Frailty, thy name is a Question Time audience
This is becoming a Friday feature. But I can't help it! QT makes HAMER MAD!

Once again, the smug self-righteousness of the QT audience has made a further mockery of what is laughingly still termed "public discourse". Up for the forensic, nay! Socratic, analysis this week were the following subjects: Iraq (natch), Madeleine McCann, and the extradition request regarding the Alexander Litvinenko murder.

Dramatis personae:

Simon Schama: a historian of repute apparently. Proof, if e'er further proof were needed that, on the basis of this performance at least, our universities are the laughing stock of the world.

Sarah Teather: a Liberal Democrat to whom, apparently, Charles Kennedy once said, "et tu, Teather?"

Caroline Spelman: bog standard Tory. Not as bloody thick as Mad Nad Dorries; that's the best I can say of her.

Greg Dyke: Liberal Democrat turned Labourite, turned potential Conservative London mayoralty candidate: "the biggest mistake the Government ever made was sacking me. I mean Iraq. IRAQ!"

Roy Hattersley: Labour Lord. Has started to believe his own speeches.


The action:

Iraq: nothing particularly new here...the usual stuff including criticism of the Government for turning a blind eye to murder and mayhem in pursuit (apparently) of oil. Next week I'm going to drink a shot everytime somebody says "it's all about oil" and gets a huge clap, as if it's not said every five minutes on QT.

Madeleine McCann: this was particularly nasty. There is something about QT audiences - comprised as they are of the middle classes who are slightly overweight and slightly under educated - that they feel the need to be "controversial". This translates as "bitchy" in normal parlance.

First of all, Smug Mother said "oooh, but aren't there questions to be asked of the parents, leaving the nippers alone like that?" Smug Mother would never do anything like that...yeah thanks for that. Bet that's a thought the parents aren't punishing themselves for every waking second, eh? Smug Mother gets a round of applause and rearranges her features into an even smugger expression.

Second of all, Fat Man says, "yeah but no, but yeah but no. Isn't it terrible that Madeleine's getting all this coverage when there are LOADS of children who are missing?" Cont-ro-ver-sial! Woooah, they push the envelope these audiences. To be fair, they are not the only ones who are guilty of the "why should I tidy my bedroom when the world's such a mess" philosophy.

I wonder why the news services report on anything...afterall if they can't report on everything, why bother, eh? Nonetheless, Fat Man gets rapturous applause, and one woman makes the point that the coverage is like, well boring now. Brilliant. Because that's what the news is there for madam. Your entertainment.

Personally I think Mr and Mrs McCann should give up the desperate publicity drive they are undertaking in the (fading) hope that they will find their daughter alive and unharmed: it no longer amuses the Question Time audience. Jesus wept.

Alexander Litvinenko: man from the audience suggests the Government should drop the extradition request and foster better relations with energy-rich Russia. Afterall, otherwise we might have to build nuclear power stations in Blighty and - gasp! - possibly the back yards of QT audience members.

Everyone claps wildly...that is the same people clap at the above opinion as they did over the view that the Government should not turn a blind eye to murder in Iraq simply in order to further their own energy interests.

This lot represent the "politically engaged". Think on, people.

Recess hours

Sorry for the lack of posting - I'm on recess hours, I'm depressed beyond weeping at the Deputy Leadership contest, and (until this morning - hurrah for payday!) I've been extremely broke. I'll be back proper on Monday...intermittent posting until then.

Anyway, here's a very good article from Philip Cowley on the above intra-Cabinet bunfight which is very interesting.

Naturally, as it's Cowley it focuses primarily on issues of procedure and political anorakdom, and the importance of the second preference and the affiliated organisations.

Naturally as he's on Comment is Free, the first poster has chosen to talk about Iraq.

Wonderful.

The Apprentice

Jesus wept - is anyone else watching this? Genuine car-crash TV; even Sralan looks more than unusually appalled.

Everyone on holiday then?

Sensible people. I should be; I forgot I wasn't meant to be working today. D'oh.

I have nothing of interest to say today, nor does the rest of the bloggersphere by the looks of it apart from Idiots4Labour who have produced this highly useful guide to the Compass elections.

Just another miserable Monday
But I have a cool picture of St Paul's in the rain which makes up for the fact I'm talking boringly about Parliamentary procedure for the most part of this post

Well, I don't know what it's been like for BBF-ers in the shires, but here in London it started raining on Friday night and it hasn't stopped. Bank Holidays in Blighty, eh? You can't beat 'em.

Anyway, to business.

