That was the question posed by the rather eccentric Conservative backbencher Peter Bone to Nick Clegg in deputy prime minister's questions this lunchtime.
Mr Bone, who is well-known in Westminster for his penchant for including the views of his wife Mrs Bone in Commons questions, kept the other half at home for his query to the DPM.
"I wish the deputy prime minister a merry Christmas," he began deceptively, "but if the prime minister was killed in a terrorist attack, who would take charge of the government?"
This was an important question of constitutional significance, perfectly legitimate given Clegg's responsibility for that portfolio. It also set up the political punchline which was the whole point of the exercise.
Bone added: "Will the deputy prime minister confirm that it would not be him, as he leads a party that has less support than the UK Independence party?"
Ouch! Most recent polls have kept Britain's third party in their traditional place, but one recently did put eurosceptic Ukip ahead of the Lib Dems. How embarrassing for Clegg, who managed to keep his head and come up with a very effective answer.
He replied: "I receive his season’s greetings in the spirit in which they were intended. As he knows, appropriate arrangements would be made in that very unfortunate event. I must say, however, that his morbid fascination with the premature death of his own party leader is a subject not for me, but for the chief whip."
Very neatly done from the Lib Dem leader. But it didn't really answer the question, did it?
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
politics.co.uk's new podcast is on iTunes!
Great news from iTunes, which is now hosting politics.co.uk's podcasts. We've been putting out a few bits of audio this year claiming them to be 'podcasts', but - as listeners have informed us in polite and courteous terms - unless they're on iTunes, they're just not the real deal. From today that's changed! We've already got a pick of the best items produced this year available for download, and at the end of each week in the run-up to Christmas we'll be adding another.
After a couple of longer documentaries we've settled on a format which we're going to stick with: a fast-paced look at the biggest issues affecting Britain and how the politicians in charge of the country are coping with them, all packed into ten very busy minutes. It's all about attention-span: ten minutes of high quality comment, interviews and analysis works better than 30 minutes of more open-ended discussion. This content is the result of painstaking editing and the pick of the interviews we've conducted in the past week. It should be something everyone who's interested in politics should look forward to at hte end of the week.
Podcasting is all about broadcasting to an audience. It's about interactivity and engagement with your specific community. At politics.co.uk we're really keen to engage more with our readers. We want to build up a loyal listenership which comes to our podcast not just to hear our latest reports and interviews, but to get their views across and contribute to the debate, too. Email me at alex.stevenson@politics.co.uk or tweet us at @politics_co_uk - we want to hear from you.
After a couple of longer documentaries we've settled on a format which we're going to stick with: a fast-paced look at the biggest issues affecting Britain and how the politicians in charge of the country are coping with them, all packed into ten very busy minutes. It's all about attention-span: ten minutes of high quality comment, interviews and analysis works better than 30 minutes of more open-ended discussion. This content is the result of painstaking editing and the pick of the interviews we've conducted in the past week. It should be something everyone who's interested in politics should look forward to at hte end of the week.
Podcasting is all about broadcasting to an audience. It's about interactivity and engagement with your specific community. At politics.co.uk we're really keen to engage more with our readers. We want to build up a loyal listenership which comes to our podcast not just to hear our latest reports and interviews, but to get their views across and contribute to the debate, too. Email me at alex.stevenson@politics.co.uk or tweet us at @politics_co_uk - we want to hear from you.
Monday, 14 November 2011
Making the case for a British first amendment
Here's a guest post from politics.co.uk correspondent Tony Hudson:
One of the founding principles of the United States is its Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the constitution are integral to the very makeup of American law. The first and most important amendment guarantees its citizens the right to the freedom of speech. As a result, nobody in America can be jailed for the words they say.
In this country, things are slightly different. We have libel laws and injunctions. There are ways for British citizens to be criminally charged if something they say, or write, breaks certain rules.
It was this tricky issue being debate with regard to internet blogging this afternoon in parliament. The joint committee on privacy and injunctions had four notable British bloggers giving evidence on the legal minefield that has been created by the blogosphere. During this hearing, the idea was touched upon that a first amendment model would be a good blueprint for use in Britain.
