Red Box - Times Online's Westminster blog

Can't say fairer than that...

MPs with too much time on their hands in e-mail round-robin frenzy

This says it all really. Somewhat ironic this is about a cyber-security appg. Click on "read more" then start at the bottom

David Cameron responds to Phil Collins

Tonight's Hugo Young lecture on the Tory committment to poverty, given by David Cameron, will amongst other things apparently address the points in this article by Phil Collins, the Times leader writer and chair of Demos. Here it is reproduced below.

Progressive Tories must learn their own history; Cameron wants to help the poor and cut big government down to size. His party has never done both at the same time
Philip Collins
1144 words
28 October 2009
The Times
18
English
(c) 2009 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved

The two impulses of modern Conservatism are on vivid display in Piccadilly Circus, London. The neon signs above flash out the message that the market is open for business. Down below, the Angel of Christian Charity, more commonly known as the statue of Eros, commemorates the Tory philanthropy of the Earl of Shaftesbury.

These are the components of what George Osborne and David Cameron have called "progressive conservatism". In his conference speech in Manchester this month, Mr Cameron made the intriguing claim that, in the very act of reducing the size of the State, a future Conservative government would improve the condition of the poor. When the State withdraws, he argued, the wounds of society heal over. The main problem of the poor, by this argument, is not that they have too little money but that they have too much government.

Well, it's a view. We will all somehow make ourselves better. The naivety would be touching if it wasn't so irritating. The Conservative conference was full of earnest young people pointing out that they had just discovered something called "the poor" that the Labour Government had shamefully failed.

For the record, inequality has never risen faster than during the Thatcher years. John Major reduced inequality through the genius expedient of arranging a recession. Over the past decade the salaries of the educated have risen quicker than the wages of the uneducated. The upshot of government action — the minimum wage and tax credits — has almost, but not quite, offset the growing income inequality.

Mr Cameron will have to undergo an extraordinary policy conversion if he is serious about meeting his pledge. It has to be said that he has made a rotten start. We know that the Tories are keen to lift the threshold for inheritance tax. They propose to abolish the Government's job guarantee for young people. They want to move incapacity claimants on to unemployment assistance and offer a handout to married couples for the virtue of marriage. Whatever else can be said for these policies, every one will have a detrimental effect on equality. It's harder than it looks, being a socialist.

With that off my chest, it's important to pour scorn on the argument, not the motive. The point is not that Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are insincere. It's that they don't know their own history. Culture change doesn't spring fully formed out of the ether. As a matter of historical record, pretty much every time that a Conservative Government has left a progressive legacy it has done so by adding to the functions of government rather than by subtracting from them.

In the 19th century the Tories were, quite rightly, keen for the State to regulate factory work. Lord Liverpool's Cotton Mills and Factories Act, 1819, prohibited the employment of children under 9 years of age. Shaftesbury's Factory Acts in the 1840s reduced working time for women and children and introduced the idea of state responsibility for health and safety. Disraeli's Factory Act of 1874 made education compulsory for children up to the age of 10. In 1901 Lord Salisbury raised the minimum working age to 12.

The Victorian Conservative Party also had a developed sense of the public realm and regulated without compunction. The Public Health Act of 1875 forced councils to clear refuse and sewage and to provide an adequate water supply. The same year the Artisans' Dwelling Act began the clearing of urban slums.

Since the turn of the 20th century, progressive conservatism has taken a bit of a breather. Once the great infrastructure projects had been completed, once the basic amenities had been catered for and egregious injustices countered, it all got very tricky. George Osborne claims Stanley Baldwin's extension of state pensions and R. A. Butler's Education Act for the progressive Tory side. They can be granted, with the observation that they, too, were acts of benign big government.

And it would be only accurate to note that the postwar welfare state gained very little from progressive conservatism, that Roy Jenkins, as a liberal Home Secretary, could rely on Tory opposition and that Mr Cameron has rather belatedly found that he did believe in Sure Start, the minimum wage and civil partnerships all along. There is little doubt that, in the progressive ledger, the Conservative Party is historically in deficit.

None of that means that a Tory Government is fated to fail the test that Mr Cameron has repeatedly set it — to make the country fairer and more equal. But there is a serious doubt as to whether his right-wing means are up to his left-wing ends. Decentralising power and responsibility and strengthening society are very good things — who wants the opposite — but they are not enough.

You can't simply move big government out and big voluntary sector in. A third of total voluntary sector funding now comes from the public purse and cuts are unavoidable. Unwinding the stealthy nationalisation of the third sector will cause howls of pain from people the Tories have embraced as their new best friends. Not that the embrace will last long anyway. Many schemes get worse as they get bigger.

The great people in the voluntary sector cannot be cloned and the unreliable ones can be a proper nuisance.

The Tories will soon find out why decentralisation is the demand of opposition that governments forget. In the first phase of Sure Start, the scheme to help poor children, the title was no more than a badge. Under its banner, local activists did their own thing. Evaluations showed that most of it had no beneficial impact on children at all. Most of the things the voluntary sector was doing, with its fabled knowledge, turned out to be rubbish. A minority of schemes were excellent. So, what do you do? Spend more public money on things you know can't work, in the name of the small state? Or impose some conditions from the centre? The sane answer is that sometimes — literacy and numeracy policy is another example — command and control works. Not often, but sometimes. Ruling it out because "big government" is always the problem is barely serious.

