the classic, "he talks tough but votes soft."

Beat that, Gordon Brown.

Claire Curtis-Thomas asked a strange question about Anthony Gormley statues in her constituency. She is a very odd woman, but the PM made another joke, and the Labour MPs were in a happy mood.

Ming Campbell has improved muchly at PMQ, apparently since he stopped taking advice and writes his own questions. Today he wanted to know if the shiny new US/UK extradition treaty
would be used to extradite the American soldiers who killed ITN journalist Terry Lloyd.

The PM expressed his sympathy to Lloyd's family and then completely fudged his answer, ending up with a rousing defence of the bravery of American soldiers.

Ming was on top QC form. "Not much comfort there. As recently as last night the government assured us that the extradition treaty would facilitate justice. It is a fast track process that only goes one way."

David Cameron used his last two questions to "demand" that a climate change bill be introduced in the Queens Speech. Labour MPs laughed uproariously at Cameron's assertion that the Tory party have been pushing for a tough climate bill:

"If you want to get something to happen in this country, get the leader of the Opposition to suggest it!" he told them, as his own side went bananas. The PM pointed out that the Tories voted against the climate change levy. Cameron wanted a straight answer about whether we will get a new climate bill.

Blair said he can't talk about what is in the Queens Speech, as the poor lamb spends hours writing it all herself. The PM took the opportunity to mock the recent tax proposals from the oppposition. The Speaker for once did not intervene as Blair expertly lampooned Cameron and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne as flip-flopping on the key issue of green taxes. "If that is an example of his policy making we certainly won't follow him."

Blair batted away questions on Post Offices, breast cancer, trade unions in Iraq, the CSA, expansion of the EU, but did get a bit lippy with a cheeky SNP MP.

"When he is interviewed by the Metropolitan police, what innocent explanation will he give for the fact that 80p of every pound donated to Labour comes from someone who has been honoured?"

Most people had forgotten about Mr Blair and the local bobbies, and the PM deftly ignored the question and attacked the SNP instead.

"He doesn't dare ask a question about Scotland ... his policy of ripping Scotland out of the UK would be a disaster."

Just when it looked like the Speaker wouldn't get a chance to say anything at all, Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay started bellowing across the chamber at Tory MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Something about Iran and nuclear weapons, but it was a startling and completely bonkers moment that made everyone laugh.

A beaming Speaker told MacKinlay that "the Prime Minister is doing alright on his own." He certainly is.

For all David Cameron's smart comebacks, Tony Blair is still the master at PMQ.