Eurosceptic Tory MPs grill Cameron following G20 statement

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Yesterday afternoon, David Cameron made a statement to the House on his recent G20 meetings. Given that the Prime Minister described the main topic of debate as "instability in the eurozone", one could have predicted Eurosceptic members would turn up in force - as indeed they did. Douglas Carswell, Bill Cash, and Peter Bone were amongst the MPs asking questions. 

Bill Cash posed the first challenging question of the session:

"Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): Given that the single market, including the City of London, is governed by qualified majority voting, how does the Prime Minister propose to achieve a majority to protect our interests in the context of the fiscal union that he advocates?

The Prime Minister: First, we need to disconnect the issues that my hon. Friend raises. The issue of the single market and the threat to the City of London and Britain’s financial services is a real threat. We have to work extremely hard to build alliances in the single market and in the European Council to stop directives that would damage our interests. I think it is extremely important that we do that work. Financial services matter hugely to this country, and this is one of the areas that I want to ensure we can better safeguard in future."

Continue reading "Eurosceptic Tory MPs grill Cameron following G20 statement" »

Conservative MPs rebelling more against Cameron than Major

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter.

Over on the NottsPolitics blog Professor Philip Cowley underlines the rebelliousness of backbench Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs since the formation of the Coalition. This graph confirms that this is the most rebellious intake since the second world war:

Cowley notes:

• "Backbench dissent amongst government MPs is running at a historically high level – with a rebellion in almost one in every two votes in the Commons...
• This is especially striking once you remember that this is a first session (normally relatively quiet) and even more so once you realise that this is a first session after a change of government (normally extremely quiet)...
• The rate [of rebellion] for Conservative MPs alone is higher than in any first session since the war, including that of John Major in 1992, when he faced all the Maastricht rebellions...
• The rates of rebellion are themselves very high: Philip Hollobone in particular is rebelling at a rate of roughly one rebellion in every four votes.  This is much higher than, say, Jeremy Corbyn under Blair or Brown..."

Jonathan Isaby has produced his own list of top rebels. Professor Cowley has done the same:

Read Cowley's full blog.

Phillip Hollobone seeks assurances about the retention of traditional red pillar boxes

By Jonathan Isaby

At questions to the ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on Tuesday, Tory MP Phillip Hollobone asked if the Government will "take steps to require Royal Mail to ensure the retention of the (a) colour of and (b) royal monogram on post boxes" after privatisation.

Here's the reply from the responsible minister, Ed Davey, along with the supplementary exchange:

Ed Davey: Royal Mail has publicly stated that it cherishes its distinctive and much-loved red post boxes and that it is absolutely committed to ensuring that they remain a distinctive part of our communities. The Government believe Royal Mail should continue to use the royal cypher on post boxes and we are in discussions with the palace about that.

Phillip Hollobone: The red pillar box is one of the great symbols of our great nation, and it would be a national shame if pillar boxes were to disappear as a result of privatisation. Will the Minister require the Royal Mail to keep red pillar boxes, or ensure that some form of listed heritage status is applied to them so that we do not lose this great British symbol?

Ed Davey: I share my hon. Friend's interest in red post boxes, so I visited the British postal museum and archive only last week, and I can tell him that Britain's post boxes were originally green, but the public complained that they were too camouflaged, so chocolate brown was tried instead. That colour required too much paint, however, so we ended up with red, and we are on the fifth shade of red. I can also tell my hon. Friend that it would cost almost £1.7 million to repaint the nation's 115,000 post boxes, and given that Royal Mail has 300 litres of red paint in stock I think he can sleep easily in his bed at night about the colour of our post boxes.

Highlights from the Conservative contributions to the debate on votes for prisoners

By Jonathan Isaby

In advance of yesterday's debate on votes for prisoners, the man moving the motion, David Davis, made his case on ConHome here.

So below are some of the highlights from the contributions of other Conservatives during the debate.