There is certainly a noble Conservative tradition of social reform. But that history is not the tale of the market making the muck and charity spreading it around evenly. In Piccadilly Circus, between the neon and the nude archer, there is something missing. The avowed enemy, big government, is missing.Most fabled voluntary sector projects turned out to be rubbish

Labour's terrible private polling

Sanity check from Anthony Wells here

Rob Hayward carrying out Pickles boundary review

From Benedict Brogan's column this morning

But I gather preparations are well advanced on legislation that will simplify the process at a stroke, by fast-tracking what are currently interminable boundary reviews, standardising seat sizes, and ending the tyranny of county borders. The work is being carried out by former MP and Tory psephologist Rob Hayward, under the supervision of party chairman Eric Pickles. Westminster – and incoming MPs – will be surprised to find that the election after next will be for a substantially smaller House.

Does Barnet EasyCouncil mean rubbish taxes in all-but-name

Mike Freer, leader of Tory led Barnet council, writing in this morning's Times. Wonder how that all tallies with the parties' bin taxes position... Aside that aside, it's interesting that Freer is honest about the chances of success and failure of the EasyCouncil experiment, in a well-worth-reading article

We are examining how we can let residents prioritise how money is spent on maintaining their street. If they want the street cleaned less, but the pavement cleaned more often, that should be their choice. If they want to take over the running of some of the green spaces themselves and have savings returned to them, that might be another option.

Another example is how we might move from a waste disposal service to a waste minimisation service. Rising landfill tax will mean the cost of this service rise by 75 per cent over the coming five years. We could recycle more than twice what we do if residents sorted out more of their waste. But the rewards of doing so seem just too distant for busy people.

We could follow the lead of San Francisco. Waste disposal costs there are separate from other city taxes: residents who generate less waste get a rebate. Equally, if someone wants to pay the council to spend time sorting out their individual recycling items, they could pay us to do so.

Cameron's post-Lisbon policy - "There is plenty of time"

From Daniel Finkelstein's column this morning - about the dangers of referenda

This means, as Mr Osborne has being particularly strong in arguing, that the policy has to be negotiable, and not one that will turn their first encounters with other European leaders in a shambles. They are quite sanguine about what they can achieve — they point to the concessions that Václav Klaus extracted in exchange for his signature on the treaty and to their own success in damaging Tony Blair’s presidential hopes. They believe that they can put a stop to what they term “the European ratchet”. Their policy will insist upon it. But they want to avoid issuing ultimatums with immediate deadlines. There is plenty of time. And many moments where there will be leverage. Europe has to agree a new budget in 2013, for instance.

There will be a second strand. In his recently republished memoirs, Time to Declare: Second Innings, the former Foreign Secretary David Owen argues that Lisbon can be clarified and guarantees against further integration embedded in British law. Since this can be done without permission from other governments, and with a mandate at an election rather than a referendum, it has obvious attractions for the Tories.

And the final strand? The Smith Square set want to win and to govern, not oppose and moan about their defeats. So they want to set out a strong positive European agenda. There will be initiatives on things such as climate change, free trade, energy security and Iranian nuclear policy. Why, after all, should the federalists have a monopoly on initiatives? You might even call this the cufflink policy.

Cameron should call for the return of blue passport covers

I'm hearing the distant strains of Land of Hope and Glory as David Rennie, the Economists' man in Europe, tries to punt this idea with a straight face in an imaginary memo from Tory strategists to David Cameron.

Finally, we need a quick win that will grab headlines. Ask for the blue British passport back. Don't oversell this. Just give interviews to the tabloids, saying: "Europe has to stop doing things without asking the British people, like turning their passports red and sticking 'European Union' on the cover. Here is a test to see if they are willing to change." You could deliver this: nobody understands why we care, but other governments would give us dark blue passports.

Will Klaus do David Cameron one last favour?

Tory sources are indicating that they will make their announcement as soon as the Czech President says he will sign the Lisbon Treaty. They won't actually wait for him to put pen to paper - a promise to do so will be enough for them to press the button.

But will it be today - when the world is watching. Or tomorrow, when Westminster is once again gazing into its own navel with the Kelly report....

Tories: "We need to change the media narrative"

From today's TimesOnline

When things go wrong in a David Cameron and Andrew Lansley-led health service, who will carry the can?

Under David Cameron’s blueprint released yesterday, day-to-day responsibility will be removed from ministers and handed to a council of doctors and managers known as the NHS board. Elected Tory politicians will set “strategic objectives”, but it will be for this body, effectively a super-quango, to oversee its £100 billion budget and execute its powers in whatever way it sees fit.

To emphasise this shift, Tories will change the title of Health Secretary into Public Health Secretary — responsible for improving health service outcomes rather than every last element of its execution.

But what happens when the NHS faces a crisis, such as the one in Staffordshire, when about 400 patients died needlessly because of deficiencies in emergency care?

According to one shadow Cabinet member, accountability under a Tory government would work very differently.

“We want to challenge and change the media narrative — we are not responsible for every bedpan in every hospital. Just like there isn’t a postmaster general responsible for the installation of phone lines the consequence of devolving decision making is that others have to be accountable.”

The idea, Tories say, is to stop political reorganisations of the NHS and give doctors more certainty. “Yes, we do want to give more power to professionals. Much more power — and we think that’s a very good thing,” Mr Cameron told the Royal College of Pathologists yesterday.

But the history of passing responsibility from ministers to “independent bodies” is a chequered one.

One of the most successful was the 1997 decision by Gordon Brown to hand responsibility for interest rate decisions to the Bank of England. Today few oppose that move, seen as a brave and defining decision in the early days of the new Labour Government.

But cynics point out that the public accepted an independent Bank of England because interest rate decisions were, initially, largely uncontroversial. Had each monthly verdict been a battle between mortgage holders’ interests and the need for financial stability, it might have been very different.

