![[info]](/googleai/decoding-https-web.archive.org/web/20091226023610im_/http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Jane Merrick
Jane Merrick is the Political Editor of the Independent on Sunday. She has been a political journalist for seven years, previously working at the Press Association and the Daily Mail
The Independent on Sunday/ComRes poll last weekend contained an early Christmas present for David Cameron: a 17-point Tory lead. True, this is the upper end of a range of about 10 points in the polls - the Guardian/ICM poll today has the gap at just 9 points.
There was encouragement too in our poll for the Tory leadership on the class war question - seven out of ten people don't think Cameron's Etonian schooling would make him a worse Prime Minister.
But buried in the detail was a figure which might one day cause a setback for the Conservatives: a substantial majority of women don't like Cameron's policy on marriage. Among both sexes, opinion is split 46-46 on whether it is right for married couples to be given tax breaks that are not available to unmarried couples. But among women only, 52 per cent oppose the policy, while 39 per cent are in favour (the opposite is true among men).
In polling terms, 52 per cent is a substantial figure and should cause concern to Cameron and George Osborne.
So, what is the problem? It doesn't seem to be solely about a feeling of missing out on cash - among social groups, opinion is fairly evenly split (although among C1s, the lower middle class, which includes many crucial floating voters, the opposition is 54 per cent to 39 per cent).
Perhaps, if I can hazard a guess, it is that women have a problem with being told - lectured - by a politician that we should get married - which is the very strong impression we are left with by this policy. It is one thing to be asked, frequently, usually at Christmas, by our mothers: "Do you think you'll ever get married, dear? Am I ever going to be the mother of the bride?" It is quite another to hear this from the future Prime Minister. When women do get married, it is for love - not because a politician tells us to do so for the good of society.
Yes, Cameron says he has nothing against single parents, or cohabiting couples. But it is the tone of his message - one that does not sit well with the 21st century - that leaves the impression that he has everything against them.
I cannot see either how this policy appeals to younger voters - and our poll shows that 64 per cent of 18-24-year-olds are opposed, as are 55 per cent of 25-34-year-olds. I also note that the Conservatives did not deny the point Harriet Harman made - that a man who left his wife and children and remarried would benefit while his ex-wife would not.
To be against this policy is not the same as being against marriage. Marriage can be a wonderful thing - but it should be about love and choice, not the prescription of an incoming government desperate to prove it is doing something about the "broken society".
There are rumours that Osborne, more of a social liberal than Cameron, is not so keen on the message it sends out. And I have no idea what Samantha Cameron, whose own parents divorced, thinks about it. A story last weekend suggesting that Tory women were opposed to the policy was rubbished by Central Office, but on the basis of this poll it has the ring of truth.
Cameron and Osborne should take note of how women feel about this and ditch the policy. But I doubt they will.
There was encouragement too in our poll for the Tory leadership on the class war question - seven out of ten people don't think Cameron's Etonian schooling would make him a worse Prime Minister.
But buried in the detail was a figure which might one day cause a setback for the Conservatives: a substantial majority of women don't like Cameron's policy on marriage. Among both sexes, opinion is split 46-46 on whether it is right for married couples to be given tax breaks that are not available to unmarried couples. But among women only, 52 per cent oppose the policy, while 39 per cent are in favour (the opposite is true among men).
In polling terms, 52 per cent is a substantial figure and should cause concern to Cameron and George Osborne.
So, what is the problem? It doesn't seem to be solely about a feeling of missing out on cash - among social groups, opinion is fairly evenly split (although among C1s, the lower middle class, which includes many crucial floating voters, the opposition is 54 per cent to 39 per cent).
Perhaps, if I can hazard a guess, it is that women have a problem with being told - lectured - by a politician that we should get married - which is the very strong impression we are left with by this policy. It is one thing to be asked, frequently, usually at Christmas, by our mothers: "Do you think you'll ever get married, dear? Am I ever going to be the mother of the bride?" It is quite another to hear this from the future Prime Minister. When women do get married, it is for love - not because a politician tells us to do so for the good of society.
Yes, Cameron says he has nothing against single parents, or cohabiting couples. But it is the tone of his message - one that does not sit well with the 21st century - that leaves the impression that he has everything against them.
I cannot see either how this policy appeals to younger voters - and our poll shows that 64 per cent of 18-24-year-olds are opposed, as are 55 per cent of 25-34-year-olds. I also note that the Conservatives did not deny the point Harriet Harman made - that a man who left his wife and children and remarried would benefit while his ex-wife would not.
To be against this policy is not the same as being against marriage. Marriage can be a wonderful thing - but it should be about love and choice, not the prescription of an incoming government desperate to prove it is doing something about the "broken society".
There are rumours that Osborne, more of a social liberal than Cameron, is not so keen on the message it sends out. And I have no idea what Samantha Cameron, whose own parents divorced, thinks about it. A story last weekend suggesting that Tory women were opposed to the policy was rubbished by Central Office, but on the basis of this poll it has the ring of truth.
Cameron and Osborne should take note of how women feel about this and ditch the policy. But I doubt they will.
After PMQs, a quick statement by the Speaker on the new chairman of what we have to call IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, who is Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, who I suppose we should refer to as PSIK. Many MPs from all sides stayed to listen Speaker Bercow announce that PSIK will be paid £100,000. Everyone roared with laughter at this new watchdog earning £40k more than them, and even the Speaker allowed himself a giggle, as it must be rather amusing from his point of view to annoy the heck out of MPs.