NB A full breakdown of how all MPs voted is here.

South West Devon MP Gary Streeter said the motion invited people to address  the "fundamental issue" of "whether or not we can pass our own laws":

"There comes a time when it is necessary to take a stand. I argue that right now, on this issue, it is right for this House, today, to assert its authority. The judgment of the ECHR in the Hirst case flies in the face of the original wording and purpose of the European convention on human rights, in which it was clearly intended that each signatory should have latitude in making decisions on the electoral franchise in that country.

"We decided in this country centuries ago that convicted criminals should not have the right to vote, and I support that decision. After all, the punitive element of incarceration is the denial for the time being of certain rights and privileges that our citizens enjoy. We decided long ago that in addition to surrendering their liberty, convicted criminals while in prison would also give up their right to vote. That was the case in 1953 when the treaty on human rights was signed, and it remains the case."

Attorney General Dominic Grieve set out the Government's position early in the debate:

"Ministers will abstain. The Government believe that the proper course of action will be to reflect on what has been said and think about what proposals to bring back to the House in the light of the debate. The Government are here to listen to the views of the House, which are central and critical to this debate, as was acknowledged in the Hirst case."

Continue reading "Highlights from the Conservative contributions to the debate on votes for prisoners" »

Tory MPs call for Cameron to show "backbone" and resist voting rights for prisoners

Tim Montgomerie

In Westminster Hall yesterday, ahead of the binding Commons vote, Philip Hollobone instigated a debate on voting rights for prisoners. Mark Harper MP for the Coalition is proposing that prisoners with sentences of four year or less should get the vote. Labour will seek to amend that proposal, limiting voting rights to one year sentences or less. Unless the Coalition compromises it is likely to be defeated.

Philip Hollobone called for David Cameron to show backbone in resisting votes for prisoners

"Here is a question for hon. Members. Who said: 

"Frankly, when people commit a crime and go to prison, they should lose their rights, including the right to vote"?

He also said:

"It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison."

The answer is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I could not agree more with him. The vast majority of people in this country would also back him in those sentiments. One difference between the Prime Minister and myself, however, is that he is actually in a position to do something about this issue. We need some backbone-we need a hardened spine-if we are to take on the European Court of Human Rights and resist its judgment."

Dr Thérèse Coffey noted that rapists will be given the vote under the Coalition's four year limit

"On the point about limits, does my hon. Friend agree that the crimes of rape, for which a three-and-a-half year sentence was awarded in November, in a case in Warwick, and armed robbery with a knife, which has also been given a sentence of less than four years, are serious crimes, and that it is shocking that the Government even contemplate that such things should be covered?"

Matthew Offord pointed out that many other nations have not complied with the European Courts on this issue

"It may interest hon. Members to know that 13 other countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights also have blanket bans. Why is this country being singled out for the treatment it is getting from the European Court, when blanket bans continue in other countries, such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Moldova and Slovakia, among others? Our constituents will be outraged that the UK is being singled out for special treatment."

Stewart Jackson argued that the Government's four year limit was "arbitrary"

"Is not it true that the recent case of Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom specifically allows the Government to proceed with a range of policy options, which, like the consultation in 2009, could be put out for public discussion? Instead the Government have gone for an arbitrary four-year limit, without any further debate or discussion in the House or with the public."

Continue reading "Tory MPs call for Cameron to show "backbone" and resist voting rights for prisoners" »

Ken Clarke's Criminal Justice Green Paper gets a mixed reaction from Tory backbenchers

By Jonathan Isaby

Yesterday Justice Secretary Ken Clarke presented his Green Paper on Criminal Justice, “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”. ConHome has already covered some of the announcements contained therein here and here, but here are some of the highlights of what Mr Clarke said in presenting the Green Paper to the Commons and the reaction he got from Tory backbenchers.

