Who is Grant Tucker and Conservative Future

Not Malcolm's younger brother, no. Grant Tucker Esq is Iain Dale's new Executive Assistant. He is also the newly elected Chair of Conservative Future Wales (despite living in London working for The Nations Favourite Political Blogger TM)

Several months ago he was forced to step down after comments made on his Facebook page about George Galloway; in which he stated he would like to see the terrorist supporting, Saddam Hussein helping, race baiting MP dead. Gorgeous George took umbrage to this and threatened to involve the Police. Odd, considering that Tucker was 17, didn't really threaten him, and Galloway had previously stated that assassination of Tony Blair and George W Bush would be just. (That pair taking offence might have been, you know, a little more justified)

So despite his immature statement, his decision (the parties decision) to step down, Tucker is back with vengeance! Re-elected quicker than a Peter Mandelson return to the Cabinet all whilst leaving Gods favourite country for that there London. Hope he has a young persons railcard.

Anyway, this isn't a personal attack on Tucker, Keir is sure that he is a perfectly pleasant fellow, although he does muse whether the Norfolk North botherer was au fait with the "highly knowledgeable and articulate young man..." he chose past. but it does highlight a wider issue. A scandal hit candidate re-elected easily? How so you might ask? Well, out of 18,000 members, 200 cast ballots! 200! Casts Tories comments on the Union turnout in the leadership campaign in a new light and makes an interesting contrast with this:

100 new members at the Cardiff University Labour Students Society. great turn out and great showing. the fight back begins...

Political Reform?

Both Clegg and Cleggerer now support the "right to recall" MPs; something which across the pond happens quite regularly: a recall in 2003 of California Gov. Gray Davis led to the election of the Governator, Ahnuld.

Keir knows why the right to recall was proposed; for similar reasons that a referendum on the voting system was proposed.

1. The Liberal Democrats are shameless local campaigners and the possibility of recalling an MP mid Parliament would not only give them added impetus (because you can guarantee any issue, be it slight or even only perceived would be waved around by the Libs: what constitutes an issue big enough to even attempt a recall is a problem and was the catalyst of writing this...) but also the opportunity to maybe pick up one or two seats. (A recall campaign would be all about GOTV; and the Libs can be pretty good at this.) As with reform of the voting system, the Libs support this because it is to their advantage.

2. The Liberals support 'political reform' because its part of their created personality: it is amongst the things they do: eat muesli, read the Independent, want to put us all at risk by abolishing Trident (and supporting a rise in VAT more recently!). They have cultivated this personality; they are 'different' from the "same old tired two parties" (if Keir had a tenner every time Cleggy had said that during the election campaign he could physically come back to life, not just through the blogosphere) although this might now be at risk because no longer can they sit on the sidelines throwing shit...

3. Because all parties were desperately incapable of coping with the fall out from the expenses furore. While admittedly, the drip drip from the Torygraph didn't help, nor the rabid reaction from the most vocal person any TV crew could find, most MPs, in fact, were probably guilty of some sort of abuse of their expenses, even if completely legal. Take for example Jenny Willott, the reelected Liberal Democrat MP from Cardiff Central. She claimed 1700 pounds for a bed. Why so much? Because it was the only bed she could dissasemble to fit into her flat in Adamsdown (or wherever she lives now!) You, as much as Keir, know that that is utter bollocks!
All parties were completely incapable of dealing with the expenses because they were all as guilty as each other (Yes, I know what the Liberals pretend, but see David Laws and his hubby, and the insufferable Sarah Teather and her Office situation), and other than saying "We won't do it again" and reforming the expenses system, (both particularly unmeasurable by the public) what could they do, anyway? Therefore, "political reform"; AV and 'recall' is an attempt of cooling the anger of the electorate: and I feel that some are falling into this trap: see the support for AV in the most recent polls. AV is hardly more proportional, and doesn't really address the problem of expenses: which is that certain MPs were venal thieves, while several were criminal.