Then came the statement by Harriet Harman on the Kelly Report into MPs' expenses. The green benches emptied, as if MPs couldn't stomach listening to the reforms announced by Sir Christopher Kelly earlier. This was a shame, because I was hoping for some of the MPs who have been complaining in private at the measues to issue some full-scale whingeing in public.
I sat through the debate, which lasted around 25 minutes. Most of the MPs who spoke talked about how important it was for the reforms to be implemented. Only a couple expressed dissatisfaction with the report, including Peter Bottomley, who warned that the restrictions on second homes would be bad for the children of MPs, who would see their parent less. But that was it. I thought it was rather cowardly, given the scale of oppositon among MPs to Kelly, for no one else to state in public what they are saying in private.
The reaction to David Cameron's speech is mixed, but I haven't heard anyone say it was his greatest, or say they were swept away by his oration.
But were we supposed to be? Would a passionate belter of a speech fitted with the theme of the week, not to be complacent or triumphalist? No. But the audience beforehand was pumped up, there was a "best bits" film at the start (including a clip from his stellar 2005 leadership bid - perhaps they should have run the whole tape instead).
The expectation in the Manchester Central conference hall was high, and Cameron's speech fell short. Cameron is good orator, usually, so we can only think the low-key approach was deliberate. And yet, this was the moment that we were supposed to see the Prime Minister-in-waiting, and some will feel they are still waiting.
Aides say there was a deliberate build-up, and yes, there was a flicker of passion was the final section - the stuff about "I see a country". There was a good section on crime, and the NHS - that it should not be a machine - and on telling us how Blair wasted his mandate and how Brown is messing up. Some of it was convincing.
But other sections were stodgy. He sounded rather exhausted. And some bits were just downright unconvincing. The most ill-advised line was "I want every child to have the chances that I had." Yes, we realise he doesn't literally mean go to Eton. But it reminded people of his charmed childhood. Cameron shouldn't be afraid to discuss Eton, but he could have put it better.
There were contradictions - attacking big government, while setting out a vision of the home and family life he thinks Britons should have. And I am not convinced by being told, day in day out, that we are living in a broken society, because this is simply not true. So it was good that, as well as repeating his broken Britain theme, he acknowledged that in 2009, this country is "in so many ways, a great place to live". Finally.
This speech is not going to change the political landscape - he looks set fair to win in 2010 anyway. But the magic many were expecting was just not there.
As has been reported today, the Board of Deputies of British Jews has written to David Cameron raising concerns about his new allies in Europe and most notably the head of the alliance, Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law and Justice Party.
Both Cameron and the Board of Deputies should look up the stories that have been written about Mr Kaminski's past - especially the quotes he gave to the Polish newspaper Nasza Polska. Justifying his opposition to a Polish apology for the massacre of Jews at Jedwabne, he said Poland should not apologise unless and until, and I quote, "someone from the Jewish side will apologise for what the Jews did ... for that mass collaboration of the Jewish people with the Soviet occupier, for fighting Polish partisans in this area, and for eventually murdering Poles." He added: "Maybe it is an attempt to suppress conscience by those Jews who did a lot of harm during the first Soviet occupation."
Based on his own words, the Board of Deputies and other Jewish leaders have a right to be concerned about Mr Kaminski's views. On the homophobia point, Mr Kaminski gave an interview to BBC Parliament in 2000 in which he described gays as "fags" - "because they are fags".
I have written about this before. But what I would take issue with today is the content of the statement put out by the Tories last night in response, saying they are concerned about the "politically motivated allegations made by the Labour Party and their allies". In fact, reports about Mr Kaminski's past, in the Independent on Sunday and elsewhere, are facts reported by journalists. Yes, David Miliband criticised the Tories last week, but this story has been reported, by neutral journalists, since the middle of July. I am alarmed that reporters, including myself, are being referred to as "allies" of the Labour Party. This is not true.
The second part of the Tories' statement says "all these allegations have repeatedly been shown to be false". This is not true. They have not been shown to be false - rather, William Hague and others have repeated this claim without refuting any of the facts. I have not read or heard Mr Hague respond to the Nasza Polska interview. What does he say about this?
The third part of the Tories' statement says "people should take account of the fact that the Polish Chief Rabbi has said that his remarks have been misrepresented". I have not heard or read anywhere Michael Schudrich saying he has been misrepresented.
Perhaps he did so in a private telephone call, perhaps there was a headline somewhere he did not agree with, but here is the full text of the email Rabbi Schudrich sent to the New Statesman, in late July, on Mr Kaminski: "I do not comment on political decisions. However, it is clear that Mr. Kaminski was a member of NOP, a group that is openly far right and neo-nazi. Anyone who would want to align himself with a person who was an active member of NOP and the Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne ( which was established to deny historical facts of the massacre at Jedwabne) needs to understand with what and by whom he is being represented." I would argue that the Conservatives are misrepresenting Rabbi Schudrich by claiming he has given Mr Kaminski a "clean bill of health", (to quote a senior Tory speaking to me last night).
Finally, the Tories' statement says, the Latvian government has made representations to the Foreign Office, including David Miliband, that the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the country's For Fatherland and Freedom party, another ally with the Tories in Europe, were "unacceptable and misleading". That is for Miliband to respond to, but - without wishing to be accused of being an "ally" of Labour - I would disagree that his remarks were unacceptable and misleading.