Mr Clarke told the Commons:

"Of course, criminals must face robust and demanding punishments. This means making them work hard both in prison and in the community. More prisoners will face the tough discipline of regular working hours. This has been lacking in most prison regimes for too long. Community sentences will be more credible, with more demanding work and greater use of tough curfew requirements. There will be greater reparation to victims through increased use of restorative justice and by implementing the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996. We will bring forward other changes to make sure that more offenders directly compensate the victims of crime.

"But we will take a new approach to the reform of offenders. I regard prison first and foremost as a place of punishment where people lose their liberty as reparation for what they have done, but on top of that, prison cannot continue to be simply an expensive way of giving communities a break. We must give higher priority to ensuring that more prisoners go straight on release.

"Offenders will face a tough and co-ordinated response from the police, probation and other services. It will mean that they must either address the problems that fuel their criminal activity or be caught and punished again."

"The sentencing framework must provide courts with a range of options to punish and rehabilitate criminals and keep the public safe. The sentencing framework has developed in an ad hoc fashion recently, with over 20 Acts of Parliament changing sentencing in the past 10 years. This has left it overly complex, difficult to interpret and administer, and hard for the public to understand. We need to make better use of prison and community sentences to punish offenders and improve public safety, while ensuring that sentencing supports our aims of improved rehabilitation and increased reparation to victims and society. We will therefore simplify the sentencing framework in order to make it more comprehensible to the public and to enhance judicial independence. We will reform community orders to give providers more discretion, and we will encourage greater use of financial penalties and improve their collection."

"Let me assure the House that public safety remains our first priority. We will continue to ensure that serious and dangerous offenders are managed effectively and their risk is reduced through appropriate use of prison and then through the multi-agency public protection arrangements... Any adult who commits a crime using a knife can expect to be sent to prison, and serious offenders can expect a long sentence. For juveniles, imprisonment is always available and will also be appropriate for serious offenders."

There were some voices of considerable scepticism from some Tory MPs sitting behind him:

Continue reading "Ken Clarke's Criminal Justice Green Paper gets a mixed reaction from Tory backbenchers" »

Should the fixed-term Parliament last for four or five years?

By Jonathan Isaby

During Tuesday's proceedings on the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill, amendments were tabled by Plaid Cymru - and also backed by Labour and the SNP - that would reduce the proposed term limit of this and future Parliaments to four years, and not five, as the Government proposes in the Bill.

Two Tory MPs gave speeches in favour of the four year term. Richard Shepherd began by quoting Asquith's speech from 21 February 1911 on the Parliament Bill which was to change the Septennial Act 1715:

"In the first place we propose to shorten the legal duration of Parliament from seven years to five years, which will probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years. That will secure that your House of Commons for the time being, is always either fresh from the polls which gave it authority, or-and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance of the popular will-it is looking forward to the polls at which it will have to render an account of its stewardship."-[ Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 1749.]

"Asquith's reasons have been borne out in all the years since then. The average length of a Parliament is not far off four years, and his points relate to the electorate. None of the constitutional proposals of the Deputy Prime Minister-who I again note is not following his own Bill on the Floor of the House of Commons-strengthens the position of the electorate versus the Crown as represented by the Government. The proposals are therefore abandoning the principle that a Government have the authority to govern but must be mindful that there is a time after which the electorate should make a judgment on the actions, activities and success of that Government. That is all being cast out for what I believe to be a profoundly cynical purpose: the entrenchment, or attempted entrenchment, of a particular Parliament for five years."

"What distresses me most about this constitutional arrangement, and the actions of the coalition Government, is that they think that we are all back-of-the-envelope legislators who set aside the traditions and history of our own constitution. They are trying to legislate for something that I believe is unnecessary. A Government last for as long as that Government can command a majority in the House of Commons: that is a fundamental constitutional proposition in the Parliament Act."