Guido Fawkes editor Paul Staines said, rather flippantly, "that country seems to be doing rather well" when discussing the impact of complete freedom of speech the first amendment has had upon America. In a somewhat slippery jurisdictional manoeuvre Staines has his website hosted in the United States and, as a result, he is protected by American law despite not being an American citizen.
It is a shame that he is able to take advantage of something that is unavailable to most other British bloggers. Of course, if Britain were to adopt an equivalent to the first amendment, this sort of trick would not be necessary.
Richard Wilson, another blogger present at the hearing, also commended the idea of the first amendment. He said that America "protects freedom of speech better" than Britain does. He even went as far as to say that it sometimes "seems like freedom of speech is in trouble in this country".
Wilson argued that transparency was indispensible when defining "the rule of law" and, as such, those who break super-injunctions are more closely following the spirit of law than those imposing them. He proposed "something akin to the first amendment" as a starting off point in the regulation of British media.
Both men made the case that the pursuit of truth is the primary motivating factor for what they do. They both decried injunctions and super-injunctions as barriers to the pursuit of truth and that when there is public interest involved, those barriers should not be so easily and readily available.
The debate will undoubtedly continue but, regardless of what you may think of each individual blogger's politics, there is certainly an interesting and compelling case to be made for the adoption of a British first amendment.
One of the founding principles of the United States is its Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the constitution are integral to the very makeup of American law. The first and most important amendment guarantees its citizens the right to the freedom of speech. As a result, nobody in America can be jailed for the words they say.
In this country, things are slightly different. We have libel laws and injunctions. There are ways for British citizens to be criminally charged if something they say, or write, breaks certain rules.
It was this tricky issue being debate with regard to internet blogging this afternoon in parliament. The joint committee on privacy and injunctions had four notable British bloggers giving evidence on the legal minefield that has been created by the blogosphere. During this hearing, the idea was touched upon that a first amendment model would be a good blueprint for use in Britain.
Guido Fawkes editor Paul Staines said, rather flippantly, "that country seems to be doing rather well" when discussing the impact of complete freedom of speech the first amendment has had upon America. In a somewhat slippery jurisdictional manoeuvre Staines has his website hosted in the United States and, as a result, he is protected by American law despite not being an American citizen.
It is a shame that he is able to take advantage of something that is unavailable to most other British bloggers. Of course, if Britain were to adopt an equivalent to the first amendment, this sort of trick would not be necessary.
Richard Wilson, another blogger present at the hearing, also commended the idea of the first amendment. He said that America "protects freedom of speech better" than Britain does. He even went as far as to say that it sometimes "seems like freedom of speech is in trouble in this country".
Wilson argued that transparency was indispensible when defining "the rule of law" and, as such, those who break super-injunctions are more closely following the spirit of law than those imposing them. He proposed "something akin to the first amendment" as a starting off point in the regulation of British media.
Both men made the case that the pursuit of truth is the primary motivating factor for what they do. They both decried injunctions and super-injunctions as barriers to the pursuit of truth and that when there is public interest involved, those barriers should not be so easily and readily available.
The debate will undoubtedly continue but, regardless of what you may think of each individual blogger's politics, there is certainly an interesting and compelling case to be made for the adoption of a British first amendment.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Who was better: Tories' William Hague, or Labour's Rory Weal?
An extraordinarily effective speech from a 16-year-old has proved the unexpected highlight of Monday at the Labour party conference.
Rory Weal proved a real breath of fresh air when he stood up to address party delegates in Liverpool before the main event of the morning session, shadow chancellor Ed Balls' speech.
Like all successful speeches from young whippersnappers, it invited instant comparisons with William Hague's infamous speech to the 1977 Conservative party conference. You can compare and contrast the two addresses below.
Leader of the opposition Ed Miliband, Balls and Harriet Harman were among those listening spellbound as the teenager delivered a forceful three-minute tirade against the coalition's cuts.
The hike in tuition fees, the scrapping of the educational maintenance allowance and changes to the welfare system all came in for criticism during the speech.