At the risk of displaying Parliamentary ignorance which will doubtless be roundly laughed at by political anoraks of my acquaintance, I have a question: I was reading something on the Public Whip about Maclean's PMB to limit the scope of freedom of information in Parliament and came across this:

"The curious thing about Private Members Bills is that they are incredibly easy to slow down and stop. Of particular puzzlement is whynobody objected to it at second reading. All that it would have required would be for one MP to shout out "object". But nobody did."

BUT I thought that you could only destroy a PMB like this if the tabling Member asked for the Bill to be given a second reading without debate...which wouldn't apply in this case, right?

Nonetheless, they are probably right about the surprisingly high turnout in the Chamber a week ago Friday. Fridays are usually the day when MPs are "doing their democratic duty" by opening tombolas, being seen "listening" to their constituents, holding surgeries, sorting out drains and gutterings, and generally doing all the stuff that The Public (TM) thinks constitutes "being a good MP". Representing their interests in the scrutiny of legislation at Westminster is not generally seen by The Public (TM) as a good use of the Member's time when they could be "listening" or cleaning up the dog poo outside number 27 with a toothbrush...except on all the occasions where it is and he should have been doing this instead of hanging around here trying to get in our good books. They're all the same, aren't they?

[sorry. Spleen vented]

In other news, I will be having homemade steak and guiness pie for my tea, served with mashed potatoes, leeks, peas and plenty of thick gravy. If you're lucky, I'll post a picture later.

You see! I know what The Public (TM) wants. I should stand as an MP.

I think I should be doing something else

I am watching Cash In The Attic.

Somebody shoot me now.

PS: this is well worth a read.

How low can you go?
In other news: Hamer is hungover

[staggers blearily onto the BBF. Looks around at the half-empty bottle of wine, assorted glasses, and rapidly congealing steak-and-gravy detritus and scattered, hardening pie crusts. Nice]

Ugh. I think I fell of the water wagon in style last night. Never mind, Question Time was particularly poor, and I couldn't have got through it without alcoholic refreshment although there were some hilarious moments on This Week afterwards. But I just can't take it anymore; what happened to the times when I gave the University rugby team a run for its money in terms of pints downed? These days it only takes two glasses of rosé and I'm shouting "what're you looking at?" at supercilious bag-carriers in the Lords'. Oh well, old age I suppose.

Anyway, the subject of my post today is going to be the descent of the Deputy Leadership contest into such hissy displays of bitchslapping that if you stuck 'em all in blonde wigs you could pretend that they were fighting for the mantle of Miss Aberystwyth.

It's been bad since last September. First was Peter Hain's indecent haste to give Jack Straw a kicking over his comments on the niqab, on the assumption that the latter was standing. Classy, work, Peter. Then Hilary Benn began muttering that "we needed a debate" about Trident (I think it was Benn - I am operating on half-remembered episodes of TIP) in an attempt to kiss up to the membership. Now we've got to watch the excrutiating transformation of Harriet Harman from paid-up feminist to a lollipop sucking compliant who is incapable of uttering an opinion that does not contain the words "I'm a wickle girly-wirly". Hazel Blears has recently been claiming that she "wins" hustings; how does one "win" a hustings, incidentally? I can't think of anything that St Alan of Johnson has done, but I may well be biased: suggestions in the comments box please. And oi! Cruddas! Where do you think you're sneaking off to? What's that? You've done nothing wrong? One word, Jon: FACEBOOK. Seemingly every bloody MP has a profile on it now thanks to you, and it's only a matter of time before the Master finds out about this and starts demanding an entry too. Don't you think I deal with enough constituency correspondence without having to be a 24-hour a day moderator on Facebook as well? Thanks a bunch.

I could cope with all of this, although barely, if the election was next week. But it isn't - we're barely two weeks in and every day the campaigning is sinking to new lows. Call me prissy, but I don't approve of internal bitching about other candidates on the bloggersphere, and I certainly don't approve of it on Deputy Leader campaign sites - official or not. Debate on issues: fine. Shameless point scoring that divides us and brings the Party into disrepute: not fine. Whoever wins, we've all got to work with each other afterwards and there is nothing to be gained by bitchslapping the other candidates.

So it was sadness and irritation that I saw this entry on the Backing Benn site (an unofficial site, supporting Benn) this morning. I'm not going to replicate it, because I hope that whichever over-enthusiastic bag-carrier posted it will reconsider and take it down. Basically, the post wilfully misconstrues and blows up out of all proportion comments made by Hazel Blears, and accuses her of "pork barrel" politics. I know the site isn't official, but frankly I think Mr Benn should take an interest in how sites aligned to him construct their narrative. Not least because the site advertises Mr Benn's charms in the following terms:

Our choice for deputy leader, Hilary Benn, is a stand-up guy. He's unusual for a politician because he's approachable, friendly, sincere and treats people with respect - regardless of whether they agree or disagree with him. Most of all, he has none of the arrogance and self importance that seems obligatory for many politicians.

