The Queen Farts

I used to have a female acquaintance who could break wind on demand. Shameless with it. So shameless she could keep a perfectly straight face. Every time some hapless poor sod (for some reason they were always Parliamentary researchers or junior civil servants) tried to chat her up, after he'd finished his riveting tale of Parliamentary intrigue she'd briefly pause, smile sweetly and proceed to fart so loudly it was impossible to pretend you hadn't heard it.

I share this with you because the Queen, at approximately 11.30am today, will do roughly the same thing. If you're not too squeamish you can even watch it on TV. It's called "The State Opening of Parliament" and Her Majesty will be laying out the legislation her government intends to pass...   except it isn't. Everybody knows it, including her. On average, it takes 124 days to get a piece of legislation onto the statute books. There has to be a general election before June, which leaves 70 sitting days of Parliament. Nick Clegg said "It is a waste of everyone's time, and should be cancelled in favour of an emergency programme of political reform. That is the only job this rump of a Parliament is fit for." ? Cameron called it the "most divisive, short-termist, shamelessly self-serving" Queen's Speech "in living memory".

Whatever it is the Queen's going to say..."a legal obligation to halve the budget deficit..."  all of it, aside from being even more meaningless than the raft of message-based legislation we've endured, is...  well... meaningless. Designed purely as puff-piece manifesto-making. The real question is, can she keep a straight face ?

MPs table motion - no retrospective expense claim repayments

For some reason, it seems some MPs are a little concerned about what the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) will demand of them in the way of re-paying expenses and tabled a motion to the house, led by Graham Allen MP.

“This House notes the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy as Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) and hopes he carries out his duties in line with natural justice, including adherence to the concepts of reasonableness and proportionality, and without retrospectivity.”

The punchline - "without retrospectivity" is of particular interest. The honourable Mr Allen came joint 1st in 06/07 and 02/03 league table for Aditional Costs allowance claims. Better still, in 07/08, despite spending £800 more than his 1st place for 06/07, 200 MPs managed to spend more than him, resulting in a disappointing 201st place. Despite this, he still managed a very respectable joint 13th place last year for overall costs.

Baby P / Told you so

Don't say we didn't tell you so.

This Baby P/Shoesmith/Balls and OFSTED thing is going to be interesting. Turns out that OFSTED ("We inspect and regulate to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people") hid crucial evidence from the court.

Shoesmith accused Ed Balls, OFSTED & Co of all kinds of irregular (lack of) procedure in making her the scapegoat and deflecting blame from the government. This isn't the first civil servant to point a finger at the government, but this is the first on such an emotive issue. Between the lines, Shoesmith's saying the gov and it's regulatory bodies are bent incompetent and social workers are fighting an uphill struggle to perform a half decent job.

Days after Baby P died, OFSTED had issued Haringay 3 stars in an inspection report on its performance, then, completely reversed their findings. Balls based his sacking of Shoesmith on the second, damning report.

Shoesmith was prevented from seeing OFSTED's report before it was published - unlike Balls who insisted on seeing it and was briefed the same morning. Shoesmith was also prevented from addressing any of it's findings. When her lawyers requested the notes and early drafts were disclosed for the court hearing, OFSTED couldn't find them, then said they didn't exist and then had to eat their words. A hapless new lawyer at OFSTED's legal department responded to a Freedom of Information request for the documents with a cheery "here they are."

Straight out of "In the thick of it".

The judge is so pissed off he's ordered OFSTED to pay all of Shoesmith's additional legal fees at a punitive rate. Nice to know the taxpayer will be footing all the bills then.

Bottom line, at least on the surface of it, is that OFSTED, safeguarder of children, is at least as crap as Haringay and we suspect as much to blame as Ball's dep't for the level of protection kids at risk can expect.

Another nail in the coffin for Government-created, "independent" review bodies.

IPSA eat your heart out.

P.S. A quick look at the IPSA site shows they were advertising for board members. Closing date for applications was 19th October. If there's anyone out there who applied, we'd love to hear from you.