Then there was a contribution from Brigg and Goole MP Andrew Percy:

Continue reading "Should the fixed-term Parliament last for four or five years? " »

MPs reaffirm the Speaker's call for ministers to make key statements to the House, not the media

I already noted the maiden speech delivered last night in the Commons by Glyn Davies, during the first ever debate initiated by the newly-created Backbench Business Committee.

The motion up for discussion was:

"That this House commends the Speaker on the action he has taken over the past year to reassert the principle that Ministers ought to make statements to the House before they are made elsewhere; notes that paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code says that when Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament; believes that compliance with this principle is essential for backbenchers to be able to represent the interests of their constituents and hold the Government to account; and invites the Procedure Committee to consider how the rules of the House could be better used or, if necessary, changed to ensure compliance with this principle and to develop a protocol for the release of information."

And it was independent-minded Tory MP, Philip Hollobone, who moved the motion on behalf of the committee:

"It is a rare privilege and honour for me to open this, the first of the Backbench Business Committee debates on the Floor of the House. We are honoured by your presence in the Chair this evening, Mr. Speaker. In this motion we do some important things. First, we commend you for the action that you have taken in ensuring that the Government get the message that important policy announcements should be made to Members of this House first and not to the wider media.

"In the motion, we draw attention to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code, which says exactly that. It says: “when Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament”. It also says that we believe that compliance with this principle is essential for Back Benchers to be able to best represent the interests of our constituents and hold the Government of the day to account. Constructively, we suggest that the Procedure Committee—I see the Chairman in his place—be invited to consider how the rules of the House could be better used, and if necessary changed, to ensure compliance with this principle and to develop a protocol for the release of information.

"The Chamber of the House of Commons should be the centre of political public life in our country. It should not be an inconvenience for Ministers to come here and tell the country about important policy: it should be an honour and privilege to keep the information to themselves until they have told Members of this House. It should be a matter of professional pride, so to speak, that information is not put out into the wider ether until the representatives of the people are told first, in this Chamber. This is not a criticism only of the present Government, but a criticism of all Governments, Labour, Conservative and coalition, going back for some time.

"The purpose of the motion tonight is not only to make the point that this Chamber should be considered first and foremost in the minds of Ministers, but to be helpful to the Government so that the coalition sets a precedent by putting in place a set of procedures that will avoid the confusion that has obtained down the ages and, worryingly, has already been seen in the present Session. We need to get the system right to help all of us to represent the concerns of our constituents better."

The motion went on to be passed without a vote.

The Alternative Queen's Speech (from Christopher Chope, Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone)

The BBC's Mark D'Arcy has noted a number of so-called Presentation Bills tabled by Peter Bone, Chris Chope and Philip Hollobone. Mark presents these bills as an Alternative Queen's Speech. They include:

• The EU Membership (Referendum) Bill
• The BBC Licence Fee (Abolition) Bill
• The National Service Bill
• The Asylum Seekers (Repatriation to Safe Countries) Bill
• The Apprehension of Burglars (Protection from Prosecution) Bill
• The Taxation Freedom Day (Celebration) Bill
• The EU Bill of Rights (Repeal) Bill
• The Snow Clearance (Protection from Prosecution) Bill

Who'd vote for the Bone, Chope and Hollobone party?

Tim Montgomerie

Phillip Hollobone explains why he wants to ban the burqa

Earlier I noted the thirteen Bills being proposed by the Conservative MPs who have been successful in the Private Member's Bill ballot, and explained that I am giving them all the opportunity in the coming days to explain what motivated their choice of bill.

In replying to my offer, Phillip Hollobone - who will introduce the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill - has pointed me to the speech he gave during the debate on International Women's Day in the chamber on March 11th this year, previously unreported by us:

On this occasion of international women's day, I want to raise the difficult subject of Islamic full-face veils-specifically, the niqab and the burqa. I am sure we can all agree with the Leader of the House's remarks-we all want to empower women in being equal. In my view and that of my constituents, the niqab and the burqa are oppressive dress codes that are regressive as regards the advancement of women in our society. I want to make it clear that I am talking about the niqab and the burqa, not the hijab, the khimar or the chador.