Someone told me last night that I should stop being interested in this story because "the voters are not interested in Europe". But this is high stakes politics for David Cameron. His entire European policy, the project to withdraw from the European People's Party and form a new alliance with Kaminski et al, the very thing which helped him win key votes from the Tory Eurosceptic right in his 2005 leadership campaign, rests on Mr Kaminski being given a "clean bill of health". If Mr Kaminski's past is open to scrutiny in the way it is, Cameron's European project could come crashing down. The Conservative statement cannot be allowed to become a statement of the facts. It is wrong on several points.
William Hague and David Cameron justify their position - ie denying Mr Kaminski has a dubious past - because he, Kaminski, is now a "friend of Israel" and has been supported by Conservative Friends of Israel.
What is sad about this issue is that some members of the Jewish community feel that they are being used by the Tories to justify the project. But the facts should not be allowed to be distorted to ensure Mr Cameron has a smooth path to Downing Street.
There have been some reports that an entire shopping mall has been plonked inside the conference centre for Tory conf in Manchester - including a Harvey Nichols - and the suggestion that this consumerism is a bit much. Also, it is said, it's all Harvey Nicks, and Crombie, and it is all a bit posh and not what the modern face of Conservativsm should be.
Purely in the interests of research, of course, I've just checked it out and can report that there is indeed a Harvey Nicks - but in the form of a champagne bar and mini foodhall, not top of the range fashion (probably a good thing). There is also a Marks and Spencer selling relatively cheap 100% cashmere cardies (about £50) - not so posh.
Surely, in this peri-recessional world, this is a good thing. The best thing for the economy those who are still working and find they have cheaper mortgages can do is to shop. Perhaps the Tories are telling us they want to, as well as Get Britain Working (see welfare package), they also want to Get Britain Shopping. David Cameron may have opposed the fiscal stimulus but his party are backing the cashmere stimulus. And, if you excuse me, I'm going to go and do my bit for the economy.
Purely in the interests of research, of course, I've just checked it out and can report that there is indeed a Harvey Nicks - but in the form of a champagne bar and mini foodhall, not top of the range fashion (probably a good thing). There is also a Marks and Spencer selling relatively cheap 100% cashmere cardies (about £50) - not so posh.
Surely, in this peri-recessional world, this is a good thing. The best thing for the economy those who are still working and find they have cheaper mortgages can do is to shop. Perhaps the Tories are telling us they want to, as well as Get Britain Working (see welfare package), they also want to Get Britain Shopping. David Cameron may have opposed the fiscal stimulus but his party are backing the cashmere stimulus. And, if you excuse me, I'm going to go and do my bit for the economy.
Boris Johnson writes today that Tony Blair will not become EU president because he is too much of an Atlanticist and a defender of the Anglo-Saxon market economy. He's willing to bet any reader £5 that he's right.
I think Boris is right - but also because Blair is too charismatic for Europeans. Yes, Sarkozy came round to the idea a few months ago after initial reticence, and he, like Merkel will be able to shape the outcome more than other EU leaders. But the Blair story will continue for the next few weeks, and it will become too toxic for many leaders.
Former Spanish PM Felipe Gonzalez is said to be a write-off because he is not fluent in English. I reckon Boris should stick his £5 on Paavo Lipponen, the former Finnish PM who at the moment is about 7-1. Lipponen, like Blair, supported the Iraq war and this contributed to him being voted out of office in 2003, but unlike Blair the association does not haunt him six and a half years on.
PL is fluent in English and is well respected in Europe. He was PM for 11 years and before becoming an MP was a party official specialising in foreign relations for the social democrat party.
In Helsinki, he is seen as a "grumpy old man" but was also regarded as a "grumpy young man" when he was younger. He played water polo until recently and swims daily all year round. Like Blair, he is writing his memoirs. My Helsinki source says: "He is not as charming as TB but has far more substance than appearance." A Finnish Gordon Brown then. They even looked alike when they were younger. A bit. Probably right for a job like president of the EU Council.
When The Sun switched from Labour to the Tories last week, the newspaper pictured David Cameron and his right hand man walking through the Commons cloisters, with the Tory leader carrying a copy of their "Labour's Lost It" splash.
Cameron's right hand man was not George Osborne but William Hague. Tory focus groups have shown that voters recoil when Cameron and Osborne are pictured together, but Cameron alone triggers a more positive response, as if Osborne is still contaminating the Tory leader.
This explains why Osborne has done a lifestyle-focused interview with The Daily Mail's Jenny Johnston today, to show us his softer side. So, we learn his signature dish is ham boiled in Coca Cola (he refers to "cherry cola" - and notice he says cola to avoid the obvious jokes, although this meal sounds truly disgusting) but we also get to know about his rather prime ministerial ambition: "I had a calling to get involved in current affairs in my country".
Cameron has done a similar interview with Jane Moore in The Sun and the common theme between the two is this "Daddy Politics", which cannot be a coincidence. Both men, who are on the brink of the highest offices in the land, have had "astronaut" chats with their children - by that I mean the sort of conversations that astronauts, on the verge of a great mission, must have with their loved ones before going off into space for a few months. "Daddy isn't going to be around for a bit, things are going to change, but what he's doing will help the world" - that kind of thing.
Osborne, we learn, sat his son Luke down and said "there were things he needed to know about what Daddy does. He needed to understand that Daddy might not always be very popular, and that there might be people who don't like Daddy, or the things he has to say".