The Government can't run a bath

There's been a theory knocking around Ministry Towers that despite the media's love for the soap opera of conspiracies, lies and deceit in politics - all of this manifests itself from an incredibly banal truth... the Government can't run a bath let alone the country.

And now the PM's had to apologise for his letter writing skills...

It's almost inconceivable to think someone running a factory, expressing condolences to a mother for the loss of her son in an industrial accident would be so cack-handed. If you've got crap handwriting, but want to make it personal you'd get a secretary to hand-write, spell and namecheck it, then simply sign. You can't doubt Brown's good intentions - wanting to actually write the thing - but even at this macro-level the  judgement that goes into the execution is way below par.

On a broader scale the poor judgement/execution infects everything it touches. The fees office, inquiries, civil service, public services.

Panorama last night took a pop at the Criminal Justice System - a subject close to the Ministry's heart (and currently under active investigation by sister company, Spirit Level Film). It resulted in Jack Straw announcing a review of "out-of-court" penalties. In 2004 the government solution to over-burdened courts was to give the police power to issue offenders with PND notices - the ability to let an offender off with a fine and caution if they plead guilty. Now the police are issuing them for violent offences - ABA etc. Except half of them remain unpaid and have to be chased up by....   the courts. Cut to police chief explaining the time burden of a PND is half a man hour, versus two and a half hours for sending someone to court.

It'd be interesting to see the stats on offences PNDs have been issued for versus the stats for the same offences brought to court pre-PND. This writer's willing to bet a lunch on the number of unpaid PNDs issued that need to be chased up in court being equal to or higher than the same offences, pre-PND that ended up in court. Anyone out there got a spare half hour ?

Adding insult to injury is the fact it's only a Panorama programme or other media exposure that gets Straw & Co to review the situation.

Westminster Cocks confirmed

Yesterday, we discovered for ourselves what the architect of Parliament really thought of it's members.

If ever you're feeling down over the state of politics today... take comfort with a stroll across Westminster Bridge... On the right kind of glorious sun-filled morning you can bathe in the warm, delicious glow of knowledge that for years, our MPs have been branded by sunlight as cocks 'n balls. Better still, there's nothing they can do about it.

As the sun moves round, the cocks elongate, fatten and contract in a graceful arc next to the Palace of Westminster. Day in, day out.

It is, without doubt, the best middle finger ever given to the establishment. Don't think for a moment it wasn't deliberate. Though the bridge is credited as being designed by Thomas Page it's an often overlooked fact that it's architectural ironmongery (including the genius shadow-casting ballistrade) was designed by Charles Barry - the architect of the Palace of Westminster. The House of Lords was finished in 1847, Commons chamber in 1852. Barry died in 1860, but not before he'd finished his part of the designs for Westminster Bridge - which opened in 1862.

Westminster wives sex strike

It seems the most hard done-by in the expenses "sideshow" have been Westminster wives. The Kelly report recommended no more employment of MPs wives and they've taken umbrage (and legal advice which looks like such a ban would be unlawful).

They could take a lead from the women of Sirt, a 600 people village in Turkey...

In 2001, they'd had enough of lining up at the trickling village fountain to carry large containers of water  home (sometimes several miles) after months of their husbands promises to fix the water system. They decided to go on a bedroom boycott. No water, no shag. Unsurprisingly, after years of complaining, the system was sorted.

This can be a high risk strategy - for example, over the years Guido's "tottywatch" has featured plenty of Westminster wannabe's - but not many wives.

Where this would leave Jacqui Smith's husband is anybody's guess.

Tumbleweed through Westminster

There's that moment in Shooting Stars when Vic Reeves cracks a joke, silence followed by tumbleweed blowing across the studio...

Nobody's laughing at the Kelly report and the silence in Westminster is killing us. Either that or no-one's talking to the lobby hacks. The most they could muster from the expected collective outrage was a letter signed by five protesting wives employed by MPs.