Yeah, you know, if you're going to construct your pitch in the language of the Power Inquiry, you might do well to consider that placing a post right next to it accusing a fellow candidate of seeking the DL in order to "feather her constituents' nests" does not look "sincere" or provide any evidence of "treating people with respect". I carry no particular brief for Ms Blears, but I think that we should leave the smear campaigns to the people who do it best: the Tories.

Can we please, please try to keep this ladylike?

Contention: The People (TM) need more say

I am watching Question Time.

Before I answer this question, can I ask whether the audience of the above is representative?

Bollocks, bring back Clemency (played by Barbie Cholmondley-Warner). She was no more vacuous than the Ron Weasley-alike in the audience tonight, and far easier on the eye...pip pip!

Alan Johnson: the man (apart from the required Deputy Leadership balls...he has to talk to the Labour Party rather than the public which is why Michael "Mad Hatter" Heseltine and the blonde 'un from the Daily Mail are getting more hooting and paw-clapping from the seals in the audience). Bob Crow...ARRRRRRGH! He's evoking the same dislike that the very-well-catered-for Arthur Scargill does in me now.

Diane Abbott is on in a minute. More wine.

Hamer has spoken. End communication.

There is rejoicing on the streets of Salford!
The return of Idiots4Labour

Last night - in a slightly gin besotted haze - I stumbled across the fabulous news that Idiots4Labour is up and running again!

Time to dust off those Labour Party rulebooks, cancel the Compass subscriptions, and get the Neal Lawson dartboard out once more.

Their new site can be found here...let's encourage the reprobates to get posting again. Lord knows, they have plenty of material to work with at the moment.

Hurrah!

I'll have a large helping of smoke and mirrors, please!
Bullingdon cigar smoke, and mirrors in the Carlton club that is

Fascinating story over on Iain Dale about what the "senior" members of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (no, me neither) think about our glorious leader. That is, Brown.

Shockingly, everybody interviewed seems to think that Gordo is nowhere near as winsome as that nice Mr Cameron with his hair and his lovely photoshoots, but the most cruel blow of all comes from the news that NOBODY thought that Brown is a better communicator than the Boy Dave.

Zilcho. Zero percent. NOBODY.

Frankly, even if Harriet Harman's polling team had turned up this statistic I would have raised an eyebrow, much less an independent organisation of the stature of the Chartered Organisation of PR Dudes (or whatever).

So, being a net-curtain twitching, nosy sort - and having never heard of the shower who commissioned this poll - I did a cursory once-over of their organisation and their senior management.

The president is one "Lionel Zetter". Whether he is the same "Lionel Zetter" who was the failed Conservative candidate for Edmonton in the 2005 general election and former Conservative association chair of that parish, is open to debate. Afterall, both "Lionel" and "Zetter" are very common names.

It's all probably just a coincidence - you know, this attempted hatchet job and a "Lionel Zetter" being a Tory and all.

Just a coincidence?

Deputy Leader election part the ninety-fourth

Comrade Cross' post on the hustings last night is well worth a read. Have a look here.

The curse of the "personalisation agenda"
Did Labour lose control of the citizenship narrative?

Jesus wept, that sounds pretentious doesn't it? Never mind, here we go.

I was reading this largely incomprehensible article by Liam Byrne and her from the Social Market Foundation on Comment is Free this morning, and considering why - when undoubtedly things have got a lot better in the NHS - the Daily Mail are still merrily running headlines which detail horror stories about pensioners left to rot whilst asylum seekers are getting free hookers for sex therapy through their PCT. Whilst I, like many of my comrades, are more than willing on many occasions to blame the ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate for fostering a climate of unjustified disillusionment with public services, I think that in this instance some of the blame can be attributed to the "choice agenda". In short, this one could well be our fault.

I'm not going to get into quoting "lottery figure" numbers about the increase in staffing and funds that have been allocated to the health service since 1997 (PMQs is starting in a minute; you can all howl with inaccurately directed derision when Tone brings them up) but it's undeniable that things have got better. From a personal perspective, I have experience first hand the difference pre and post-1997. And yet, why is there as much opprobium heaped on the Government when someone has to wait ten days to get their ingrowing toenail looked at as there was when people were routinely dying whilst waiting for essential surgery?