I have been concerned for some time about the niqab and the burqa, but it was not until I took my children to the play area in my local park recently and saw a woman wearing a full burqa that it came home to me how inappropriate and, frankly, offensive it is for people to wear that apparel in the 21st century and especially in Britain. In my view and that of my constituents, the burqa is not an acceptable form of dress and banning it should be seriously considered.

As I was sitting on the bench in the playground watching my children play on the slides, I thought to myself, "Here I am, in the middle of Kettering in the middle of England - a country that has been involved for centuries with spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world-and here's a woman who, through her dress, is effectively saying that she does not want to have any normal human dialogue or interaction with anyone else. By covering her entire face, she is effectively saying that our society is so objectionable, even in the friendly, happy environment of a children's playground, that we are not even allowed to cast a glance on her." I find that offensive and I think it is time that the country did something about it.

We will never have a country in which we can all rub along together and in which people of different backgrounds, different ethnicities and different religions all get along nicely if one section of our society refuses even to be looked on by anyone else. As I thought more about it, it struck me that the issue is not the clothes that someone wears but the fact that the face is covered. Lots of people wear what others might feel is inappropriate clothing. That is, of course, everyone's choice. The issue with the niqab and the burqa, however, is not that they are just another piece of clothing but that they involve covering the face either in its entirety or with just the eyes showing.

The simple truth is that when a woman wears the burqa, she is unable to engage in normal, everyday visual interaction with everyone else. That is indeed the point of it. It is deliberately designed to prevent others from gazing on that person's face. The problem with that is that it goes against the British way of life. Part of the joy of living in our country is that we pass people every day in the street, exchange a friendly greeting, wave, smile and say hello. Whether we recognise someone as a person we know or whether we are talking to someone for the first time, we can all see who the other person is and we interact both verbally and through those little visual facial signals that are all part of interacting with each other as human beings.

If we all went round wearing burqas, our country would be a sad place indeed. Indeed, if we were all to be wearing burqas in this Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how would you know who to call? I also feel very sorry for women who wear the burqa, as it cannot be very nice to go around all day with only a limited view of the outside world. Of course, many of these women are forced to wear the burqa by their husband or their family. The resulting lack of interaction with everyone else means that many are unable to speak or learn English and so will never have any chance of becoming integrated into the British way of life.

The other issue with the burqa is security. Of course, that problem arises with some other forms of face covering and I do not see why those wearing the burqa should be treated any differently. Bikers wear crash helmets for their own safety, but they are required to take them off in banks and shops. If one were to travel on the tube wearing a balaclava, a police officer would ask one to take it off.

Many of my constituents have contacted me to say that when they visit Muslim countries they respect the dress codes in those countries and wear appropriate headgear. The phrase that has been given to me time and again is, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." This is Britain; we are not a Muslim country. Covering one's face in public is strange, and to many people it is intimidating and offensive. I seriously think that a ban on wearing the niqab or the burqa in public should be considered.

> Paul Goodman has repsonded to this here.

Jonathan Isaby

Banning the burka and introducing daylight saving time are among the measures proposed in Tory MPs' Private Member's Bills

Thirteen Conservative MPs - including nine of the new intake - were successful in the Private Member's Bill ballot earlier in the month.

Today sees them formally presenting their Bills for the first time (there won't be any debate at this stage), which are summarised as follows on the parliamentary website:

PUBLIC SERVICES (SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND SOCIAL VALUE) BILL - Chris White MP (Warwick and Leamington)
"Bill to require the Secretary of State and local authorities to publish strategies in connection with promoting social enterprise; to enable communities to participate in the formulation and implementation of those strategies; to require that public sector contracts include provisions relating to social outcomes and social value."

DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL - Rebecca Harris MP (Castle Point)
"Bill to require the Secretary of State to conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour for all, or part of, the year; to require the Secretary of State to take certain action in the light of that analysis."

ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS (FORFEITURE RULE AND LAW OF SUCCESSION) BILL - Greg Knight MP (Yorkshire East)
"Bill to amend the law relating to the distribution of the estates of deceased persons."

ANONYMITY (ARRESTED PERSONS) BILL - Anna Soubry MP (Broxtowe)
"Bill to prohibit the publication of certain information regarding persons who have been arrested until they have been charged with an offence; to set out the circumstances where such information can be published without committing an offence."

LEGISLATION (TERRITORIAL EXTENT) BILL - Harriett Baldwin MP (Worcestershire West)
"Bill to require the Secretary of State, when preparing draft legislation for publication, to do so in such a way that the effect of that legislation on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is separately and clearly identified; to require the Secretary of State to issue a statement to the effect that in his or her view the provisions of the draft legislation are in accordance with certain principles relating to territorial extent."

PLANNING (OPENCAST MINING SEPARATION ZONES) BILL - Andrew Bridgen MP (Leicestershire North West)
"Bill to require planning authorities to impose a minimum distance between opencast mining developments and residential properties."

COINAGE (MEASUREMENT) BILL - Mark Lancaster MP (Milton Keynes North)
"Bill to make provision about the arrangements for measuring the standard weight of coins."

SPORTS GROUNDS SAFETY AUTHORITY BILL - Jonathan Lord MP (Woking)
"Bill to confer further powers on the Football Licensing Authority and to amend its name."

WRECK REMOVAL CONVENTION BILL - Thérèse Coffey MP (Suffolk Coastal)
"Bill to implement the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007."

FACE COVERINGS (REGULATION) BILL - Philip Hollobone MP (Kettering)
"Bill to regulate the wearing of certain face coverings."

PROTECTION OF LOCAL SERVICES (PLANNING) BILL - Nigel Adams MP (Selby and Ainsty)
"Bill to enable local planning authorities to require planning permission prior to the demolition or change of use of premises or land used or formerly used to provide a local service."

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS (AMENDMENT) BILL - Sir Paul Beresford MP (Mole Valley)
"Bill to amend section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to include serious harm to a child or vulnerable adult; to make consequential amendments to the Act."

SECURED LENDING REFORM BILL - George Eustice MP (Camborne and Redruth)
"Bill to make provision regarding the rights of secured debtors; to reform the rights of certain creditors to enforce their security; to make other provision regarding secured lending."

I have invited them all to write for ConHome explaining why the have chosen to introduce their particular Bill, so I hope to be able to publish some pieces from them in the not too distant future.

Jonathan Isaby

The voice of the anti-EU Tory Right will be heard on the influential new Backbench Business Committee

One of the innovations in this new Parliament is the creation of a BackBench Business Committee which is gaining the power from the Establishment to determine the backbencher-initiated business in the Commons chamber and Westminster Hall.

Last week Labour MP Natascha Engel beat Tory MP and former Deputy Speaker Sir Alan Haselhurst by 202 votes to 173 to chair the new committee.

Yesterday the names of the remaining members emerged and it is notable that the eurosceptic Tory Right is more than amply represented in the form of Peter Bone, Philip Davies and Philip Hollobone. They are joined by Jane Ellison from the 2010 intake.

Birmingham Yardley MP John Hemming will be the Lib Dem on the committee, whilst David Anderson and Alison Seabeck will be the other Labour MPs on the committee.

Jonathan Isaby

Select Committee election results: Labour and Liberal MPs line up behind the Conservative establishment

I wondered earlier this week here whether Labour MPs would use the Select Committee elections to make life difficult for David Cameron.