So why did Keir write this blogpost? Well, Mark Reckless MP (Con-Rochester and Stroud) self diagnosed himself as being too drunk to vote on the second reading of the Finance Bill, early Wednesday morning. The expense crisis was a one off (and any MP who is worth their salt will be very careful where expenses are concerned in the future) so 'recall' is not going to be used to punish that. The question is: was Mark Reckless reckless enough to be recalled? Does getting shedded on the public purse while doing the peoples work constitute grounds for recall?

More on David Laws

He did nothing wrong, he was persecuted because of his sexuality!

Yeah, Right.

OFCOM states that Sky News is biased, aggressive and Tory

The media regulator Ofcom has dismissed almost 2,800 complaints about Sky News's coverage of the general election.

Viewers had objected to Adam Boulton's treatment of the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, and his on-screen clash with the former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell, aas well as Kay Burley's interview with an electoral reformist.

Boulton, the Sky News political editor, attracted 1,787 complaints. A total of 671 viewers complained about an interview between Boulton and Campbell on Monday 10 May. Most of the complainants objected to what they viewed as unprofessional behaviour by Boulton, who appeared to lose his temper after Campbell accused him of being "upset that David Cameron is not prime minister".

"Two well-known personalities from the worlds of politics and journalism were taking part in a debate about a matter of topical and serious concern," said Ofcom. "We considered that although the tone and content of this exchange was unusual, it would not have been beyond the likely expectations of the audience for this channel."

Here.

Oh dear David

Somewhere in the first half of 'The Blair Years', extracts Alastair Campbell's diaries released a few years ago, Campbell writes about a phone call he received in August 1997 from the News of the World, informing him that they would be running a story about Robin Cook's affair: 'your first sex scandal' Keir thinks, from memory, the line is.

It took Labour four months and it has taken the Coalition less than a month! Arise David Laws, the man variously described as a Tories favourite Liberal and a 'Bond villain'

But the David Laws story is much more than just a sex scandal. It is upsetting in the sense that Laws felt uncomfortable coming out, it is also upsetting that Laws has well and truly thrown his boyfriend under the bus to save himself, but more of that later.

So what is the story? To put it simply: a homosexual cabinet minister (who is, incidentally, a millionaire) in an attempt to hide his sexuality continues to claim rent for a second home when he is, in fact, living with his partner (claiming for rent to pay spouse or partner is forbidden). Said cabinet minister has defended himself by saying that he never really considered his partner as, well, his partner, pointing out that they didn't have shared bank accounts or shared social lives.

The definition of a partner? 'one of a couple… who although not married to each other or civil partners are living together and treat each other as spouses'.

So why the need to hide then, isn't that the crux of a relationship? If James Lundie didn't fill that definition then, well, he's not his partner and they are not in a relationship!

Keir has had several partners and has 'treated [them] as spouses', but has never had shared bank accounts with them and has always retained 'separate social lives'. Keir's parents have been married for almost 30 years, and have separate bank accounts. It is an odd defence, a defence that seems to be cobbled together and have no consideration for his long term boyfriend who, if it was Keir, would certainly be a bit upset at being described as not a partner!

So what should Laws do?

Keir is rather depressed that the expenses issue has dragged on. Keir also notes Clegg and Cleggerer's often repeated mantra prior to the election "...this discredited parliament", and Clegg's sanctimony on expenses. (Incidentally, Laws took this holier than thou approach in a press release on his website in the midst of the expenses storm)

Should he resign? In a perfect world, yes. Financial impropriety like this definitely discredits the man responsible for telling us proles how many jobs are going to be lost. It also, hopefully, punctures the balloon of 'new politics', of 'change'. Keir thinks he will survive, just about. Keir does idly wonder if this might have had anything to do with his no show on the Campbell dominated QT on Thursday?

One thing Keir is confident of is that if James Lundie was Julie Lundie there would not be this discussion. Equality works two ways.

UPDATE @ 18.42: Looks like Keir was wrong, Ever reliable Iain Dale, Tim Montgomery, and even the lovely Sally Bercow are all twittering that Laws has gone, possibly to be replaced by Chris Huhne or Jeremy Browne. The BBC are yet to pick up...