The Telegraph managed to prise some quotes from Parliamentary grandees, Sir George Young gave a decent insight into his mindset, Asked whether members could accept a pay rise in the face of public anger he told the BBC: “If that is what an independent body decides then I am sure the public will endorse it.” We probably will. But it sticks in the craw.

We had the pleasure of interviewing Sir G for the Ministry as chair of The Parliamentary Committee for Standards and Privileges.

"I think we've got the balance right... No-one has a greater interest in policing the code, setting high standards for Members of Parliament, than Members of Parliament," May 2007

If there should be resignations over the current state of Parliaments' lamentable lack of public trust he's one of them...

...still, no-one really questioned the headmaster and prefects in charge of maintaining the self-regulation charade. Yet.

There was also the tiniest hint of infighting - Anthony Steen, the Tory MP for Totnes, said he had been “vilified” for putting in receipts for the running costs of his second home while others who have made significant sums by claiming mortgage interest have “got off scot-free”. Yes Anthony, we're all extremely sympathetic. That's what happens when an elected representative doesn't show up for votes on whether expenses should be subject to Freedom of Information requests and indeed all the other FOI votes. We note you were in favour of no lower limit to the receipts MPs should have to declare - but that was on the 30th April of this year - too little, too late. In any case the police haven't started to name names yet.

The press lobby said the feeling of anger was "palpable" and there was a general, "all of us have been punished for the actions of a few".... errr.... yup. That's right. We entrusted all of you to keep the house on the straight and narrow.

All in all it feels like todays' Guy Fawkes romp through Parliament organised by Old Holborn, Guido & Co have something to celebrate... for the moment at least.

IPSA scam ?

The Ministry can barely contain itself in anticipation of the Kelly report and response from the honourables... but figured it was worth taking a moment to reflect on the venerable institution itself, and in particular, it's desire ability to deliver legislation. We've not been shy in past criticism of "message based legislation", the question is, are we a bunch of myopic anti-establishment hippies (we take offence at "myopic") and unduly harsh on the mother of all Parliaments.

Kelly's findings are delivered to the newly-born Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Here's the Ministry of Justice's announcement for the creation of the IPSA,

"The old system of MPs’ self regulation is to end and a new system of robust, independent and transparent statutory regulation will be brought forward in urgent legislation introduced to Parliament by Harriet Harman and Jack Straw."

Good enough. And Parliament was quick to endorse the intention in the expenses backlash. Let's take a bo-peep at what came out of the grinder. Worth bearing in mind this government's majority. You can read the Bill in full here, for those with less time on their hands, here are some key clauses ;

3 MPs’ salaries
(1)  The IPSA is to pay the salaries of members of the House of Commons in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the House.

4 MPs’ allowances scheme
(5)The Speaker must lay the scheme (or revision) before the House of Commons.

7 Investigations
(4) If, after conducting an investigation, the Commissioner finds that the member was paid an amount under the scheme that should not have been allowed, the Parliamentary Standards Bill the Commissioner must refer the Commissioner’s findings to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges.

(6) If, after conducting an investigation, the Commissioner finds that the member failed to comply with a requirement included in the code by virtue of section (7), the Commissioner must refer the Commissioner’s findings to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

In other words, any deviance is reported to... the Committee on Standards and Privileges...  who report and make recommendations to...  The House of Commons.

Hmmm.

To get an idea of where Westminster's coming from, here's an example of the amendments that shaped the Bill before it received the Royal assent....  (blue is replacement text, red is deleted)

5 MPs’ code of conduct relating to financialinterests rulesinterests
(1) The IPSA must prepare rules under subsections (7), (8) and (10) a code to be observed by members of the House of Commons....

Clearly, there's an important distinction between the deleted word "rules" and the preferred replacement "code of conduct".

One clause it's hard to find fault with is ;

10 Offence of providing false or misleading information for allowances claims

(1) A member of the House of Commons commits an offence if the member—
(a) makes a claim under the MPs’ allowances scheme, and
(b) provides information for the purposes of the claim that the member knows to be false or misleading in a material respect.