They didn't.  Instead, they lined up behind the Conservative establishment candidates. Andrew Tyrie took the Treasury Select Committee; Richard Ottaway, Foreign Affairs (a big, big consolation prize, after his defeat in the 1922 Committee Chairmanship election); James Arbuthnot, Defence; Stephen Dorrell, Health; Tim Yeo, Climate Change. Anne McIntosh, who won the Environment Committee, leans towards the left of the Party.

I didn't, of course, see anyone cast a ballot paper.  But unless Conservative MPs turned out en masse to vote against the Party's right - an unlikely course of action, given the '22 Executive results - Liberal and Labour support for less spiky candidates provides the only comprehensible explanation of the results.

It would be unfair to view the victors as patsies.  Tyrie, in particular, has a track record of independent-mindedness.  But ask yourself whether Cameron Towers would prefer the winners to, say, Patrick Mercer at Defence or Peter Bone at Health (let alone Nadine) or Philip Hollobone at Climate Change, and there's only one answer.

Bernard Jenkin and Chris Chope are both seen as men of the right.  But Chope's used the Chamber to launch independent-minded assaults on establishment causes, and it's noticeable that he lost out in the tussle for the Public Administration Committee Chairmanship.

John Whittingdale at Culture and Greg Knight at Procedure, both No Turning Back Group stalwarts, are in unopposed. Graham Stuart won what should have been, even if it wasn't, a close-fought battle for the Education Committee.

Full list of victors.

Paul Goodman

How Labour MPs will vote tomorrow to make life difficult for David Cameron

As most readers know, the Select Committee Chairmanships have been carved out among the parties, and tomorrow's elections for the posts will be cross-party. So Conservative MPs, for example, can vote for Labour candidates, and vice-versa. Jonathan has a list of those standing here.

A question follows: on what basis will Labour MPs vote for the Conservative candidates? Answer: it depends.  Some will support the best candidate.  Others will vote for the Conservative candidate seen to be the more left-wing of the two.

Such is the attachment on the Labour benches to climate change orthodoxy, for example, that large number of the Party's MPs are likely to line up behind Tim Yeo, the establishment candidate for the Energy and Climate Change committee.

In other cases, however, Labour MPs will surely ask: who's the candidate more likely to cause David Cameron trouble?  Or, if they've a more elevated turn of mind: who's the candidate more likely to stand up for the legislature against the executive?

In some cases, it's hard to tell.  For example, both candidates for the Treasury Select Committee Chairmanship, Michael Fallon and Andrew Tyrie, are independent-minded. But in others, it's easier to see who'd be more likely to give Downing Street a fit of the heebie-jeebies.

Step forward, then, Peter Bone - standing for the Chairmanship of the Health Select Committee - John Baron, contesting Foreign Affairs (Baron pursued Ministers energetically about Iraq during the last Parliament) and, in the Defence Select Committee poll, no fewer than three of the candidates: Julian Lewis, Patrick Mercer and, above all, Douglas Carswell (one half of the Carswell-Hannan "Cannon" dynamic duo).

If Carswell in particular wins (an unlikely event, but you never know), expect senior officials in the Ministry of Defence to start screaming and screaming, and be unable to stop...

So if any of the above are elected, take a long, hard look at the Labour benches for those responsible.

Official disclaimer: nothing in this article is to be read as an endorsement of any candidate, in any election, at any time, anywhere...

Paul Goodman

The Commons must debate Douglas Carswell's motion of no confidence

Over on his blog Douglas Carswell MP has published his motion of no confidence in the Speaker and the list of supporting MPs:

1. Douglas Carswell
2. Kate Hoey
3. Norman Lamb
4. Richard Bacon
5. David Davis
6. Philip Hollobone
7. Paul Flynn
8. Gordon Prentice
9. Richard Shepherd
10. Philip Davies
11. John Hemming
12. Jo Swinson
13. Norman Baker
14. Lynne Featherstone
15. Stephen Williams

There is talk that the Commons may not even debate the motion. That would be a mistake. The issue needs to be resolved one way or the other.

Tim Montgomerie