Mad Nad Fails

Well, Miss Dorries, who already is facing an enquiry into £10,000 of expenses she claimed to 'research and media services', it seems is going to lose out in her wish to see Speaker of the House, John Bercow, deposed.

In a Daily Fail article she wrote on the 16th of May, Mad Nad says that:

The Speaker will need to be authoritative, wise, knowledgeable and command the respect of the chamber. He will need gravitas and principle. In the forthcoming days of the coalition he will also need to be totally impartial.

She then claims that Bercow fulfils none of these criteria. Keir's not sure why not, but she uses a mixture of criticism of his wife and his desire not to wear the finery of office (apparently it reduces his gravitas and authority) to back up her argument.

Well it turns out she won't get her way: Patrick Wintour, in tomorrow's Guardian will state:

Opposition to Bercow is led by backbencher Dorries who claims Bercow failed to uphold the Speaker's "great tradition of authority, control and impartiality".

But Bercow has the support of both Nick Clegg and David Cameron, as well as the interim Labour leader, Harriet Harman.

One source said that if 20 or 30 MPs did vote against Bercow, more than most people predict, the outcome "will be cathartic, forcing a small parliamentary mujahideen to recognise finally that Bercow is legitimate figure".

Now Keir is not a big fan of Bercow, but he's even less of a fan of a self centred, self obsessed Conservative MP, who, whilst taking part in 'Tower Block of Commons' for C4, allegedly offered temazepan to single mothers she stayed with.

Keir will eat his beard if Bercow is defeated.

Edit: But if Iain Dale (worst Parliamentary candidate in history [tm]) is right, then maybe Keir will be seasoning his facial hair.

"Go Shorty, it's your bi..."

Or not.

In echoing LetUsFaceTheFuture's earlier post; I find it very interesting that despite the serious nature of Clare Short's accusations:

Mr Blair "and his mates" decided war was necessary, and "everything was done on a wing and a prayer", Ms Short said.

Despite Shorty claiming that Tony 'Bliar' Blair went to war on a lie, plain and simple (which no other witness, as far as I can recall, have) and "leaned" on his legal advisor, very little have been made of them.

In fact, the BBC ranks her evidence below Sion Simon quitting to run for a position that doesn't exist yet.*

Do you think, perhaps, because out of the whole list of witnesses, her evidence, in that deep voice of hers, was the most predictable; consisting of her repeating "Tony killed innocent kiddies for oil and lied to cabinet, you, and most importantly, me" over and over again?

*Sion Simon. OK the WebCameron video is funny for, well, all the wrong reasons (as a Labour supporter) to be honest. Can't say I'm sorry to see him go though. And to be honest, whilst giving his sis £40k is probably potentially maybe illegal (see, Keir is hedging) this, both the haircut and his foul attitude, is what he should get his collar felt for.

#Kerryin

For the lucky amongst you who have not been bitten by the need to read blogs and bloggers which you find repugnant maybe I should fill you in with a bit of background.

(The lovely) Kerry McCarthy MP, Labour's 'Twitter Tsar' came under sustained attack from right wing bloggers (Tory Bear and everyones favourite non-prospective parliamentary candidate Iain Dale to mention two) over her expenses amongst other things, and this led to the #Kerryout hashtag on Twitter. Her Tory opponent in the seat set up a page on MyConservatives.com and began rapidly raising money (although not that much; not quite £2k) The Tory Bloggers crowed, could this be the first constituency won through the power of internet fundraising and online politics? Would this prove how revolutionary and how so very right they all were?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm?

The terrible twosome of the opposition parties was completed when the usual Fib Dem fictional leaflets appeared, stated that "...only the Lib Dems can beat Labour here...". Usually they show graphs of door-knockings, European Election results, or something else as equally irrelevant to the General Election. This time however, they did not take into account the boundary adjustments that considerable changed the demographic of the seat; dropping them from second to a few thousand behind the Tories in third. But since when have the Lib Dems been concerned with the truth?