You'll be pleased to hear that in this regard, Parliament have caught up with the rest of us, or should that read, "duplicated the Fraud Act (monetary gain by deception)". Which MPs are already subject to, and indeed several are going to be prosecuted under.

Premature, premature, premature

When will we learn.

Last Thursday's post was kosher, just a little early. You'll notice from the comments that both Brown and Cameron were dissenters - (we can't testify to the authenticity of the authors, then again, it'd be a brave man betting either knew what was going on in their party).

Meantime, regrettably we're bound and gagged on this for what may be a week or so and we'll return to salivating in anticipation of tomorrow's Kelly report. Weirdly, the press seem a little quiet on this, though the Ministry is given to understand it's contents have been with the printers since the weekend.

Honest Politics at last.

Hallelujah. We've been chasing the main parties for a commitment to criminalise political deception and yesterday got formal word that at least one has come through.

Having been trapped after-hours in the bowels of Westminster more times than we care to remember,  worn the carpets thin seeing Ministers and MPs over the last four years, been berated, ejected and scorned it seems some good has come from the expenses sideshow. There's been a genuine shift from the traditional Parliamentary, "we can police ourselves/get the hell out of my office"...

...to a firm "we're committed to criminalising political deception as per the Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill.

This Minister's almost embarrassed to say it didn't really register until some ten hours later. Brain's still processing the info. Too tired to believe it. Must get some kip. Promise to give full update once the whiskey's flushed through.

Hoping to wake up before Jacqui Smith on Question Time and celebrating properly.

Ministry of Justice Re-offends

You heard it here first, this is an election issue in the making - it may even lead to us saving a few billion a year if we can flush out the truth.

Justice Minister for Prisons, Maria Eagle, had the pleasure of our company last month whilst we tried to get to the bottom of some criminal stats. Seems that Alan Duncan's also bumped into her on the same nausea inducing issue.

The Sun, admittedly, purveyors of strange and wonderful parallel universe, were the only newspaper to pick up on it. Duncan's accused the government of a "shameful attempt" to mislead the public over the scale of re-offending. David Howarth, the Lib-Dem justice spokesman and friend of the Ministry said, "there can be no excuse for the release of confusing or misleading figures".

The figure in dispute is the rate of re-offending. An absolutely key figure because it tells us how effective we are at dealing with the offenders we pick up. In the 1970's this reached a then unheard of 30% - inducing all kinds of reform. Today the rate, depending on the kind of offender/offence varies between 75% and 90%.

Probation officers' leader Harry Fletcher said: "The Government has changed the way it collates statistics on violent offenders. This could give the impression there's been a reduction in numbers and therefore less threat to the public. In reality, however, the number has almost certainly increased. The effect has been total confusion and uncertainty about what the actual trends are."

Apologies for the fisking but it's not often you get to quote The Sun, "The Ministry of Justice said it was impossible to compare figures because of the different way they were collated. Justice Minister Maria Eagle said the number of criminals who "re-offend seriously" has remained at about 0.5 per cent for four years.".

Outrage ? errr, actually just a lie.

Dominic Lawson pipped us to the post in today's Independent on something that's been occupying the Ministry for some time now - except he missed the point. Headlined "Jimmy Carr and the pomposity of Outrage" it should have been "Once again the press lie to sell more copies and dupe a few politicians along the way".

Last Friday night, live at the Manchester Apollo, Carr said, "Say what you like about servicemen amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're going to have a fucking good Paralympic team in 2012.". The Express and sundry Sunday's went for, "Fans stunned as Jimmy Carr insults our Afghan heroes" - apparently they "gasped with shock", were "stunned" and well... you get the picture. Cut to various MPs and Ministers expressing their disgust etc. etc. at Mr Carr  and Dominic Lawson's article saying such "outrage" was pompous.

Except there weren't any stunned or shocked fans, as one bemused reader pointed out in an e-mail, "I was at the Manchester Apollo that Friday and the audience was not 'stunned into silence'. The place erupted in laughter.".