Government-by-quango can go very wrong. Earlier this year it emerged that the Learning and Skills Council wasted hundreds of millions of pounds through “catastrophic mismanagement” of a flagship college building programme. Ministers appeared more than happy to let them carry the can, avoiding any responsibility themselves. Such a move would not be possible with the health service.

Experts are perplexed at the overall Tory approach. While George Osborne threatens to slash most quango budgets, reduce staff and clip their powers, Mr Lansley appears to be going in the opposite direction.

Niall Dixon, chief executive of the King’s Fund, the healthcare think tank, argues that politicians are unlikely to be able to properly transfer responsibility. “I can’t see how, in a system where we’re spending £100 billion plus of public money, politicians could distance themselves from decisions,” he says.

Mr Cameron’s speech contains inherent contradictions in the way the party wants both to control the NHS and let it run itself — calling for the NHS to run itself while also also calling for a moratorium of hospital closures which are decided locally by NHS trusts themselves.

The Tories say that in the event of a Staffordshire-style disaster, however, the Secretary of State will still, ultimately, be responsible to Parliament. The NHS board, they insist, will report to him. But will the new Secretary of State really be content to justify decisions he hasn’t taken? Or will the board members become high-profile figures who will take to the airwaves to defend such decisions?

In September 2006, Gordon Brown said he was considering the same plan — for an independent board to run the NHS — ministers’ roles would be limited to setting the NHS budget and strategic objectives. By the time Alan Johnson became Mr Brown’s first Health Secretary, this had been abandoned because it was judged politically impossible.

Whether a future Tory government is ever truly able to “devolve” power is yet to be seen.

Tories to (re)promise a referendum for every new Treaty

Philip Webster in The Times this morning.

Mr Cameron will also pledge to write into law that no British government will ever again be able to push through a European treaty without a referendum.

Gary Gibbon on the Giblog writes:

Perhaps more important though, in the great scheme of things, is the [Tory] policy already announced in October 2007 but likely to be re-announced in the coming hours or days: the plan to make the UK, like Ireland and some other EU countries, a state that can only ratify an EU treaty after a referendum.

It’s hard to imagine how any treaty in the last 20 years would’ve got through a referendum in the UK. Could even a treaty that repatriated powers be sure of support in a referendum?

Irish referenda show how these popular votes can become hijacked by all sorts of unexpected or unrelated issues.

The move in Tory policy to a “compulsory referendum before ratification” country was unveiled at the 2007 Conference by William Hague but many eyes were elsewhere on the day – on the possible early election that hadn’t been ruled out.

A lot of the newspapers made it an inside page story…it doesn’t feel like an inside page story now.

Brown thinks Legg went too far

According to Steve Richards:

Privately Brown was livid with Legg for exceeding his remit. Harriet Harman had her doubts as well. In public they had no choice but to smile and declare their full support.

Expenses reforms will weaken incentive for MPs to scrutinise government

Charles Walker, Tory MP and member of the Public Administration Committee, makes this good point on ConservativeHome this morning

The review, by widening the remuneration gap between a backbench MP and Minister, will provide an absolute coup to the Executive and Government Whips' Office. All but the most sainted MP will have one eye towards their family finances when the Whips come knocking with promises of preferment in return for moderated behaviour. Is yet more patronage healthy for our Parliamentary democracy?

Tories announce second all-postal ballot

Sir Peter Viggers' seat, Gosport, will be the second constituency where the Tories hold an all postal ballot.

Eric Pickles, the party chair, was delighted at the almost 25 per cent turnout in Totnes, and has decided to repeat the experiment.

The Tories say they would love to do much more of these, despite the cost - £38,000 in Totnes.

In practice, this tactic will be used in places where the local population may have fallen out of love with the Tory incumbent.

And Sir Peter will largely go down in history for his role in the expenses scandal - for the duck pond which he submitted a claim for (but never received the money).

Pickles says: "I hope this will build on the success of Totnes. It's vital that we continue to empower local people and allow them to have the final say."
"I hope this will encourage people in Gosport not previously interested in politics to get involved and get their voice heard."

David Cameron predicted there would be two more - so we await news of the second.

Sir Christopher Kelly will use the most generous train timetables...

If you look at the train timetables, you could get as far afield as Milton Keynes, Stevenage and - at a push - Brighton within the 60 minutes limit that disqualifies them from a second (rented) home.

So just how many additional MPs will be banned from having a second home at all?

Ipsa will decide, so we don't know.

But Sir Christopher has looked at the train timetables himself and calculates just 12, I'm told - above and beyond those outer-London MPs who already can qualify for the London allowance.

John Bercow tells Clegg - no investigation by Legg into flipping

Is this a stumbling block for the 'save general election night' campaign

General election night next year could be a big disappointment, as Jonathan Isaby from Conservative Home has been warning for some time.

Returning officers are insisting on holiding the count on Friday rather than Thursday in most parts of the country.

The Electoral Commission is privately sympathetic with this - because this will be the first general election with new anti-fraud rules in place for postal ballots.

The measures force local authorities to double check the signatures and birthdates of people voting.

The Electoral Commission is concerned because signatures and birthdates, known as "verifiers", are collected by local authorities - but a third of constituencies cross council boundaries.

Different authorities hold verifiers in different electronic formats, requiring different computer software to process. This means returning officers face the administrative nightmare of running simultaneous incompatible systems during the counting process.

A trial run was held in Wales in June, when the European elections were counted on a constituency basis rather than by local authority, and this round mixed results. It found a small number of complaints of problems reported by returning officers, including "late software patches and changes made by suppliers."

