Archives for May 2009

Several papers have been claiming that Michael Martin is the first Speaker in more than 300 years to be ousted from office - since Sir JohnTrevor in 1695, they say.

Er, not quite so.

What about Charles Manners-Sutton who was elected Speaker in 1817? He came to be seen by the Whigs as far too partisan, too pro-Tory, and too hostile to the cause of Parliamentary Reform.

Having been re-elected Speaker several times, in 1835 MPs finally voted to replace him with James Abercromby.

The ban announced today on MPs claiming Commons expenses to buy furniture for their second home may have the unintentional effect of discrimination on the grounds of wealth.

Poorer MPs will now be much more obliged to rent furnished accommodation, since if they choose to buy a second home they'll have to buy the furniture themselves, an option which wealthier MPs might well be able to afford.

Still, it does bring a whole new meaning to that snobbish jibe against Michael Heseltine, once made by the former Conservative chief whip Michael Jopling as a sign of Heseltine's lower social status (rather than coming from a long-standing aristocratic background).

Jopling, according to Alan Clarke's diary, famously said: "The trouble with Michael is that he had to buy all his furniture."

People say that backbenchers don't have any power any more. Think again.

I am reliably told that yesterday's motion of no confidence in the Speaker tabled by the Conservative MP Douglas Carswell was the very first time he had put down any Commons motion.

And yesterday afternoon, Mr Carswell made his first ever point of order in the chamber.

Within 24 hours Speaker Michael Martin was about to announce his resignation.

After his troubles in the last few days, first with the Ghurkhas and then his expenses, the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas, a keen Manchester United fan, was delighted to discover that an important meeting of G8 home affairs ministers is scheduled to take place on Thursday of next week in Rome.

The Italian capital, very conveniently, is where United are due to play Barcelona in the European Cup final the night before.

Bad news for Mr Woolas however, the G8 meeting is so important that Britain is being represented by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, and there's no need for two ministers.

I doubt, however if Ms Smith will be attending the game. She is an Aston Villa fan.

There's a lot of rubbish talked about traditions and conventions when it comes to electing of a new Speaker of the House of Commons.

First, it's said it's conventional to elect a Speaker mid-term, so that he or she is elected entirely by people who know him rather than brand new MPs, and that it would therefore be a breach of that rule if Michael Martin hangs on until the election and then retires.

Second, it's said it's conventional for the Speakership to alternate between the two main parties, and that Michael Martin's election in 2000, as a second successive Labour Speaker, following Betty Boothroyd, was a breach of this rule.

But a quick look at the post-war Speakers shows these rules don't really exist:

1943-1951 Douglas Clifton Brown (Con)
1951-1959 William Morrison (Con)
1959-1965 Sir Harry Hylton-Foster (Con)
1965-1971 Horace King (Lab)
1971-1976 Selwyn Lloyd (Con)
1976-1983 George Thomas (Lab)
1983-1992 Bernard Weatherill (Con)
1992-2000 Betty Boothroyd (Lab)
2000- Michael Martin

Five of the above nine Speakers - Clifton-Brown, King, Lloyd, Thomas and Martin - were indeed elected mid-term, though in King's case this was because the previous Speaker died in office.

But four others - Morrison, Hylton-Foster, Weatherill and Boothroyd - were elected at the start of a Parliament. So that's hardly a hard and fast rule.

And eight of the nine post-war Speakers were elected when their party was the biggest in the House.

The only exception was Betty Boothroyd who was elected in 1992 when the Conservatives had a small majority.

I can't agree with Stephen Fry's claim in the interview he did with me for Newsnight last Monday that all journalists are expense fiddlers.

But it DOES worry me slightly that so many of the MPs - or MPs' relatives - caught up in the expenses allegations are former colleagues of mine, at either the BBC or ITN.