The difference, I think, is down to the "choice agenda" and the Government's desire to personalise the NHS. Not a bad thing in itself, you might think, except for the fact that it encourages people to think as consumers rather than citizens when they access state services. And this doesn't work.

I have always thought that the personalisation of services to cater for each individual's needs is doomed to failure; the NHS has to provide a vast array of different services to pretty much all of the population. To ask them, on top of that, to somehow tailor their wares to each person who wanders through the hospital doors claiming vaguely that "it hurts" and wanting them to do something about it is setting ourselves up for failure. But it's too late now - if there's one huge mistake we've made it's getting the NHS in pretty damn good shape but at the same time invoking the language of the consumer in order to encourage users to view the service as the medical equivalent of the Amazon bookshop: I want my piles looked at NOW, why should I care that this is a service that treats 60 million odd people some of whom are more in need than me? I AM A CONSUMER, HEAR ME ROAR!

Instead of challenging the acceleration in the language of capitalism and consumerism in terms of Government, politics, and the state, we've capitulated to it and are desperately trying to sell ("sell" being the operative word) policies and services as if they were iPods and brie. It's utter lunacy, you can't do it, and all that happens is that people stop seeing state services as a form of collective ownership and distribution and begin judging them unfavourable up against other "products".

With our language of "modernisation" and "putting the patient at the heart of the NHS" we've been slowly teaching everybody that their needs - irrespective of what they are - come first. The NHS cannot provide this service on these terms, and so people begin to think of it as a failure, that "things haven't got better".

People should approach the NHS, like all other state-provided services, as citizens not consumers; there needs to be a recognition that here - unlike Amazon or Tescos - you are not a customer, you are not necessarily the most important person in the store and, occasionally (like in the superstore), you may be required to queue.

The fact of the matter is that in its desire to "modernise", the Labour Party is in danger of forgetting the language of citizenry and this has implications for how the state and politics is seen in general. I have posted before about how constituents are increasingly approaching their MPs as if they were the last outpost of a customer complaints department rather than elected representatives whom they appoint to scrutinise legislation on their behalf. In much correspondence these days there is the undertone of "and if you don't do what I want I will vote you out", combined with a form of rage that The System doesn't allow them to personally boot out the unfortunate MP themselves, as is their God-given right as a consumer.

I don't believe that there was a "golden age" of brilliant MPs who selflessly stood up to their respective parties for What Was Right, but perhaps what was different in the past was that constituents didn't routinely treat their Members as gardeners/butlers/drain-men for hire, and then roundly berate them when they weren't cleaning the dog poo outside number 28 personally?

The public and the private are now amalgamated into one in the eyes of the public; we are all consumers now. And this is bad for the Labour Party because if everyone believes that things have got worse because their expectations on what services they can access has been raised to an unrealistic high which can never be met by the state, then this allows Shiny Dave and the Eton Hoorays to smoothly propose REAL personalisation of health services ("look, the current system just isn't working for consumers")...which in Tory dialect translates as "privatisation".

Fact is, the Tories have always spoken this language better than us, and we've won the battle but we're losing the discursive war on what it means to be a citizen. And when that happens, when there's truly "no such thing as society", then that's when the feral individualism of Conservatism can find a fertile breeding ground for its I'm-alright-Jack style approach to such matters.

So I'd disagree with Mr Byrne...we don't need "personal control of public services" - we need to find a way to remind people that the public and the private (or "public" and "personal" if you prefer) sphere overlap but are different, and that politics should be approached from the perspective of the citizen not the consumer.

I sometimes think that Labour forgets the difference between these two states of being, but they are different and by refusing to recognise this, we're just writing the deeds and handing everything we've achieved over to the people who most want to destroy it.

Spider Man 3

Is it worth paying money to see this, or shall I just wait until 2048 when it's released on terrestrial?

I longed for truth, and loved illusion
The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, and David Maclean's mini-moto

I have come to realise that every time an earth-shaking Parliamentary measure or some form of scandal is breaking, that I will be either out at a picnic, cleaning the bathroom, or generally otherwise engaged. I don't plan this, it just happens; I put it down to forgetfulness consequent upon advanced old age. In fact, if the members of the Fourth Estate are interested in knowing when the next seismic shift in UK politics is going to occur, just email me and I'll tell you when I'm going on holiday or am taking the cat to the vet. For it will be then.

This lengthy mea culpa is by way of explaining that I managed not only to miss the debate on Maclean's Bill on Friday, but also failed to listen to Today in Parliament and so am relying on Hansard to find out what went on. Hansard is similar to the Starr Report ("he then indicated to Ms Lewinsky that he was not averse to the concept nor practical realisation of ora1 sex"); one loses that cetain je ne sais quoi in the codification I always find.