For Cameron, he is asked whether his five-year-old daughter Nancy knows what he does. "Nancy says I'm 'a politicianer like Gordon Brown' and that 'Daddy fixes speeches on a computer."
It is all rather sweet, even if it is staged. Cameron is now in the six-month pre-No10 phase that Blair entered shortly after Labour conference of 1996. We learn more about the man, and his family life, through carefully-crafted PR, and we should expect more to come.
Cameron's right hand man was not George Osborne but William Hague. Tory focus groups have shown that voters recoil when Cameron and Osborne are pictured together, but Cameron alone triggers a more positive response, as if Osborne is still contaminating the Tory leader.
This explains why Osborne has done a lifestyle-focused interview with The Daily Mail's Jenny Johnston today, to show us his softer side. So, we learn his signature dish is ham boiled in Coca Cola (he refers to "cherry cola" - and notice he says cola to avoid the obvious jokes, although this meal sounds truly disgusting) but we also get to know about his rather prime ministerial ambition: "I had a calling to get involved in current affairs in my country".
Cameron has done a similar interview with Jane Moore in The Sun and the common theme between the two is this "Daddy Politics", which cannot be a coincidence. Both men, who are on the brink of the highest offices in the land, have had "astronaut" chats with their children - by that I mean the sort of conversations that astronauts, on the verge of a great mission, must have with their loved ones before going off into space for a few months. "Daddy isn't going to be around for a bit, things are going to change, but what he's doing will help the world" - that kind of thing.
Osborne, we learn, sat his son Luke down and said "there were things he needed to know about what Daddy does. He needed to understand that Daddy might not always be very popular, and that there might be people who don't like Daddy, or the things he has to say".
For Cameron, he is asked whether his five-year-old daughter Nancy knows what he does. "Nancy says I'm 'a politicianer like Gordon Brown' and that 'Daddy fixes speeches on a computer."
It is all rather sweet, even if it is staged. Cameron is now in the six-month pre-No10 phase that Blair entered shortly after Labour conference of 1996. We learn more about the man, and his family life, through carefully-crafted PR, and we should expect more to come.
Peter Mandelson gave a mixed speech just now - the first half was a bit stilted, maybe because it was his first conference performance for a long time. But the second half, tearing into the Tories, stirred the audience - although how Gordon Brown must be getting fed up with ministers talking about the future.
The PM will use the word "future" tomorrow too, but Mandelson's line that "British people have their minds on the future, and so do we" seemed to make Brown bristle slightly in his seat on the platform, because when many Labour supporters think about the future, GB isn't there.
A man from Labour's past is Neil Kinnock - who was watching Mandelson's speech from the wings. He clapped when the audience clapped, until a moment which seemed to hit him like a blow to the stomach. The Business Secretary said he, Mandelson, had fought five election campaigns for Labour and "deep in my guts" knew every time who would win and was right every time, including, he was afraid, in 1992. Suddenly, Lord Kinnock was no longer smiling.
At first, his head lowered slightly, but then he jutted his chin out of his shirt collar, and gazed at Mandelson with an even stare. He must have been aware that, in the minds of the audience would be flashing the image of him at the eve of election rally in Sheffield in April 1992, the mistaken triumphalism. What a fool he must have felt. Oh dear. Kinnock did not like that, not at all. Perhaps Kinnock remembered a conversation with Mandelson on the night of the Sheffield rally. "Of course we can win," Peter would have said, soothingly, "Of course."
There is only so much you can read into body language, but that five second moment was a scene of pure political theatre. Breathtaking.
Nick Clegg might have wrong-footed himself over his use of the phrase "savage cuts", but his deputy Vince Cable has been much smoother when describing the controversial replacement of Arlene Phillips by Alesha Dixon in Strictly Come Dancing.
The best ballroom dancer in Westminster (yes, better than you, Mandy), who told me at the weekend he's learning the "erotic" (his word) Argentine Tango, refused to criticise the show's producers for swapping age and experience for youth (something the Lib Dems know a lot about).
In fact, Cable has come to the defence of Alesha - who has been widely criticised by Strictly fans for not being a patch on Arlene - describing her as "outstandingly capable and glamorous".
I asked Cable about this, but there wasn't room to include it in the Independent on Sunday at the weekend. But given the flak Alesha is getting, I feel it's my public duty to reveal his chivalrous intervention.
"Since her (Phillips') replacement is so outstandingly capable and glamorous, I certainly don't have any objection to her replacement."
So, there we are.
The best ballroom dancer in Westminster (yes, better than you, Mandy), who told me at the weekend he's learning the "erotic" (his word) Argentine Tango, refused to criticise the show's producers for swapping age and experience for youth (something the Lib Dems know a lot about).
In fact, Cable has come to the defence of Alesha - who has been widely criticised by Strictly fans for not being a patch on Arlene - describing her as "outstandingly capable and glamorous".
I asked Cable about this, but there wasn't room to include it in the Independent on Sunday at the weekend. But given the flak Alesha is getting, I feel it's my public duty to reveal his chivalrous intervention.
"Since her (Phillips') replacement is so outstandingly capable and glamorous, I certainly don't have any objection to her replacement."
So, there we are.
On Saturday, Downing Street trailed excerpts from the Prime Minister's speech to the TUC, the most interesting one of which was the sentence "today we are on a road towards recovery". The accompanying briefing suggested this would be the PM sounding a note of, albeit cautious, optimism.