Well, Kerry's opponent was Adeela Shafi. The Mirror has a scoop on her today:

A key member of David Cameron's new generation of women MPs has had three county court judgments against her since 2007 - including one for almost £325,000.

And her husband Ijaz Shafi was declared bankrupt in 2000.

Muslim lecturer Adeela Shafi was hand-picked by Cameron to open for him at the 2008 Tory Conference.

He then endorsed her as a Parliamentary candidate and campaigned in her Bristol East constituency along with his shadow cabinet team.

The excellent Political Scrapbook explains the significance clearer and simpler than I ever could:

The Insolvency Act 1986 and Enterprise Act 2002 outlaw undischarged bankrupts from standing for Westminster and provide for bankrupt MPs to be turfed out. Application for a bankruptcy petition by creditors (her husband was declared insolvent in 2000) could leave the Tories without a candidate or, should Shafi pull off a shock win in Bristol East, a Member of Parliament. Scrapbook doubts this is the kind of gamble voters will plump for on May 6.

The bombshell leaves Shafi open to allegations of recklessness from fellow Tories and recalls the recent case of the SNP’s original candidate in the Glasgow North East by-election, who was forced to stand down within five days of selection after failing to declare serious financial problems.

This is the kind of campaign development that party staffers dread and the stuff of absolute nightmares for election agents. What’s that sound?

The wheels coming off one of the Tories’ most visible campaigns.

The rather pathetic right wing campaign comes to an end. Shafi's position must be untenable now. I guess she has already spent most of the money she raised too so thats all wasted on signs and posters with her name on it. Funnily enough there is very little mention of the campaign on the right-wingnuts blogs at the moment, and what is hilarious, is that on the #Kerryout website, the live Twitter stream shows nothing but crowing texts from Labour activists. Score one for the good guys.

Never mind Tory Bear* and Daley, better luck next time. #KERRYIN

*Tory Bear smells a rat by the sound of his rather bitter Tweeting recently!

ooh clever, tip off the mirror, coordinated blog and twitter attack and phone bank on the same day. Labour machine kicks in!

Diddums. Thats right. #GameOn

Tory Sleaze

Some good coverage today and yesterday of the elephant in the Tory Party, Lord Ashcroft. I cannot help but think that if the Deputy Chairman of the Labour Party had such a murky tax status then there would be much more made of it than this. It seems that the new Conservatives are still in the middle of their honeymoon period with the media; and/or their communications staff are much more effective spinners than Labour at the moment. (A bit of both I feel)

Yesterday we saw Billy Hague and Ashcroft in the spotlight. The Guardian led with:

Calls to clarify Lord Ashcroft's position after revelation that he provided flights for William Hague's visit to Havana last year, and then accompanied him to top-level meetings

It was also noted later in the article that Hague and Ashcroft met the Cuban government, which:

...breached the spirit of European rules, which state that such visits should not take place until and unless until there is a freedom to meet opponents of the regime.

So; not only does his role in a potential future Cameron Ministry (and even in the Shadow Cabinet at the moment) need further investigation, Billy and Ashcroft also broke protocol in regards to furthering democracy in Cuba.

Then, today, more trouble for Ashcroft.

Since Lord Ashcroft's ennoblement, the question of where he lives has continued to be raised, leading to speculation that Lord Ashcroft has not satisfied the undertaking he gave. Statements by senior politicians concerning Lord Ashcroft's undertaking have been evasive and obfuscatory and have served to compound this speculation.Lord Ashcroft could have ended the speculation about his residency by making a public statement to that effect. He has chosen not to do this...

The Conservative Party has been getting away with this for far too long. Ashcroft is singlehandedly bankrolling the parties operation in marginal seats, as well as, in his position as Deputy Party Chairman, involved in strategy. His residency status must become a central part of the attack on the Tories. How can someone so murky, with such a confused and unclear background, have such an integral part in the result of the election?

Keir awaits with baited breath the Cabinet Office's release of the information...

UPDATE: Rather fantastically, most outlets are running with differing versions of this picture, depicting a rather sweaty looking Ashcroft...