Anyway, Maclean's Bill passed and is now off to the Lords for consideration, amid the frothings from the usual suspects. Frankly, I find it quite difficult to get worked up over this one either way, but having listened to Andrew Dismore (I think - apologies if I am wrong) on TIP last week explaining that the release of letters from MPs to various agencies form a certain "grey area" in terms of whether they are FOI-able, I think there is a case to be made for further assurances that constituents' correspondence is, and always will be, confidential.

Bag-carriers from all political parties will know that the letters we get range from the mad, to the bad, to the horrific and I can completely understand the concern that some have that such information is made publicly available. For the record, I don't think that the MPs who supported this Bill did so out of a desire - in the words of Make It An Issue, to "protect themselves from public scrutiny" because, frankly, any letters sent on the subject of Mrs Jones guttering is hardly going to excite national interest or condemnation. Constituents and MPs have to have to operate on the basis that their confidences are, well, confidential and public faith in elected offices is not going to be increased by facilitating the release of such discussions.

But on balance - nothing to get the collective Parliamentary undies in a twist about I'd have thought. Seeing as it's not been a problem thus far, I'd be up for having that argument when it comes to it, rather than to be seen attempting to remove MPs from the laws that apply to everyone else.

There is one exception to this, however, and this relates to the advice given to Ministers by advisors. This, in my view, shouldn't be FOI-able because Ministers are held to public account on the basis of the decisions they make, not on the advice they receive and might choose not to take. All that will happen if advice is routinely made available to the public is that nobody will give it any more...and that, frankly, is a frightening thought.

Where there should be more scrutiny, in my view, is over MPs expenses. There was a lot of hilarity over the discovery that Mr Maclean has purchased a quad-bike for "Parliamentary uses". These vehicles are well-known to bag-carriers as a prime source of anti-social behaviour amongst recalcitrant yoof, and it's pretty darn funny to think of one supporting the bottom of a Conservative MP who is seeking to make the scrutiny related to the purchasing of such equipment on the Incidental Expenses Provision more opaque.

I shall not name names (in order to protect the guilty), but even given the relatively recent decisions to release MPs expenditure, I don't think that the current rules go far enough as some MPs (not, of course, Mr Maclean and his quad-bike) are taking the p*ss in terms of what they purchase with their IEP. The IEP, if I am correct, is merely released as a lump sum on the MPs' Expenditure report but doesn't go into detail about what was actually purchased. Tedious as I am sure that most of the purchases are, there is the odd case of monies not being used to buy stuff necessary to the smooth running of an office. In essence, I think that expenditure above a certain threshold should be itemised and made available to the public.

God, I'm boring myself now, so to conclude:

Constituents' correspondence: there are issues here, but given that it's being reported in the press as "MPs TRY TO FOB YOU OFF AGAIN, AIN'T THEY EVIL!!1221!!!" and that such correspondence is at least nominally protected by the Data Protection Acts, we should just leave this one to the gods and the Information Commissioner and attempt to deal with any problems if and when they arise.

Advice to Ministers: should not be available under FOI because it will lead to the situation where advisors are unhappy to give it lest they are personally made responsible for bad policy decisions when actually, it's the Minister's call what happens and it's them who should be responsible to the House and to us. We elect them, not their staff.

MPs expenses: need to be more transparent. I'm not saying that every biro-purchase needs to be itemised but there is a public interest in knowing how large sums are spent and upon what.

Sorry, sorry

I'll try and post something today but I'm:

(a) very busy; and
(b) chronically lacking in inspiration.

If you see a bloke shouting "alight! Muse!" around the Portcullis House area - that'll be me.

Hiatus
Try and contain your pain

Sorry folks, but there will be no wit, wisdom, or snagger updates on the BBF for a few days...but I should be back online by Sunday.

Email in videos of damsels wailing and renting their clothing in grief at this news to the usual address.

Question Time!

Clemency Burton-Hill (who is played by Barbie Cholmondley-Warner) is on QT!

To be fair, she's not displayed any remarkable inanity...yet.

More tomorrow; I appear to be burning pasta at the moment.

Le roi est mort, vive le roi!

Oh, and well done Gordon

Oh Gordon! Say it ain't so! Say it ain't so!

I've been increasingly concerned with some of the comments coming from the direction our newly enobled leader, Comrade Brown in recent weeks about "constitutional reform" because, in the distance, I thought I could hear the approaching rumble of the words "excellent report by the Power Inquiry" and "Helena Kennedy".