I can think of at least 13 who had broadcasting links, and there may be more:

Margaret Beckett, ex-Granada TV; Ben Bradshaw, ex-BBC; Gordon Brown, ex-STV; brother Andrew, ex-BBC and ITN; Michael Gove, ex-BBC; Chris Grayling, ex-BBC; Douglas Hogg, wife Sarah is ex-ITN; Julie Kirkbride, ex-ITN; Peter Mandelson, ex-LWT; John Maples, wife Jane is ex-ITN, now BBC; Austin Mitchell, ex-Yorkshire TV and BBC; Jack Straw; ex-Granada TV; Shaun Woodward, ex-BBC; Phil Woolas, ex-BBC and ITN; Chris Bryant, ex-BBC.

Cynical types might suggest it's something to do with the expenses culture which once prevailed within ITV and BBC news. Twenty five years ago there were all sorts of dodgy dealings in expenses, many of them done by well-known broadcasters (some still working), both inside the BBC and ITV.

Private Eye chronicled it in considerable detail at the time. It was far worse than anything MPs have done. But no - I think it's just a coincidence.

There's much talk in football circles of Carlos Tevez leaving Manchester United this summer, and joining one of United's English rivals such as Liverpool, Chelsea or Manchester City.

There's one big obstacle to such an idea. The Immigration minister Phil Woolas is a fervent, match-going Manchester United fan. If Tevez found a new English club it would be Woolas' responsibility to sign the relevant forms required to join a new employer.

One question Woolas would be obliged to ask is whether Tevez has learnt English yet (which I understand he hasn't).

I'm told on very good authority that Woolas would never stomach the idea of signing a form which allowed Tevez to go to Liverpool. For one thing, I'm told, he'd never survive the wrath of his Oldham constituents.

Polly Toynbee's suggestion that Gordon Brown should quit now and make way Alan Johnson is one that finds increasing favour among Labour MPs and other party figures.

But few believe it will ever happen, simply because they can't see HOW it might come about - how one could get from G to A, as it were.

Let me throw in a couple of theories.

The first was suggested by someone close to David Miliband. This is that at some point Gordon Brown may simply decide to jack it in, knowing that he is taking his party to disastrous defeat.

Unlikely, you may say. But what about Gordon Brown's McAvity quality, whereby in his days as chancellor he used to disappear whenever there was trouble.

A second idea which has been raised is the suggestion that if Brown does go, it should not be this summer or autumn, but at the last possible moment.

That might be AFTER an election is called.

As John Rentoul reminded people a couple of weeks ago, that's exactly what the Australian Labour Party did in the mid 1980s when they replaced Bill Hayden after the election was called, replaced him with the more attractive Bob Hawke, and Hawke duly won the election.

The advantage of replacing Brown late is that it would mean a replacement (such as Johnson) could only be appointed, not elected. And it would enable Labour MPs to hold on to their seats as long as possible.

Last Friday I failed to report a pretty big political story - and so did Newsnight. But then hardly any other media outlets reported it either, and David Cameron and his colleagues must have been pretty delighted.

At Reading Crown Court six men were sentenced to a total of nearly 14 years in jail for election fraud in Slough in the May 2007 elections.

As I reported for Newsnight they had exploited the weaknesses in the new system of postal-votes-on-demand to register dozens of bogus voters in order to get elected a Conservative candidate Eshaq Khan. And Khan was duly elected to Slough Council, ousting a long-standing Labour mayor. The brains behind the fraud, Mahboob Khan, was jailed for four and a half years, which is thought to be the stiffest ever sentence for a British election fraud case. The candidate Eshaq Khan got three and a half years.

Four other men got sentences ranging from four months to three and half years - a total of nearly 14 years. If any other political case on the British mainland has resulted in total jail sentences of more than that in recent times I'd love to hear about it.

So why did the sentences get so little coverage?

The only national newspaper to report it, so far as I can tell, was The Times on Saturday, though the Mail and the BBC did cover the story online.

In part, I think, it's the mood of the times, where the media dwells upon every misdemeanour by Gordon Brown and his Labour colleagues. Twelve years ago, when we were obsessed by Tory 'sleaze', of course, it would have been the other way round.

But then who am I to talk? I didn't report the Slough sentences last Friday either.