"As someone who would have benefited from the full EMA payout before it was scrapped, what does he advise when I can't afford to go to school in the morning?" he asked of prime minister David Cameron.
"What does he advise when I can't buy the materials and textbooks I need for school? This government is repeatedly showing just how out of touch it is with the lives of ordinary people in the UK."
The sight of a schoolboy explaining how his home was dispossessed two-and-a-half years ago, and the experience of relying on the welfare state his family experienced, proved a brief tear-jerker. Then came the killer blow: "that very same welfare state is being ripped apart by the vicious and right-wing Tory-led government", he said angrily, a study of controlled frustration. Cue another big round of applause.
"I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for that system, that safety net," Rory continued.
"It is up to us in the Labour party to create a vision of what a better Britain will look like. Let's get to work!"
Weal is obviously a man - or rather, a boy - or rather, somewhere inbetween - of the people. His suit was just a little too big for him.
He walked over to Miliband and co, clapping delightedly from their seats on stage, before wandering off. It was not quite the sort of wild reception saved for enthusiastic audiences of talent show auditionees. But it wasn't far off.
Rory Weal proved a real breath of fresh air when he stood up to address party delegates in Liverpool before the main event of the morning session, shadow chancellor Ed Balls' speech.
Like all successful speeches from young whippersnappers, it invited instant comparisons with William Hague's infamous speech to the 1977 Conservative party conference. You can compare and contrast the two addresses below.
Leader of the opposition Ed Miliband, Balls and Harriet Harman were among those listening spellbound as the teenager delivered a forceful three-minute tirade against the coalition's cuts.
The hike in tuition fees, the scrapping of the educational maintenance allowance and changes to the welfare system all came in for criticism during the speech.
"As someone who would have benefited from the full EMA payout before it was scrapped, what does he advise when I can't afford to go to school in the morning?" he asked of prime minister David Cameron.
"What does he advise when I can't buy the materials and textbooks I need for school? This government is repeatedly showing just how out of touch it is with the lives of ordinary people in the UK."
The sight of a schoolboy explaining how his home was dispossessed two-and-a-half years ago, and the experience of relying on the welfare state his family experienced, proved a brief tear-jerker. Then came the killer blow: "that very same welfare state is being ripped apart by the vicious and right-wing Tory-led government", he said angrily, a study of controlled frustration. Cue another big round of applause.
"I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for that system, that safety net," Rory continued.
"It is up to us in the Labour party to create a vision of what a better Britain will look like. Let's get to work!"
Weal is obviously a man - or rather, a boy - or rather, somewhere inbetween - of the people. His suit was just a little too big for him.
He walked over to Miliband and co, clapping delightedly from their seats on stage, before wandering off. It was not quite the sort of wild reception saved for enthusiastic audiences of talent show auditionees. But it wasn't far off.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
One nose job later, Ed's still Milibunged-up
Interior, day: a hospital ward in the Royal National Throat, Nose and ear hospital. The leader of the opposition is in bed, surrounded by a gaggle of supporters. He opens his eyes. Amid an atmosphere of fevered anticipation, he speaks.
ED MILIBAND: 'As by nose job imbroved by terror-bull boice?
(instant consternation. Ed Balls tears large chunks out of his hair. Mrs Miliband bursts into tears. The spirit of Gordon Brown's political career falls off its chair)
SPIN DOCTOR 1: Blair in heaven! It didn't work!
SPIN DOCTOR 2: Ach! We'll never win in 2015 now! (exit all bar Miliband, gnashing their collective teeth)
ED MILIBAND (to himself): I bidn't think id was thad bad.
(curtain)
This, it should be noted, is a work of fiction. But it's based on an event which happened yesterday, when the man all right-thinking left-wingers hope will be Britain's next prime minister had a nose job.
The problem, as the Labour spinners explained, was his snoring. A deviated septum has caused him to suffer from obstructive sleep apnoea, causing him to lose sleep at nights. When he does nod off, it is his poor long-suffering wife Justine who is kept awake. A supreme irony, you might think, that a politician whose speeches are occasionally sleep-inducing also has a special talent for keeping someone awake.