Now I learn that Brown plans to introduce "reforms" presumably with the aim of getting da kidz and the iChoonz generation involved in politics.

GORDON! Don't do it son: remember Foundation Hospitals? "Getting people involved in the provision of local services?" and "genuine devolution to local people"? What happened? For all the faux-outrage from vox-poppees (talk is very cheap if you are a vox-poppee), still no bugger wanted to actually do any work to actually bring about this oft lamented elusive utopia - perish the thought - and the same group of the already engaged took over the proceedings.

So what we have now is local health provision determined by a tiny minority of the middle-classes - the Guardian reading, Power Inquiry fanclub who comprise the sort of people who already have a hand in local government anyway. And on top of that, everybody immediately starts moaning about "postcode lotteries" so it ends up being your fault in the final analysis anyway.

Just think about it, Gordon, just for a minute before you throw away the concept of representative democracy entirely and replace it with a Bill that comprises the ill-thought intellectual deficit of Power.

FACT: People aren't as interested in politics as they say they are. The say they want "more say" but this isn't borne out by evidence that tracks what they actually do about getting their voices heard. See the Audits of Political Engagement.

FACT: Trying to impress the yoof by the introduction of text-message divisions and Podcasts on the reformation of delegated legislation and what to do about the thirteenth sitting Friday and the Slaughter of the Innocents will NOT make you look cool in their eyes. It will make you look like an uncle dancing badly in a nightclub, clad in an orange cagoul.

FACT: Madder and more insane plans to get a public who can't be arsed engaged in the process by utilising the vacuity of the Power Inquiry will only end in disaster.

Take my word for it son, you're better off having a loooooooong think about this one.

That Deputy Leadership briefing in full
File this one under "boring but important", folks

I’ve deliberately held off from commenting on the Deputy Leadership race – not least because I found the massive campaigning over the past six months for a post that was not vacant somewhat unseemly – but I can hold it in no more.

Here on the BBF, I gives you an ever-so-slightly irreverent look at the candidates…and this time I will be nicer about Jon Cruddas.

Just one word before we set off: regardless of how supportive us bloggers (experience our mighty, mighty power eh?) feel about our candidates of choice, let’s keep it in line with the Queensbury Rules shall we comrades? When this is all over, we’ll still all be in the Labour Party and the only people that will benefit from lingering animosities are the likes of Shiny Faced Dave and his merry band of Eton Hoorays.

Oh, and sorry about the relative dullness. I'm not feeling particularly witty this week [gives the one-fingered salute to the anticipated chorus of "were you ever?" from the BBF readership].

So, in alphabetical order, here we go:

Hilary Benn
Background: Member of Parliament for Leeds Central, and current International Development Secretary.
Pros and cons: Only just made it to the 45 nominations required, but is a decent man by all accounts. I can only assume that his failure to get the numbers is down to a bit of late payback for his awkward father or that people feel that he hasn’t received an effective enough blooding in his capacity as the Secretary of State for Hugging Poor People And Handing Out Money. Still, a genuinely nice guy.
Website: http://www.benn4deputy.org/
Nominations so far: 42
BBF suggested campaign song: Something by Cliff Richard, probably.
Most likely to say: “Where’s my chequebook?”
Least likely to say: “Do you know who my father is?”

Hazel Blears
Background: Member of Parliament for Salford and current Labour Party Chair.
Pros and cons: Enthusiastic lady is our Hazel, the sort of woman whose energy makes one feel lethargic even when in a sedentary position. Having a woman as DPM is seen as a good thing (and really, the presence of boobs shouldn’t discourage LP members in this day and age) but maybe she’s seen as a little too ultra-Blairite? Does this set the average member's teeth slightly on edge? Will this count against her in the brave new dawn heralded by our man Brown?
Website: http://www.hazelblears.com/
Nominations so far: 49
BBF suggested campaign song: Ladies’ Night by Atomic Kitten. Shake that booty, Hazel!
Most like to say: “Super! When do we start?”
Least likely to say: “God, I cannot be bothered today. Let’s stay in eating last night’s congealed pizza and watching re-runs of America’s Next Top Model.”