It warns that officers need to act now to avoid disaster. "Returning Officers and electoral administrators will need to give early consideration of the significant logistical issues involved in managing this process, well in advance of the election."

But, with the proper preparation, isn't this obstacle surmountable?

(PS they also found the largest single incident of fraud in the European elections in June involved 24 photocopies of a ballot paper returned in a single envelope)

Overnight change to Osborne's speech - what's the significance?

Last night

I am today calling on the Treasury and the FSA to combine forces and stop retail banks paying out profits in significant cash bonuses. Full stop. Then the cash that would have been paid out should be put onto banks' balance sheets explicitly to support new lending.

This morning

I am today calling on the Treasury and the FSA to combine forces and stop retail banks – in other words the banks that lend directly to businesses and families – paying out profits in significant cash bonuses. Full stop. That includes their investment banking arms. Then the cash that would have been paid out should be put onto banks’ balance sheets explicitly to support new lending.

When Newsnight's Kirsty Wark was asked out by John Grogan

From last week's licensing debate, John Grogan speaks:

One of the few occasions that I have been asked on to “Newsnight” to defend Government policy was in 2005, when the Licensing Act 2003 was about to be implemented. The interviewer was Kirsty Wark. I was having rather the worst of the interview, it has to be said, and the clock was ticking towards 18 minutes past 11, when the programme ends. I thought that I would have one last try at making the case for the Licensing Act reforms. Obviously that was before the relaxation of licensing laws, and all pubs closed at 11 o’clock, so I looked at her and said, “Would it be the end of the world if, after the show finished, the pubs were still open and I was able to invite you out to have one drink at one of the local pubs?” She looked at me, and by the look on her face it would have been the end of the world, so my final argument failed.

MPs' given chance to appeal Legg findings

Sir Thomas Legg will not be allowed to have the last word on individual MPs' expenses.

The party leaders, along with MPs on the Members' Estimates committee, have agreed to introduce an appeals process once Sir Thomas has decided how much individual MPs should pay back.

They will be allowed to appeal BEFORE the report is published by the MEC in December, meaning this will all happen in secret.

MPs will get a note tucked into their final letter from Legg telling them how to appeal against his findings.

MPs have not decided who will conduct the appeal - it's up to Harriet Harman's officials to work out who that will be.

But it wont be an insider. "We recognise that you couldn't have an internal appeals process for an external audit," says one mole

Bet Legg will be furious though....

Another pointless week in the Commons?

Next week's main business

Two days of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill

Senior civil servants fight off transparency, lobbying industry score huge victory

A good day for the establishment, a bad day for transparency.

The Cabinet Office has comprehensively squashed any attempt to better regulate lobbying and lobbyists.

Some of the most important, and easily enforceable new rules suggested by Tony Wright's Public Administration committee involved forcing civil servants to be up front about their dealings with lobbyists.

We know the civil service is vital to the lobbying industry - why else would they spend so much wining and dining them.

But now lobbyists will continue to have free reign across Whitehall after the government backed away from imposing new regulations on the industry.

Details of meetings between civil servants and lobbyists will not to published, despite calls from MPs on the Public Administration Committee who made the recommendation following a six month inquiry into the industry.

A report by the Cabinet Office argued this “would involve collating a huge amount of information and divert significant resources within departments”.

It also argued that a register of interests for senior civil servants “would be a disproportionate requirement that would place a significant burden on departments and agencies while adding very little to the regulation of lobbying”.

This represents a huge victory for the Whitehall machine against further transparency for the senior civil service

On allegations that there is a huge “revolving door” culture, the Cabinet Office report says: “The level of transfer between government and particular sectors does not of itself mean there is a problem. Indeed the Government is happy to see interchange as a common feature of public sector life.”

Despite recent private sector appointments by former ministers such as John Hutton to EDF energy (he later turned it down) and Patricia Hewitt to Boots, the Cabinet Office argued this was not a problem either.

“The Government does not agree with the general assertion that former Ministers in particular are able to use improperly and with impunity contacts they have built up while in office.”

The report gives the lobbying industry a clean bill of health.

“The Government is encouraged by the efforts now being made by the industry to develop a single and credible regime of voluntary self-regulation. The industry has continually improved its disciplinary procedures over recent years, including through the greater use of independent figures of standing to consider and rule on possible breaches.”

John Grogan, Labour MP, comments:
“The Government’s response to the Public Administration Select Committee’s report on lobbying is rather weak and feeble. When Tom Watson was the minister responsible, before he stepped down from the Government in the summer, he appeared to be preparing a response which at the very least would have said that the public sector should only offer contracts to and deal with lobbyists who declared all their clients. The Government’s response to the report has been watered down to such an extent that I’m afraid Francis Maude and the Tories now have a more robust tone as regards lobbying than does the Government.”

MPs go home early for Christmas

Harriet Harman announced that they will go home for Christmas this year on December 16.

This is the earliest since 1979 when records begun.

Sir George Young says: “When Labour first came to power in 1997, we rose on December 22nd – but twelve years on, they’re depleted of leadership, devoid of ideas and desperate to escape for Christmas so they can avoid the scrutiny of Parliament. Our constituents will be working long after that date. After an 82 day summer recess, this is further evidence of a Government that has run out of steam.” The Tories will oppose it: the Government will table a motion on the Remaining Orders (on the Order Paper); if it is objected to – and the Conservative Party will object – then it will go to a vote, and we will vote against it. It’s unclear about when the Govt will table the motion.