There was only one thing for it: a nose job. Ed nose day, as yesterday was instantly termed, was strongly suspected by everyone in Westminster, down to the tea lady, as being motivated more by spin doctors than real ones.
A caller on BBC Radio 2 summed up the problem when the Labour leader appeared for a Q and A session earlier this year. "I get really frustrated when I see you on TV night after night with your grawling voice."
Perhaps Miliband spent those sleepless nights wondering what this refreshingly honest voter meant by 'grawling'. Growling? Drawling? Groaning? App-awling? It didn't really matter which, he must have concluded. None of them were likely to prove vote-winners.
As every politician knows, the voice is a key part of the personality. Some ridiculous individuals suggest it's the ideas that matter, but they're way off the mark. A slick haircut, snappy dress sense, the ability to turn on the charm like a tap - these are the key ingredients of political success in 21st century Britain. Add to the list a smooth, reassuringly self-confident tone of speech and you're 90% of the way there.
This is why there have been so many knowing glances when the spinners claim the nose job has nothing to do with ending Miliband's 'grawling' for good. We haven't yet heard the change, but those who have say it's essentially unchanged. I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion it might have altered, after all. Perhaps they said the same thing before Margaret Thatcher's vocal coaching turned her from a whimpering junior minister into a fire-eating tamer of the 'wets'.
Personally, I think it would be a shame for Miliband to lose his bunged-up persona. It makes him sound a little drab, just a little bit depressed, which is perfect for a leader of the opposition trying to appear like he's been personally let down by the prime minister's terrible policies.
Right now, it works just fine. But in four years, when he's trying to persuade Britain that he's the man they want on the world stage standing up for Britain, it might be a different matter...
ED MILIBAND: 'As by nose job imbroved by terror-bull boice?
(instant consternation. Ed Balls tears large chunks out of his hair. Mrs Miliband bursts into tears. The spirit of Gordon Brown's political career falls off its chair)
SPIN DOCTOR 1: Blair in heaven! It didn't work!
SPIN DOCTOR 2: Ach! We'll never win in 2015 now! (exit all bar Miliband, gnashing their collective teeth)
ED MILIBAND (to himself): I bidn't think id was thad bad.
(curtain)
This, it should be noted, is a work of fiction. But it's based on an event which happened yesterday, when the man all right-thinking left-wingers hope will be Britain's next prime minister had a nose job.
The problem, as the Labour spinners explained, was his snoring. A deviated septum has caused him to suffer from obstructive sleep apnoea, causing him to lose sleep at nights. When he does nod off, it is his poor long-suffering wife Justine who is kept awake. A supreme irony, you might think, that a politician whose speeches are occasionally sleep-inducing also has a special talent for keeping someone awake.
There was only one thing for it: a nose job. Ed nose day, as yesterday was instantly termed, was strongly suspected by everyone in Westminster, down to the tea lady, as being motivated more by spin doctors than real ones.
A caller on BBC Radio 2 summed up the problem when the Labour leader appeared for a Q and A session earlier this year. "I get really frustrated when I see you on TV night after night with your grawling voice."
Perhaps Miliband spent those sleepless nights wondering what this refreshingly honest voter meant by 'grawling'. Growling? Drawling? Groaning? App-awling? It didn't really matter which, he must have concluded. None of them were likely to prove vote-winners.
As every politician knows, the voice is a key part of the personality. Some ridiculous individuals suggest it's the ideas that matter, but they're way off the mark. A slick haircut, snappy dress sense, the ability to turn on the charm like a tap - these are the key ingredients of political success in 21st century Britain. Add to the list a smooth, reassuringly self-confident tone of speech and you're 90% of the way there.
This is why there have been so many knowing glances when the spinners claim the nose job has nothing to do with ending Miliband's 'grawling' for good. We haven't yet heard the change, but those who have say it's essentially unchanged. I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion it might have altered, after all. Perhaps they said the same thing before Margaret Thatcher's vocal coaching turned her from a whimpering junior minister into a fire-eating tamer of the 'wets'.