On Monday, Brendan Barber warned that such talk was off-beam because, despite signs of green shoots, the unemployment toll is still rising and will continue to rise for at least a year.
Today, when Brown came to deliver his speech, that sentence was missing. Yes, he talked of "first steps" and said the "recovery is not automatic" and "still fragile" - still hopeful but not as explicit as we were told he would be a few days ago.
So, did Brown listen to the brothers and water down his speech accordingly? Or is this just a coincidence? The point is that, words matter and this only serves to blur the message of how Brown is supposedly steering Britain out of recession.
On the pavements of Liverpool, where the TUC congress is taking place for the first time in 103 years, the rubbish is building up in the bright purple wheelie bins, the result of a two-week long dispute over pay and conditions. It is the first strike involving binmen (sorry, refuse collectors) for years, so their timing couldn't be better.
Brendan Barber warned today that a 'slash and burn' of the public sector under the Tories would lead to a repeat of the drawn-out strikes of the 1980s. It's the kind of thing the unions warn of every year, but this year it is more potent because a Conservative government is likely in nine months. Saying this in Liverpool makes it even more potent, because everyone remembers how this city was the hotbed of industrial unrest and militancy during that decade.
Just how bad was it? Well, we all know about the P45s delivered in taxis to council workers and teachers (including my mother). There was the stench of rotting rubbish left uncollected for months.
But there were also the small but signficant acts of nihilistic lunacy that helped to turn the population of this city against the hard left for two decades. In Calderstones Park, a Victorian heated glasshouse containing rare orchids and bromeliads, owned by the council, was smashed to pieces by the Militant Tendency because the ancient gardeners who tended the plants would not bow to an order to strike. The glasshouse was free and open to everyone, but it was condemned as an elite "bourgeois affectation". It was symbolic acts of vindictiveness like this, attempts to destroy the history and culture of Liverpool, that contributed to a nationwide disenchantment with the politics of the left.
Liverpool itself shunned this activity long ago. The current refuse dispute is nowhere near the strikes of the 1980s. Yet, apart from the fact that the law has changed, Barber's words are potentially inflammatory because he is raising the spectre of the 1980s in a city that has moved on. Yes, have a political debate about which party is planning greater cuts, but attempting to steel the union audience with quasi-heroic comparisons with the 1980s is misleading and wrong.
Brendan Barber warned today that a 'slash and burn' of the public sector under the Tories would lead to a repeat of the drawn-out strikes of the 1980s. It's the kind of thing the unions warn of every year, but this year it is more potent because a Conservative government is likely in nine months. Saying this in Liverpool makes it even more potent, because everyone remembers how this city was the hotbed of industrial unrest and militancy during that decade.
Just how bad was it? Well, we all know about the P45s delivered in taxis to council workers and teachers (including my mother). There was the stench of rotting rubbish left uncollected for months.
But there were also the small but signficant acts of nihilistic lunacy that helped to turn the population of this city against the hard left for two decades. In Calderstones Park, a Victorian heated glasshouse containing rare orchids and bromeliads, owned by the council, was smashed to pieces by the Militant Tendency because the ancient gardeners who tended the plants would not bow to an order to strike. The glasshouse was free and open to everyone, but it was condemned as an elite "bourgeois affectation". It was symbolic acts of vindictiveness like this, attempts to destroy the history and culture of Liverpool, that contributed to a nationwide disenchantment with the politics of the left.
Liverpool itself shunned this activity long ago. The current refuse dispute is nowhere near the strikes of the 1980s. Yet, apart from the fact that the law has changed, Barber's words are potentially inflammatory because he is raising the spectre of the 1980s in a city that has moved on. Yes, have a political debate about which party is planning greater cuts, but attempting to steel the union audience with quasi-heroic comparisons with the 1980s is misleading and wrong.
Gosh, it's not a very good week for the Westminster lunch. Yesterday David Cameron threatened to end cheapo meals in the Palace of Westminster, which has made some MPs and their low-paid researchers unhappy.
Today Atami, the most fashionable restaurant within the division bell, has closed its doors. David Miliband spent his first evening there as Foreign Secretary in 2007. The new-style salmon sashimi, marble beef and green tea ice cream were popular with younger MPs, lobbyists and TV execs.
The portions were rather small - I once took one of Westminster's biggest eaters there, who believed each dish was part of one meal, and shovelled the whole lot onto his plate, leaving me to nibble on edamame beans.
Is the recession to blame? Westminster restaurants always struggle during recess, but yesterday it was packed out (I'm told). Perhaps the bamboo and glass was too passe. A message on their phone line says a new restaurant, Made in China, will open at the end of this month, so maybe this is just a rebranding for the new decade.
Today Atami, the most fashionable restaurant within the division bell, has closed its doors. David Miliband spent his first evening there as Foreign Secretary in 2007. The new-style salmon sashimi, marble beef and green tea ice cream were popular with younger MPs, lobbyists and TV execs.
The portions were rather small - I once took one of Westminster's biggest eaters there, who believed each dish was part of one meal, and shovelled the whole lot onto his plate, leaving me to nibble on edamame beans.
Is the recession to blame? Westminster restaurants always struggle during recess, but yesterday it was packed out (I'm told). Perhaps the bamboo and glass was too passe. A message on their phone line says a new restaurant, Made in China, will open at the end of this month, so maybe this is just a rebranding for the new decade.