Jon Cruddas
I'm open to suggestions in terms of avatars - post in comments or email in with suggestions. The winner gets a shiny penny and yesterday's Hansard.
UPDATE: Congratulations to Comrade M. I now seem to have b*ggered my formatting.
Background: former bag-carrier to Blair (woohoo! Up the bag-carriers!) and current Member of Parliament for Dagenham.
Pros and cons: Cruddas started as an outsider but, from the off had an impressive online presence. I may have been a little unfair on Mr Cruddas in the past (inferring that his popularity was limited to bloggers) but I’ve had a rethink on this. He’s said a lot of sensible things on the need for affordable housing – correctly identified in my view by the excellent Idiots4Labour as the issue that Labour really needs to address under a Brown premiership – and amongst the obligatory guff spouted by all the candidates about “needing to reconnect with the grass roots” there seems to be a genuine desire on his part to…er…reconnect with the grassroots. He’s also said he doesn’t want the Cabinet role of DPM if he’s successful. Nonetheless, as a former insider on the Blair project, and as a relative unknown how he will fare north of the Watford Gap service station and outside the bloggersphere is anyone’s guess.
Website: http://www.joncruddas.org.uk/
Nominations so far: 46
BBF suggested campaign song: I Believe That Children Are The Future, by whoever this saccarine vomit-fest was by. Replace "children" with "currently disconnected members of the Labour grassroots", natch.
Most likely to say: “Real action is called for. I propose we start a group on Facebook.”
Least likely to say: “I used to work for Tony Blair you know”

Peter Hain
Background: Member of Parliament for Neath, and Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland.
Pros and cons: A veteran of many Departments, Hain has considerable experience in Government as well as an excellent track-record in fighting apartheid and on anti-racism issues, but has been struggling – until recently - to get the nominations from amongst the PLP. He’s been saying all the right things, but there is a sneaking suspicion that he’s somewhat, as the Labour phrase goes, “pragmatic” in his approach to canvassing support around the country and from within the PLP (cf New Statesman article on how Bush is a bit of a problem. Yes we know. Have you only just discovered this?). However, I have a sneaking admiration for someone who’s done so many different jobs (and has recently played a blinder over machinations to get those folks talking in the Northern Ireland Assembly) and he appears to have a good deal of trade union support. But in the era of OMOV does that matter much, if he doesn’t have the support on the ground, as is rumoured?
Website: http://www.hain4labour.org/
Nominations so far: 50
BBF suggested campaign song: I Can See Clearly Now The Rain Has Gone, by either the Hothouse Flowers or Jimmy Cliff. The Oracle is unsure on the authorship of this one.
Most likely to say: “Tony Blair? Who’s he?”
Least likely to say: “No sorry, I can’t fit your media request into my schedule.”

Harriet Harman
Background: Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham, and formerly in the DCA and Solicitor General if memory serves.
Pros and cons: Well, first pro: Harriet is A Woman. It is important that there is A Woman as Deputy Leader. As you will see from the nominations, lots of Men think it’s important that there is A Woman as Deputy Leader too. Apart from this – I find – slightly Uncle Tom-ish appeal on the basis of her sex, Harman has done some excellent work on domestic violence and violence against women. There’s also a lot of polling been done on Harman (by Harman) that demonstrates that she would be the most popular DPM candidate to serve with Brown.
Website: http://www.harrietharman.org/
Nominations so far: 63
BBF suggested campaign song: Biology by Girls Aloud. Men like Girls Aloud, you see.
Most likely to say: “I’m A Woman.”
Least likely to say: “Anyone seen my copy of the SCUM Manifesto?”

Alan Johnson
Background: Member of Parliament for Hull West and Hessle, and Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
Pros and cons: Classic working boy made good credentials (okay, even I get a little misty-eyed over these) who gives the impression you’d prefer him on your side when facing an alley full of hoodies bent on destruction than any one or all of the PLP put together. He seems to be popular with both the membership and the PLP. Seen as neither a Blairite or a Brownite, he could be the candidate to re-unite the Labour Party after our lovely election related descent into civil war, which we all secretly enjoy so much. Cons? *cough* top-up fees *cough* Post Office *cough*. But Jackie Ashley doesn’t like him which is reason enough to endorse him in my view.
Website: http://www.johnson4deputy.org/
Nominations so far: 70
BBF suggested campaign song: Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. (You know, “I’m just a poor boy", etc).
Most likely to say: “What are you looking at?”
Least likely to say: “What ho, chaps! Let’s sashay down to the Garrick and have some Pimms and champers, what what!”

Which only leaves me to tell you who I’m going to vote for.

Well, probably Alan Johnson. I like big, clunking fists you see - and I reckon the public secretly do too, however much they admire that nice Mr Cameron's new hairstyle. I could still be persuaded by Cruddas, however.

Who are you supporting? Oh, and a tip - don't do a Google image search on "Jessica Rabbit" at work, folks [shudder]. There are some, weird, disturbed people in the world.