According to Tory research, previous dates have been:

2008 – 18th Dec
2007 – 18th Dec
2006 – 19th Dec
2005 – 20th Dec
2004 – 21st Dec
2003 – 18th Dec
2002 – 19th Dec
2001 – 19th Dec
2000 – 21st Dec
1999 – 21st Dec
1998 – 17th Dec
1997 – 22nd Dec
1996 – 18th Dec
1995 – 20th Dec
1994 – 20th Dec
1993 – 17th Dec
1992 – 17th Dec
1991 – 20th Dec
1990 – 20th Dec
1989 – 21st Dec
1988 – 22nd Dec
1987 – 18th Dec
1986 – 19th Dec
1985 – 20th Dec
1984 – 21st Dec
1983 – 22nd Dec
1982 – 23rd Dec
1981 – 23rd Dec
1980 – 19th Dec
1979 – 21st Dec

[update - nailed by David Boothroyd

Who on earth got the idea that 'records began' in 1979? Records began in 1547. FWIW the 'new year break' has on occasion begun in August. Take 1901 as an example: Parliament last sat on 17 August 1901, and then not until 16 January 1902. The dates of Christmas recess in full, which the Tories won't tell you because it shows they don't have a point: 1979: 21 December - 14 January 1980 1980: 19 December - 12 January 1981 1981: 23 December - 18 January 1982 1982: 23 December - 17 January 1983 1983: 22 December - 16 January 1984 1984: 21 December - 9 January 1985 1985: 20 December - 13 January 1986 1986: 19 December - 12 January 1987 1987: 18 December - 11 January 1988 1988: 22 December - 10 January 1989 1989: 21 December - 8 January 1990 1990: 20 December - 14 January 1991 1991: 20 December - 9 January 1992 1992: 17 December - 11 January 1993 1993: 17 December - 10 January 1994 1994: 20 December - 9 January 1995 1995: 20 December - 9 January 1996 1996: 19 December - 13 January 1997 1997: 22 December - 12 January 1998 1998: 17 December - 11 January 1999 1999: 21 December - 10 January 2000 2000: 21 December - 8 January 2001 2001: 20 December - 8 January 2002 2002: 19 December - 6 January 2003 2003: 18 December - 5 January 2004 2004: 21 December - 10 January 2005 2005: 20 December - 9 January 2006 2006: 19 December - 8 January 2007 2007: 18 December - 7 January 2008 2008: 18 December - 12 January 2009 2009: 16 December - 5 January 2010]

Jacqui Smith's non punishment

Can't believe I didn't spot this before - and long after David Grossman and Guido.

Perhaps the reason the Standards and Privileges report let Jacqui Smith off scot free was because Sir George Young was absent, having been appointed to the Tory frontbench, and the session was chaired by Kevin Barron, a Labour tribalist.

A "main home" for peers is different to a "main home" for MPs

Lord Rennard has been cleared of wrongly claiming his Eastbourne house is his "main home". See PA:

1 POLITICS Rennard

LIB DEM PEER CLEARED OF EXPENSES WRONGDOING
By Andrew Woodcock, Press Association Chief Political Correspondent

Former Liberal Democrat chief executive Lord Rennard was cleared of wrongdoing in relation to his expenses.

House of Lords authorities investigated the peer after receiving a complaint that he claimed £41,000 for staying overnight in London to attend Parliament when he owns a house just two miles from Westminster.

Lord Rennard announced in May that he was stepping down as the Lib Dems’ elections supremo, following press allegations that he spent little time at the Eastbourne flat which he designates his main address. He insisted at the time that his resignation was not due to the expenses row.

Clerk of the Parliaments Michael Pownall published a ruling yesterday in which he found that Lord Rennard’s claims for overnight subsistence allowance were “in accordance with the rules and guidance on Members’ expenses applicable at the time”.

He rejected allegations that Lord Rennard claimed overnight subsistence for days when he did not attend the Lords. And he did not uphold claims that the peer’s main home was in London.

Mr Pownall carries out initial investigations into allegations against peers and refers those where he suspects wrongdoing to the Lords Committee on Privileges.

In a letter setting out his findings, he said Lord Rennard had indicated that since buying the Eastbourne property after his wife’s retirement in 2007, he spent most of his time there when Parliament was not sitting. The peer’s claim forms also showed he travels to the East Sussex resort town “quite regularly” at weekends.

In view of the assurances by Lord Rennard about the change in his circumstances and the time he spends in Eastbourne, and in the absence of any definition of ’main address’ in the current guidance to the House of Lords’ Members Expenses Scheme, I have come to the conclusion that I should not uphold the complaint,” wrote Mr Pownall.

What is the legal position and how do MPs appeal?

1. MPs have three weeks to respond to Sir Thomas Legg

2. Legg considers their responses and reports in November or December to the Members Estimates Committee

3. The MEC now looks likely to send it to the floor of the house for debate (although they could, at this stage, amend it themselves or reject it)

4. Where MPs are required to make repayments for claims paid without without proper proof, or which contravened the rules at the time, these will be left untouched by the MEC. However, the committee is debating whether to force MPs to repay in areas such as gardening and cleaning where Legg has asked for repayments because he has imposed new, discretionary limits.

5. At this point the process will be debated in the floor of the house.

6. MPs could attach - and vote on - amendments to this (which would deal with individuals)

7. The document containing individual repayment amounts for MPs, as agreed by the House, will at this point be voted on. They will, at this point, be expected to pay back this money.

8. If they refuse, they will be in breach of a resolution of the House and come before the Standards and Privileges committee.

9. This body has the power to suspend MPs without pay (effectively fining them) or dock allowances or possibly reduce severance pay for those who stand down at the general election.