Personally, I think it would be a shame for Miliband to lose his bunged-up persona. It makes him sound a little drab, just a little bit depressed, which is perfect for a leader of the opposition trying to appear like he's been personally let down by the prime minister's terrible policies.
Right now, it works just fine. But in four years, when he's trying to persuade Britain that he's the man they want on the world stage standing up for Britain, it might be a different matter...
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Two Commons subplots: John Bercow and David Miliband
What with the extremely busy - and important - Commons agenda this afternoon, I wasn't able to sneak in a couple of subplots which would usually have found their way into my PMQs sketch.
It would of course be a travesty for the world to continue without these interesting morsels being shared. So, here they are.
Number one: the Speaker taking it easy.
Last week John Bercow launched his strongest attack on the prime minister. He interrupted him in full flow as he wound up to polish off Ed Miliband, simply because he thought he was going on too long. Later in the session he noted that PMQs is "principally for backbenchers".
This sort of manoeuvring is not without consequences. Tory MP Rob Wilson has laid into Bercow in an article in the Telegraph which we've reported on, calling Bercow "bombastic" and "divisive". Worse still, the PM has consigned the Speaker to semi-regular exile in Afghanistan, in an exchange of parliamentary Speakers.
This week Bercow kept himself to himself a bit more. His first intervention came against Cameron, to be sure, but it was in support of the PM, not against him. "I apologise for interrupting the prime minister," he said sorrowfully.
The Speaker may have been acting under the influence of his wife, Sally, who was sitting in the gallery above the government benches. They hate her because of her ambitions to be a Labour politician - and the influence she has had on her husband's own, now officially irrelevant, political opinions. It was striking how firmly she nodded whenever Ed Miliband made a point. And how much she smiled whenever the Speaker spoke.
Number two: the soap opera, still simmering away.
Most MPs run for cover when PMQs are finished, it being lunchtime. Not David Miliband, the former foreign secretary. He was seen slinking into the chamber against the tide to hear David Cameron's statement on troop withdrawals in Afghanistan. Apart from an odd penchant to stroking his red tie, there was nothing really remarkable about this reappearance. But it was striking to see how he silently gazed upon his vanquisher, and younger brother, Ed Miliband nod at Cameron's statement.
He was sitting next to Jack Straw, another has-been veteran of the Tony Blair years. When the text of Cameron's statement was passed along, Straw instantly began poring over the document making annotations hither and thither. Miliband, on receiving his, instantly chucked it disdainfully into the shelf in front of him - and started gazing around him, especially up at the press gallery.
There is something about him - a restless energy, perhaps? - which makes me certain he will return to frontbench politics before the next general election. The elder Miliband is surely biding his time, even if he looks rather bored doing so.
It would of course be a travesty for the world to continue without these interesting morsels being shared. So, here they are.
Number one: the Speaker taking it easy.
Last week John Bercow launched his strongest attack on the prime minister. He interrupted him in full flow as he wound up to polish off Ed Miliband, simply because he thought he was going on too long. Later in the session he noted that PMQs is "principally for backbenchers".
This sort of manoeuvring is not without consequences. Tory MP Rob Wilson has laid into Bercow in an article in the Telegraph which we've reported on, calling Bercow "bombastic" and "divisive". Worse still, the PM has consigned the Speaker to semi-regular exile in Afghanistan, in an exchange of parliamentary Speakers.
This week Bercow kept himself to himself a bit more. His first intervention came against Cameron, to be sure, but it was in support of the PM, not against him. "I apologise for interrupting the prime minister," he said sorrowfully.
The Speaker may have been acting under the influence of his wife, Sally, who was sitting in the gallery above the government benches. They hate her because of her ambitions to be a Labour politician - and the influence she has had on her husband's own, now officially irrelevant, political opinions. It was striking how firmly she nodded whenever Ed Miliband made a point. And how much she smiled whenever the Speaker spoke.
Number two: the soap opera, still simmering away.