Finally, something interesting in Peter Mandelson's register of interests. We knew it was coming, of course:
What a shame he doesn't have to record the value of the hospitality. What we didn't know and is interesting is the "and the UK" bit. We knew about the villa in Corfu, where he talked about the Lockerbie bomber with Seif Gaddafi. What does the UK bit refer to? Did Lord Rothschild lay on a private plane to get him there? Or did they have a pre-holiday dinner in London?
MANDELSON, Lord
- 13(d) Hospitality or gifts
- In August 2009 I accepted hospitality from Lord Rothschild in Greece and the UK.
What a shame he doesn't have to record the value of the hospitality. What we didn't know and is interesting is the "and the UK" bit. We knew about the villa in Corfu, where he talked about the Lockerbie bomber with Seif Gaddafi. What does the UK bit refer to? Did Lord Rothschild lay on a private plane to get him there? Or did they have a pre-holiday dinner in London?
Hmmmmm. First it was the "trashy novel" comment on Andrew Marr on Sunday, now David Cameron has sworn - twice! - during an interview with Absolute radio.
The "trashy novel" remark sounded like a very deliberate / accidentally on purpose move to make the Tory leader sound like one of us. In the past he's sent rather bossy summer reading lists to his MPs - I think last summer was Nudge? Anyway, sounding more like 1990s Tony Blair by the day, he's telling us he will kick back on a sun lounger with a bit of Jackie Collins or Patricia Cornwell.
It was the most interesting thing in the otherwise very dull Marr interview (by the way, I thought Nick Robinson v good interviewing Peter Mandelson last night, especially when the First Sec was wriggling over use of word "cuts"; perhaps Nick should take over the Sunday prime slot - what would it be called: Breakfast with Robbo? Robinson's Morning Jam? Er, maybe not.)
Anyway, back to Cameron: now he's had a go at Twitter (has he been reading that teenage kid's Morgan Stanley paper on what the youth like/don't like?), saying "too many tweets make a twat". I wish I'd heard it, because it would've made me laugh out loud in a slightly childish manner. Then he said that voters are "pissed off". Oooh.
Has Cameron "gaffed"? I doubt it. He doesn't say anything without thinking about it. This is Dave the Ordinary Bloke, and we'd better get used to him.
UPDATE: Cameron's in France, and no-one in Westminster seems to have heard of Absolute Radio, so I just checked with Tory twitterer and head of press Henry Macrory to see if his interview was genuine. And it "sure was", he says nonchalantly.
The "trashy novel" remark sounded like a very deliberate / accidentally on purpose move to make the Tory leader sound like one of us. In the past he's sent rather bossy summer reading lists to his MPs - I think last summer was Nudge? Anyway, sounding more like 1990s Tony Blair by the day, he's telling us he will kick back on a sun lounger with a bit of Jackie Collins or Patricia Cornwell.
It was the most interesting thing in the otherwise very dull Marr interview (by the way, I thought Nick Robinson v good interviewing Peter Mandelson last night, especially when the First Sec was wriggling over use of word "cuts"; perhaps Nick should take over the Sunday prime slot - what would it be called: Breakfast with Robbo? Robinson's Morning Jam? Er, maybe not.)
Anyway, back to Cameron: now he's had a go at Twitter (has he been reading that teenage kid's Morgan Stanley paper on what the youth like/don't like?), saying "too many tweets make a twat". I wish I'd heard it, because it would've made me laugh out loud in a slightly childish manner. Then he said that voters are "pissed off". Oooh.
Has Cameron "gaffed"? I doubt it. He doesn't say anything without thinking about it. This is Dave the Ordinary Bloke, and we'd better get used to him.
UPDATE: Cameron's in France, and no-one in Westminster seems to have heard of Absolute Radio, so I just checked with Tory twitterer and head of press Henry Macrory to see if his interview was genuine. And it "sure was", he says nonchalantly.
My three-year-old niece (probably) has swine flu. I say probably, because thankfully her temperature has gone down after a day when it was well over 38. As she's under 5, so therefore in a very high risk category, her mother called the National Flu Pandemic Helpline last night to get advice (when her temperature was still high).
They passed her on to her GP - er, except because it was Friday night it had to be the out of hours number. And then it had to be NHS Direct. By then my sister, after being initially calm, was starting to get slightly irritated at being passed around like she was inquiring about her gas bill. She was told by a woman at NHS Direct "not to panic". My sister pointed out that she was not panicking, just needed some practical advice and a diagnosis, so she can decide whether she goes to nursery on Monday, but the NHS Direct operative was totally uninformative, so she gave up.
Everyone in this - what do we call it, a crisis? an ongoing incident? - in Whitehall, the NHS, politicians, is so concerned at the prospect of panic that the phrase "don't panic" is becoming a little over-used to the point where it sounds like maybe we should, after all, be panicking.
On Tuesday, the House of Lords Science Committee will publish a fairly critical report into the Government's response - of which more in tomorrow's Independent on Sunday. But on a side issue, when the peers heard evidence from the top officials in charge, there was some very Sir Humphreyish language deployed about how Whitehall prepared for a pandemic.
So, planning for the rapid increase in cases (as we saw, 100,000 last week) had been termed a "surge", but this word has been banned by mandarins, it seems, in case it causes a sudden stockpiling and panic-buying of Tamiflu, petrol, or tinned beans.
This is Janet Meacham, deputy director for pandemic influenza, on use of the word "surge": "We are actually calling it 'managing demand and capacity in healthcare organisations', because people seem to be a bit scared of the word 'surge'. So we have renamed it."
The Lib Dem peer Baroness Neuberger replied, rather drily: "I can imagine."
Of course, there is a real concern that the inevitable "surge" in cases will cause pressure on intensive care beds and on GPs, so why does this have to be cloaked in Whitehallese? Can't we be trusted to hear the truth? Yes, there has been a bit of an over-reaction, yet when the Government is telling us repeatedly not to panic, but at the same time coming up with bewildering phrases to keep us in the dark, are they surprised that the end result is confusion?
They passed her on to her GP - er, except because it was Friday night it had to be the out of hours number. And then it had to be NHS Direct. By then my sister, after being initially calm, was starting to get slightly irritated at being passed around like she was inquiring about her gas bill. She was told by a woman at NHS Direct "not to panic". My sister pointed out that she was not panicking, just needed some practical advice and a diagnosis, so she can decide whether she goes to nursery on Monday, but the NHS Direct operative was totally uninformative, so she gave up.
Everyone in this - what do we call it, a crisis? an ongoing incident? - in Whitehall, the NHS, politicians, is so concerned at the prospect of panic that the phrase "don't panic" is becoming a little over-used to the point where it sounds like maybe we should, after all, be panicking.
On Tuesday, the House of Lords Science Committee will publish a fairly critical report into the Government's response - of which more in tomorrow's Independent on Sunday. But on a side issue, when the peers heard evidence from the top officials in charge, there was some very Sir Humphreyish language deployed about how Whitehall prepared for a pandemic.
So, planning for the rapid increase in cases (as we saw, 100,000 last week) had been termed a "surge", but this word has been banned by mandarins, it seems, in case it causes a sudden stockpiling and panic-buying of Tamiflu, petrol, or tinned beans.
This is Janet Meacham, deputy director for pandemic influenza, on use of the word "surge": "We are actually calling it 'managing demand and capacity in healthcare organisations', because people seem to be a bit scared of the word 'surge'. So we have renamed it."
The Lib Dem peer Baroness Neuberger replied, rather drily: "I can imagine."
Of course, there is a real concern that the inevitable "surge" in cases will cause pressure on intensive care beds and on GPs, so why does this have to be cloaked in Whitehallese? Can't we be trusted to hear the truth? Yes, there has been a bit of an over-reaction, yet when the Government is telling us repeatedly not to panic, but at the same time coming up with bewildering phrases to keep us in the dark, are they surprised that the end result is confusion?
Glenys Kinnock says today that Tony Blair has the full backing of the British government for the job of EU president.
She's the first member of the Government to go on the record. Of course, this isn't a completely new story, ahem - I believe I wrote this back in April revealing that Brown had decided to give his backing to the plan.
Blair looked like he had a smooth path to the job until a few weeks ago. But then Sarkozy switched his support from Blair to former Spanish PM Felipe Gonzalez. And Blair'sdemands that the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq be held in private won't have helped those in Europe who were opposed to the war. His latest problem is Angela Merkel. Merkel, who has the German electorate in her mind, is renewing moves to try to block his bid.
So, while the Tories and others are causing a fuss about Lady Kinnock's comments today, there might be no need - Blair could find his bid is scuppered before the job is even created.
She's the first member of the Government to go on the record. Of course, this isn't a completely new story, ahem - I believe I wrote this back in April revealing that Brown had decided to give his backing to the plan.
Blair looked like he had a smooth path to the job until a few weeks ago. But then Sarkozy switched his support from Blair to former Spanish PM Felipe Gonzalez. And Blair'sdemands that the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq be held in private won't have helped those in Europe who were opposed to the war. His latest problem is Angela Merkel. Merkel, who has the German electorate in her mind, is renewing moves to try to block his bid.
So, while the Tories and others are causing a fuss about Lady Kinnock's comments today, there might be no need - Blair could find his bid is scuppered before the job is even created.
Jack Straw has refused parole to Ronnie Biggs, despite earlier reports suggesting he was about to sign his release. Granting freedom to someone who has courted the media and shown no repentance would have been wrong, Straw said. Fine.
The next decision Straw must take, and take quickly, is on Michael Shields, the 22-year-old Liverpool fan jailed in Bulgaria for attempted murder, despite another man confessing to the crime. He is serving a 10-year sentence in the UK after being transferred from Bulgaria.
Shields is not Biggs - he is, by all accounts, an innocent man. So why is this young football supporter kept in prison a day longer?
Straw has been examining a report by Merseyside Police and others and a decision was promised by the Prime Minister by the end of June (after earlier promising it would be by the end of May). Now it is July, and still the Shields family are kept waiting to see if he will be pardoned.
Why the wait? The police report was handed to Straw's office over a month ago.
I have just spoken to the family's MP, Louise Ellman, who says she has just been told a decision will be taken by the end of this week - meaning it could come as early as tomorrow.
Straw must take the decision quickly and put the Shields family out of their misery.
The next decision Straw must take, and take quickly, is on Michael Shields, the 22-year-old Liverpool fan jailed in Bulgaria for attempted murder, despite another man confessing to the crime. He is serving a 10-year sentence in the UK after being transferred from Bulgaria.
Shields is not Biggs - he is, by all accounts, an innocent man. So why is this young football supporter kept in prison a day longer?
Straw has been examining a report by Merseyside Police and others and a decision was promised by the Prime Minister by the end of June (after earlier promising it would be by the end of May). Now it is July, and still the Shields family are kept waiting to see if he will be pardoned.
Why the wait? The police report was handed to Straw's office over a month ago.
I have just spoken to the family's MP, Louise Ellman, who says she has just been told a decision will be taken by the end of this week - meaning it could come as early as tomorrow.
Straw must take the decision quickly and put the Shields family out of their misery.
David Cameron last night apologised for the Tory government's introduction of Section 28 banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools (thanks to Tim Montgomerie of ConHome, and the Pink Paper).
Cameron voted in 2003 to retain the law, when he was a loyal Conservative backbencher. Then Michael Howard apologised for Section 28 when he was leader in 2005. So why is DC doing this now?
Does he feel each successive Tory leader needs to apologise, even though Howard has already done so? I don't think so.
Cameron continues to face criticism over the party's new grouping in the European Parliament, with anti-gay rights Polish Justice and Law Party, and others. The Tory leader is frustrated at the criticism, because, he says, Labour are also linked with some dubious parties in the European Socialists group, yet no one seems to highlight that. He is also frustrated because this continued row, highlighted by Denis MacShane in a question at PMQs today, damages the Cameron brand.
The problem for Cameron is that, because of laws like Section 28, there are some voters who, while ready to vote Tory in every other respect, are put off by what they see as a latent homophobia in the party. Iain Dale wrote in the IoS at the weekend that sexuality was no longer an issue. Despite this, Cameron clearly believes he still needs to get rid of the old perceptions, which, frankly, are fuelled by the new European grouping.
Incidentally, there are accusations that some of the new EU bedfellows are also anti-Semitic - which could help explain Cameron's recent wooing of Britain's Jewish community. So, while the next election seems to be in the bag for the Tories, Cameron is leaving nothing to chance.
The shorthand for the Institute for Public Policy Research used to be "New Labour's favourite think tank". No more.
As Gordon Brown prepares to launch a wide-ranging policy document entitled Building Britain's Future, the IPPR appears to be Dismantling Labour's Past.
On Monday, marking its 21st birthday, the IPPR - alma mater of David Miliband and Patricia Hewitt - will turn its back on the party by dramatically declaring that the New Labour project is "dead".
Co-director Lisa Harker has told The Independent on Sunday that the government under Gordon Brown is no longer offering the fresh and progressive ideas that won the party three elections.
The ideas that drove the New Labour agenda are “reaching the end of their useful life”, she says.
Building Britain’s Future, intended as a re-launch of Brown’s premiership, will attempt to portray the PM as radical and progressive. But is it too late?
Demos has already forged closer links with the Tories. This demonstrates the scale of Labour's ideological struggle ahead of almost certain defeat at the next election.
Harker says all three parties are rooted in 1990s thinking that fails to acknowledge the challenges of an economic crisis “which breaks all the rules”, climate change and loss of faith in politics.
But she says: “New Labour is dead. Old Labour is dead. Potentially progressive Conservatism is dead. None of these provide answers. What is required is a radical shift.
“It is not about Blairite or Brownite, it is not about left or right any more. These terms don’t make sense in the political world, not do they make sense to the public at large.
“It is a myth that we are now in any sense a New Labour think tank, but that does not mean want to be a New Tory think tank. What we are trying to push are radical and progressive new policies to anyone who shares our values.”
The IPPR will work in alliances across the political spectrum and beyond dividing lines such as the current debate on public spending.
She says: “It is an Obama moment in a way. We need a different way of doing politics, because constantly seeking dividing lines and emphasising differences is holding all the political parties back from coming up with effective, long-term solutions.
“We were at the forefront of crafting a whole new policy agenda 21 years ago but life and its challenges keep moving on. New Labour has achieved a great deal, more than it’s given credit for, but it’s becoming clear that most of the ideas that drove that agenda are reaching the end of their useful life.”
When the IPPR was established in 1988, Labour was beginning its long journey from opposition to government. Policies that started life at the IPPR included child trust funds and public-private partnerships.
Now it is the centre-right Policy Exchange – itself started during the Conservative wilderness years – that has emerged as a shadow policy unit for the Tory government in waiting.
In his first Labour conference speech as Foreign Secretary in September 2007, David Miliband tried to draw a line under Iraq by saying there had been both "rights and wrongs" with the war. We must "learn the right lessons", he said.
It was billed as a significant shift in the Government's attitude to Iraq, a new humility that Gordon Brown's administration was introducing. Over the following months, other ministers joined in. This was a new Government, they tried to say. We will learn the mistakes of the war.
This morning, Miliband was asked on the Today programme about the Chilcot Inquiry announced by Gordon Brown yesterday. He made a good fist of defending the Establishment stitch-up, as David Cameron called it, the year-long timetable and the fact that it is being held behind closed doors. But he didn't exactly sound enthusiastic. And not everyone in the Cabinet thinks the scope and inquiry panel is right.
Last Friday, at the political Cabinet, ministers expressed concern about endless initiatives that voters doubt will be delivered. The Government should focus on simple ideas that people understand. There is a need to come clean with people, ministers said.
Given that the first thing announced by Gordon Brown after this meeting was the Chilcot Inquiry, there must be a few members of the Cabinet wondering whether they should have followed James Purnell and Hazel Blears out of the door.
Nearly two years on from Miliband's speech, it is feared Chilcot will duck the "wrongs" of Iraq and come up with a report that focuses only on the "rights". It is difficult to prejudge the outcome of inquiries, but the way the panel has been set up hardly suggests the "right lessons" have been learnt.