10. Since all matters of the House are subject to Parliamentary privilege, the MEC does not believe that MPs can reach for lawyers

Live blog

By Nico Hines on TimesOnline

The Speaker's letter on expenses

Dear Colleague,

I write to you as Chair of the Members’ Estimate Committee to remind you of the background to the Legg review, its terms of reference and the process which is now underway.

At the joint meeting of the MEC, the party leaders and the Chair of the Committee on Members' Allowances on 19 May, it was agreed that the MEC would establish a review to consider claims under the Additional Costs Allowance for each Member over the last five years, with a view to ensuring that any overpayments are identified in order that they can be repaid. The House was informed of this agreement by Speaker Martin on 19 May and in an oral statement by the Leader of the House on 20 May. Please find enclosed copies of these Statements and the terms of reference to which the Review is working.

The MEC appointed Sir Thomas Legg to undertake this task and we are grateful to him for taking on the work. He has now concluded his preliminary examination of Members' claims. He is, therefore, contacting all Members to inform them both of the process he has adopted for his review and of his initial finding in respect of their claims.

Sir Thomas was tasked in his remit from the MEC to examine payments made "against the rules and standards in force at the time". He reiterated this in his letter to each Member of 2 July. His terms of reference also require him: "To allow Members who received such payments or made such claims a fair opportunity to make representations about them. Subject to any such representations to recommend where necessary any repayments which Members should make and otherwise to comment as seems appropriate."

Pursuant to his terms of reference, the next stage of Sir Thomas's work will be to ask each Member who has received a letter raising issues for their view on his initial findings and, in some cases, to require more information where that is necessary. Sir Thomas has said that there is an opportunity over the next 3 weeks for each Member to respond to his letter. He will consider these responses prior to reaching his conclusion in respect of each Member's claims. Sir Thomas will then submit his report to the MEC, which it will then publish and act upon.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life under Sir Christopher Kelly will shortly be reporting on his proposals for the structure of a new system of allowances. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which we expect will be fully operational from early next year, will then be running an allowance system which is wholly independent and in which Members play no part.

As you know, this review of past allowance payments is part of the important process of restoring public confidence in our allowance system and in the House. The MEC, therefore, urges Members to cooperate fully with its inquiries.

Speaker

Lord Ashcroft's two key social groups to win the election

From today's Sunday Times:

Lord Ashcroft, the billionaire donor who has morphed into the party’s chief polling adviser, has identified a number of key social groups who will make the difference in the seats the Conservatives need to win. They include young families from the lower middle class or skilled working class who are the heirs to the Worcester Women and Mondeo Men that Tony Blair pursued in 1997.

For them, the key issue is the NHS. Hence, amid all the talk of public sector cuts, the Tory high command maintained its commitment to ring-fencing health budgets.

A second key group of voters is the over-55s. Older people are more likely to vote than the younger generation and are increasingly flexible in their party loyalties. Labour-held seaside towns such as Hastings, Great Yarmouth and Blackpool, where large numbers of pensioners live, will be important battlegrounds.

Cameron’s team believes that the pledge to increase the state pension in line with earnings — albeit paid for by a higher retirement age — will sell well on the doorsteps of those coastal bungalows.

Mixed news for David Cameron: the Populus focus group on his speech in full

Last night The Times held a Populus focus group to gauge reaction to David Cameron's speech in battleground Britain, showing 10 randomly selected voters from Cheadle, Bolton NE and Bury North (all of which would be needed to turn blue for an outright Tory win) excerts of the Tory leaders' speech.

The six men and four women, all floating voters who did not support the Tories last time, were very passionate and engaging about what they saw. The lessons are mixed for the Tories – although there was a lot of negative comment on personality and spin, there was some basis for consensus on policy. Mistrust of the Tories remains amongst this group. Two, perhaps three of the ten appeared to be contemplating switching by the end.

Here are 12 unscientific conclusions I drew from the 90 minute discussion

1.The group, particularly the men, hated DC's use of his own family - and implied references to Ivan - in the speech.
Andy, 24, a musician, Gary, 51, a geologist and Sam, 30, a surveyor, all called the section on the death of Ivan "shameless". Steve, 54, a builder, said: "He's using this as a tool.” There was general agreement with this round the table. The other Steve, 49 who is in between jobs, said: “Gordon Brown lost a son and he just wanted to keep it private - I think he's using it for the sympathy vote - I don't like that “.
Only Julie, 41, took on the group and defended him saying: "I think he's put his cards on the table rather than going for the sympathy vote. I think he was saying 'OK look I've had a bad time recently but I've still got it together'."
Others said he was not alone having problems. Steve said: "If you go to an interview for a job, you don't mention that. I don't like it."
On the implied reference to Ivan in the NHS section, Andy said "It was unnecessary to claw you with his own material."

2. They all know about, and wanted to talk about, David Cameron's privileged Eton-Oxford background and are deeply suspicious that he doesn't understand "ordinary people" and the lives they lead. A Bullingdon club / toff campaign will play into existing strongly-held predjucices.
Karleene, 46, a school nurse suggested he looked ordinary and imagine him in a pub looking relaxed. But she was concerned the Camerons only coped he used armies of nannies which are kept hidden from public view.
Several thought - wrongly – that DC used private healthcare and sent his children to private schools. Helen, 47, an administrator said DC went to school with Boris. Louise, 24, who works in the mobile phone industry, said about future wage restraint: "It doesn't matter on his wage". When talking later about schools, Sam said: "His children wont be affected. His kids will all go to prep schools in Oxfordshire."

3. After 12 years of Blair, the public are hyper-sensitive about being "spun". So politicians have to be cautious about passages about themselves.
In general the group were very critical of the positioning sections of the speech, and made many comments about “spin”. Paul, 41, said: "I see a very big marketing team behind DC trying to portray him in the correct light the whole time." If he walked into a pub, Helen suggested, he would be accompanied by television cameras. Sam, 30, a surveyor said "I don't think [DC] can be down to earth with that contacts and network." He also seized upon the non-white face behind DC. “Does anyone else think its funny that they've planted a black person right next to him.”
The group had little trust in politicians of any hue, and were only listening out for specifics which would make a direct difference to their everyday lives. They did not, for instance, see him as any more or less of a leader after the excerpts.

4. The group is nervous about the future, and saw the speech as a request for permission to make big cuts to the public sector next year. However the one public sector worker of the group appreciated the argument that public sector wage freezes could mean fewer job reductions
Karleen, who is a single mother said: "He says he's going to cut. It's going to effect people like me. So how is he going to benefit me, a public service. Everyone will have to cut public funding but they are just badmouthing Labour at present. Why aren't they cutting back on their own expenses”.
Gary, (whose remarks often sounded like Labour attack lines although he said he voted Lib Dem) said "Why can't they be honest and say they are going to put up taxes."
Julie, who came closest to outright support for the Tories at the end of the session, said: "I'm not racist but we've got a lot of illegal immigrants. That's our money going into housing and schools."
Paul, the commerical manager, said: "To my mind you've got to blame Brown for the debt. We seem to be worse [than the US and Germany.] Why is that?”
Karleen concluded by saying that freezing pay without cutting jobs "sounds good - but is it feasible?”

5. Memories of the Tories slashing public spending in the past are still live
Karleen said: "Would this [the debt] have happened if Thatcher was in power. No milk for the children. Milk stopped for all the children, that made it very difficult for poorer children." Another ventured that the reason Labour had to pour so much into the NHS was because it went underfunded in the 1990s.

5. They appreciated Cameron's reassurances that the NHS will remain free at the point of delivery.
Julie, 41, said Mr Cameron's section on the NHS "sounds good." Andy criticised implied references to Ivan, but then added: "But he made good points. He also touched on how the NHS isn't that bad." Louise suggested "there's no way he went to a normal hospital."

6. Surprisingly, however, they were hostile to the abolition of health targets, saying they thought it would mean waiting lists going up. Patient choice is already a reality.
Louise said: "Not having targets is rubbish. For the NHS not to have targets - how's that going to work." Paul, 41, a commerical manager, said: "70 per cent of the country want to hear that. He can't say the opposite." Karleen said that the NHS was no more safe with Gordon Brown, adding: "targets do work. If you get in, you know when you will [be treated]. If you want to wait a month t go to a better hospital you can."

7. They misconstrued the line at the end of the speech about schools, suggesting poor pupils would go to the best schools. They want everyone to go to good schools and assume the Tories would run a two-tier (selective?) school system which they disliked the sound of.
Helen, 47 in administration said: "That thing about poor kinds in best schools. Shouldn't all schools be good schools." Gary said "I want my child to go to the best school." Helen added: "So the conservatives are all about looking after Number 1"

8. Although they don't use the term "broken Britain," several gave examples of societal breakdown.
Karleen said: "Community spirit has been broken". She then told a tale of a local school where the kids were behaving badly. Louise said she thought DC was right about children getting more respect than adults.

9. They did not like the Bono video
Sam, a surveyor, said: "The Bono video is a bad thing. He's not saving the world, like he things".

10. Almost all the group thought it was "time for a change". None wanted to see Gordon Brown back in power.
Julie, 41, in the construction industry, said he was "out of his depth." Paul, 41, also in construction, said he's "not got the charisma". Steve, 54, a builder, said: "I think he inherited a sinking ship. Blair was a clever guy who knew it was time to get out." Only one person, Gary, 51, a petrolium geologist, called him a "manner of honour" who should be left to do his job by the press.

11. Only two strongly implied they would vote Conservative, while the rest said they still had reservativions. However 2/10 switching could still be enough to hand the Tories the marginal seats they need, so this wasn't a "bad result". Nobody thought the speech really changed their view of British politics.

12. The Tories are being listened to by groups that were out of reach in years gone by. But they haven't secured their vote yet.
Karleen, who is black, said that "there are black and asian poeple who will vote for the Tories." She added: “I used to find that quite funny that people of colour would vote for the Conservatives, but now they have taken their education more carefully. People of colour have raised the bar. I think its a good thing.” But she doesn't him delivering the social justice pledges in practice. “How's he going to stop child poverty - it's like putting an expiry date on a tin of beans,” she added.

Final round-up

Asked if they have a clearer idea now for better or for worse of what DC stands for

Sam, 30, surveyor: “He said there's going to be cutbacks.”
Steve, 49, in between jobs: “There are no guarantees”
Louise, 24, mobile phone assistant: “it makes me dislike him more. I don't like him much
Helen, 47, admin, “It's a bit condescending
Karleen, 46, school nurse: “The people in the crowd didn't' look overawed. But it was all about the national debt. All about money, his family and his community. The thing is that it doesn't sound different from what I'll probably hear from Labour speeches.”
Paul, 41, commercial manager: “I thought most people already knew what he was like.”

Asked if it was time for a change to the Conservatives or not:

Julie: “Time for change”
Helen: “Really undecided”
Louise: “I think a change is needed but I don't want to vote Conservatives”
Gary: “I will prob end up voting Lib Dem”
Andy: “I know change is needed but if this means the Tories them I'm undecided”
Steve, 49, between jobs: “Time for change but not 100 per cent happy with conservatives.”
Sam: “I don't think I would put name to either party or the Lib Dems. I might abstain or go green”
Steve, 54, builder: “I'm not against Conservatives”
Karleen: “I'm undecided but I will vote”
Paul: “Undecided”

Reduce Whitehall by a third in five years

Cut the pay of ministers by 5 per cent and then freeze parliament. Cut the number of MPs by 10 per cent. Parliament will have to close its unaffordable pension scheme to new members.

Excessive quango salaries have to go. Anyone who wants to be paid more than the PM will have to put it before the Chancellor. "I'm not expecting a long queue." The tax relief on private sector pensions is capped, so £50,000 cap on public sector payouts as well. No need for a huge tier of regional government second guessing local councillors. A one year pay freeze across the public sector, except for those on less than £18,000 and soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

"We will cut the cost of Whitehall by one third over the next Parliament."

Dramatic stuff from George Osborne.

In 1997, the public thought "yes please" about Labour. In 2009, they think "yes, but" about the Tories.

Greg Clark, at the Times fringe in Manchester, accepts the Tories aren't being greeted with the same level of exuberance as New Labour.

"The reaction to New Labour was not "yes but". It was "yes please". There was a strong sense of exuberance but it's fair to consider the historical context. In 1997 we were four years into a strong economic recovery. It was a time given to idealism and this led the voters to be inclined to give them trust in the political movement. It's fair to say Labour could have done anything during those initial years.

"I think that spell has been broken - they have spent the goodwill. I think today people looking back - many ordinary voters - feel embarrassed they were taken in by that and feel hoodwinked. There's an attitude out there that they are going to be more guarded. I think that puts into context what degree of trust we can expect from our performance to date."

He has three progressive things the party needs to build on: the personality of David Cameron, a progressive policy agenda and - intriguingly - the reputation of Iain Duncan Smith.

"He is helping the Tories reconnect with an agenda of social justice and our roots in one nation conservatism, which are an important foundation"

David Cameron committed to elected select committee chairs

Sir George Young, in his first speech to conference since becoming shadow Commons Leader, says:

We also need to make better use of our Select Committees, the watchdogs of Parliament. David Cameron has already adopted the Task Force policy to improve Select Committees’ independence and authority by giving backbenchers the chance to elect the chairmen, reducing the patronage of the Whips Office.

This is currently under review by a committee led by Tony Wright, Labour chair of the public administration select committee. But does Cameron also support:

1. the chance to elect members of select committees members, opposed to chairman
2. Giving Parliament the power to chose what it discusses when. On this, Sir George says vaguely:

Instead of government running the whole timetable, we’ll make sure that the Commons claws back some control of its agenda, giving them more power to represent the views of their constituents. Yes, a Government is entitled to the time it needs to deliver the manifesto on which it was elected. But that does not mean it should control every minute of the day.

My Society's Tom Steinberg becomes Tory advisers

This announcement is fascinating, perhaps suggesting some shifting sands in the Tory party and changes (and possible conflict?) ahead for MySociety

This is not an issue that can be resolved eight months. Has the TheyWorkForYou founder been promised a job in Downing Street?
The press release acknowleges MySociety is a non-partisan charity and Steinberg will be working in a personal capacity. But will this cause problems for the organisation he founded?
Does this mean the open source agenda has moved away from George Osborne's office, from where it was previously anchored? Or are they responsible for bringing Steinberg on board.

Here's the press release

The Conservatives have today announced that Tom Steinberg is to work with the ongoing review of government ICT, led by Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office Francis Maude. Tom is co-author of the independent Cabinet Office review, "The Power of Information".

Francis Maude said:

"The UK Government spends more on ICT than any other government. If it spent the same per capita as the Scandinavian countries - ranked the best in class - Britain's ICT bill would fall by 23% - a whopping £3billion.
"And yet the history of UK government ICT projects is littered with budget overruns, delays and functional failures. Huge centralised databases have been created, with a thoroughly casual approach to safeguarding private data.
"We need a fundamental rethink. We need fewer mega-projects; a rigid insistence on open standards and inter-operability; a level playing field for open source software and for smaller suppliers; a much greater willingness to buy off the shelf rather than always seeking bespoke perfection; opening up access to government data; a new vision for how we can engage with citizens; and far more effective procurement and management of projects."
"Tom Steinberg has led the way in showing how government can engage with citizens online and catalyse social innovation and civic action. It's great news that he's working with us to develop the vision."

Commenting, Tom Steinberg said:

"A smarter use of IT by government can do more than just deliver services more quickly and efficiently, it can also open up the institutions of state and make our lives as citizens more effective and rewarding. I am looking forward to being part of this change."

The ultimate Tory love bomb

Oliver Letwin has just summed up the Tory policy offer as:

Progressive ends, Conservative means

This is identical to the Nick Clegg Demos pamphlet, which summed up the Lib Dem policy platform as:

Progressive ends, Lib Dem means

This just refinforces "progressive" as the most abused word in British politics

Alan Duncan still has his sense of humour

Spotting a BBC Five Live producer scounting for interviews for the station's overnight show, the recently-demoted Tory bombast quipped "Sorry, I don't do pre-records"

Where are we? Don't say Manchester

The conference set in Manchester is probably the closest mere mortals will ever get to seeing inside Steve Hilton's brain. This is an image of the stage, with the giant screen backdrop. But where's this street scene from?

Don't talk to journalists or lobbyists in the bar, Tory candidates told

There was a briefing for Tory candidates yesterday. "We don't want people to do an Alan Duncan," said one Cameroonie