Most MPs run for cover when PMQs are finished, it being lunchtime. Not David Miliband, the former foreign secretary. He was seen slinking into the chamber against the tide to hear David Cameron's statement on troop withdrawals in Afghanistan. Apart from an odd penchant to stroking his red tie, there was nothing really remarkable about this reappearance. But it was striking to see how he silently gazed upon his vanquisher, and younger brother, Ed Miliband nod at Cameron's statement.
He was sitting next to Jack Straw, another has-been veteran of the Tony Blair years. When the text of Cameron's statement was passed along, Straw instantly began poring over the document making annotations hither and thither. Miliband, on receiving his, instantly chucked it disdainfully into the shelf in front of him - and started gazing around him, especially up at the press gallery.
There is something about him - a restless energy, perhaps? - which makes me certain he will return to frontbench politics before the next general election. The elder Miliband is surely biding his time, even if he looks rather bored doing so.
Monday, 13 June 2011
A new chapter for politics.co.uk
The new-look politics.co.uk has finally gone live and some of us have social lives to get back to.
We've been working flat out behind the scenes for a couple of months, trying to bring you more of what you want and less of what you don't.
Evolution, not revolution is the key. We've brought our comment and analysis content front and centre by featuring select pieces on the homepage. Everyday you'll find a new package waiting for you here, on anything from Labour leadership speculation to video games age-ratings.
Don't worry: politics.co.uk is and always will be a news site. These packages will always be connected to a major news development happening in British politics. Over on the news homepage we'll bring you all the most important news stories from Westminster and the UK. If you're a political fanatic, there's no better place to find in-depth, comprehensive news stories on what's happening behind the scenes.
Speakers Corner, I'm afraid, has gone the way of the dodo, but Comment and Analysis will still bring you some of the most perceptive and controversial coverage on the internet. From MP comment pieces, to our own analysis of unfolding events, to our 'speech in full' feature, this is the place where we trigger debate.
Over on Opinion Formers you'll be able to secure your access to the political world, unmediated by editorial. Here the movers and shakers from the worlds of think tanks, public policy, political parties and the private sector post their press releases, so you get access to the information you need, uncut and unedited.
Finally, there's our reference section, arguably the most useful political directory on the web. From MPs' profiles to blog reviews to issue briefs, this is a one-stop shop for your research. No frills, just reliable information.
The latest social media and sharing utilities have been embedded across the site along with a more engaging design that still maintains the basic structure and attitude of politics.co.uk.
Whatever else changes, politics.co.uk's mission statement remains the same: Impartial, in-depth, thought-provoking coverage of the political world.
Just politics. Nothing else.
We've been working flat out behind the scenes for a couple of months, trying to bring you more of what you want and less of what you don't.
Evolution, not revolution is the key. We've brought our comment and analysis content front and centre by featuring select pieces on the homepage. Everyday you'll find a new package waiting for you here, on anything from Labour leadership speculation to video games age-ratings.
Don't worry: politics.co.uk is and always will be a news site. These packages will always be connected to a major news development happening in British politics. Over on the news homepage we'll bring you all the most important news stories from Westminster and the UK. If you're a political fanatic, there's no better place to find in-depth, comprehensive news stories on what's happening behind the scenes.
Speakers Corner, I'm afraid, has gone the way of the dodo, but Comment and Analysis will still bring you some of the most perceptive and controversial coverage on the internet. From MP comment pieces, to our own analysis of unfolding events, to our 'speech in full' feature, this is the place where we trigger debate.
Over on Opinion Formers you'll be able to secure your access to the political world, unmediated by editorial. Here the movers and shakers from the worlds of think tanks, public policy, political parties and the private sector post their press releases, so you get access to the information you need, uncut and unedited.
Finally, there's our reference section, arguably the most useful political directory on the web. From MPs' profiles to blog reviews to issue briefs, this is a one-stop shop for your research. No frills, just reliable information.
The latest social media and sharing utilities have been embedded across the site along with a more engaging design that still maintains the basic structure and attitude of politics.co.uk.
Whatever else changes, politics.co.uk's mission statement remains the same: Impartial, in-depth, thought-provoking coverage of the political world.
Just politics. Nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