More and more you've got to wonder what these papers are playing at. Sister company Spirit Level Film just interviewed Chris Roycroft-Davis for "The Fear Factory" (an exposé of how UK PLC is manufacturing the fear of crime into the reality of criminals). Roycroft-Davis was The Sun's longest serving deputy editor and leader writer. His insights will hardly be news to most of us, but the straightforwardness was chilling, especially when coming from the man who's penned a career's worth of words in Britain's most highly read daily newspaper. "A newspaper has a duty to it's shareholders." Bottom line. When the consumer stops buying shit, they'll stop peddling it. Except, the various politicians who joined the fray (Bob Ainsworth et al) bought it, and they aren't paying customers.

Ministry loses it's bet

No Griffin walkout so we're down a few quid, but who's counting. If that's a platform for the BNP - give us more.

Admittedly, Griffin got off lightly. Not that it was a shabby performance from the other panelists, but none of them squarely nailed him to a post, drove the points home, boxed him into a corner. Griffin managed to keep his cool and to some degree looked like a victim as opposed to a victim because of his rhetoric and values. Jack Straw never quite hammered and pressed the opportunities when he could have, a more effective rebuttal to Griffin's Holocaust denial explanation would have been "what sort of person, let alone party leader denies the Holocaust in the first place, then says he's re-evaluated his position after seeing transcripts of intercepted radio transmissions". Easy to say that with 20/20 hindsight. Time was short and I suspect more's needed for a thorough dissection of the Griffin animal.

Still, it was interesting to see that despite many political differences, in face of the BNP there's much more the other parties agree, than disagree on - especially when it comes to core values. This could easily have unwound when Straw copped out on Labour's culpability for the BNP getting votes, but Warsi quickly scored points by reigning him in and with the BNP in the room, it felt like Straw wasn't inclined to attempt spinning a way out of it.

Full score to the BBC for standing up to the nay-sayers and providing the opportunity. Evidently there's been no bloodbath or surge of support for the BNP (perhaps a little premature to make a call on the latter) in the aftermath of giving them a platform so perhaps the likes of Peter Hain, Livingstone and Alan Johnson will accept the public's not so stupid as to need their censorship protection from unconscionable views.

This'll be appointment viewing

Much is at stake here - the rise of fascism, racism etc. versus the ability of Jack Straw, the other panelists and audience to expose the BNP on national TV. Thrown into the mix is censorship, don't give 'em a platform etc. and probably the career of the BBC's Director General. There may be the smallest of chances that Nick Griffin will perform well - the consequences of which are too dire/embarrassing for all to contemplate.

Weirdly, we find ourselves in agreement with Gordon (it's the BBC's decision) Brown . Weirder still is to find ourselves rooting for Jack Straw. Both are in direct opposition to the likes of Peter Hain, Alan Johnson and Ken (chair of the United Against Fascism League) Livingstone - who's words of wisdom condemn the BBC's decision with nanny-state logic...  we must control, censor and legislate - the public are too stupid to think for themselves etc. He told Radio 4

"if anyone is hurt tonight the BBC will bear moral responsibility for that," adding that he felt the broadcaster had "lost its moral compass".

"Unlike any other party, when Nick Griffin speaks or when they get elected in an area, what we see is an increase in racial attacks. It's a long pattern not just with the BNP but with the national front before them. He goes and says his bit ... but for the angry racist it's the trigger that turns into an attack.

"We first saw this when Enoch Powell made his 'rivers of blood' speech there was a huge surge in attacks on black conductors on our buses and that's why you apply a different standard to the BNP to those parties that do not legitimise this sort of violence against minorities."

Err...., No Ken. You get racially motivated violence because some people are idiots and violent with it. If they didn't have a TV show exposing the BNP as idiots to spark violence it'd be something else.

No word from the Cameron benches on support or otherwise for the BBC. Pussies to a man.

There's money changing hands at Ministry Towers over whether there'll be a walkout from one of the panelists. Mine's on Griffin, it'll be his last resort to any semblance of dignity.