Utter vacuity

Just when you though Jackie Ashley could not plumb further the swamps of spittle-flecked, irrelevant insania...she surprises you by doing just that.

My favourite bit from her article "The Last Thing Labour Needs":

"So it seems obvious that the last thing the Labour party needs is a blokeish deputy leader who is proud to claim endorsement from the party's original male chauvinist pig. John Prescott, remember, is the man who just a short while ago was all over the newspapers with his secretary's legs round his neck. His view of women is that they are most useful when on their knees under a desk, "servicing" an important man who can barely be bothered to look up from his papers. John Prescott is worse than a joke, he's a disgrace, and why Alan Johnson wants to boast that he is the natural successor to Prescott mystifies me."

What the...?

Order of the Golden Bottom
"I'm in on Gordon's campaign, you know"

This was overheard at the Portcullis House cafeteria this morning whilst I was purchasing a much needed Shawcross beverage and a Twix.

The sharp-suited aspirant (age: roughly 20 to 27, but they're all looking pretty young these days) was basking the the glow of a HoC Visitor sticker and the awe of a young apprentice.

Aspirant: Have you been to the campaign headquarters?
Young Paduan: No! Have you?
Aspirant: Oh, I'm there all the time at the moment [sighs with affected weariness].
Young Paduan: Do you see much of Gordon Brown?
Aspirant: You could say that: I've practically got his number on speed dial.
Hamer: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Email in further insanity to the usual address - anonymity guaranteed and I will check all text with you before I post it.

Nothing to see here...

Sorry folks, just because we are in the eye of a leadership storm doesn't mean that the casework stops coming.

Hopefully I'll have something for you later when I get home.

By the way, to the person who just commented on last week's Urquhart discussion: I accidentally deleted your comment instead of posting it - sorry! If you want to resubmit I'll try not to be such an idiot and endeavour to press the right button this time.

Monday miscellania
Because coming up with something even vaguely witty is beyond me today

There's an interesting and (rare) sympathetic piece on John Prescott on Friday's Today in Parliament. BBF-ers may know that I am something of a Prezza fan (regardless of his human lapses) to the astonishment of my real-life friends.

You can listen to the most recent episode here.

Meanwhile, Comrade Cross has some interesting information on the McDonnell/Meacher stand-off, which has been threatening to attain levels of hiterto unscaled petulancy in recent weeks. Personally, I'd prefer to see McDonnell on the ballot paper than Meacher (whose discovery that he was against Blair and all his evil new Labour works occured at exactly the same time the latter chucked him out of office. Convenient, eh?) on the grounds that he seems a genuine, decent enough man. Kerron reckons that Meacher's nominations stand up to better scrutiny than McDonnells however.

On Friday we've got the second reading of former Conservative chief whip David Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill and, given that it's first up at 9.30...could it become law? They need 100 MPs to force a vote. However, Norman "Narcolepsy" Baker spoke at "heroic" length in the first reading apparently. Will the required number of MPs turn up to support Maclean a second time, or will they come to the conclusion that life is too short to listen to Mr Baker's attempts at filibustering?

I for one will be watching. Or snoring, depending on Mr Baker's attendance at the proceedings.

The Politics Show
And introducing the Order of the Golden Bottom

George Osbourne is the most annoying politician I've been subjected to since the last Tory I watched harrumphed off camera. Insufferably smug, irritatingly voiced, and genuinely oblivious to the fact that politics is life-and-death rather than an extension of his Presidency at the Oxford Union.

And frankly, I think that accusing Gordon Brown of not having "substance" is like submitting oneself to a lecture on marriage fidelity from Shagger Norris.

John McDonnell seems a decent enough cove, however. I'm still voting for Brown, mind.

Now the Politics Show seems to be demonstrating - via the undisputed and Oracle-style wisdom of the opinions of the General Public (TM) - that things have actually got worse under Labour. People think wages are lower, the health service is falling apart, and the economy ain't no good.

Hmmm. Are we shure about this. Is it possible that the opinions of vox-poppees could be...wrong?

No swooning at the back please. And speaking of talking balls, what the hell's Ming up to? He gets slaughtered in the locals last week (if the night wasn't so good for Labour or even the Tories, it was disasterous for the Liberals) but is adamant he wants a general called as soon as Brown takes over?

Far be it from me to suggest that if Brown actually turned around to him and said, "yeah, okay then", he'd be horrified at the prospect... Ming's certainly doing his bit in terms of contributing to the strange death of Liberal England, but if he succeeded in getting an election called now, all that would be left to do would be to nail down the coffin.

Never mind. Here is some bacon and sausages: