Penny Mordaunt MP: The Deputy Chief Whip did make me cry... but months ago and because of an act of kindness

Penny Mordaunt is Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North.  Follow Penny on Twitter.

This weekend I have been segregated from all forms of media: from newspapers, my phone and the internet. This was not some bizarre sociological experiment, but obedience to the rules of HMS Raleigh, a Royal Navy training establishment, where I was undergoing a militarisation course as part of my RN reserve duties. So it was not until Sunday night that I saw the reports that a whip’s abuse of me had, apparently reduced me to tears. Only one journalist – who did not subsequently write the story - called me during the week to check out these reports. So I think it is about time I put my side of the story. Brace yourselves for the awful truth. Yes, John Randall, the Deputy Chief whip, did reduce me to tears: but not last Tuesday on the evening of the House of Lords vote. In fact the dreadful deed was done many months before.

We hear much about loaded Conservative MPs, but there are rather a lot at the other end of the spectrum too and I am one of them. On this occasion I was under financial strain juggling all the additional demands made on an MP’s purse, and the following day I was due to find out whether I had breast cancer – a disease which holds particular dread for me having killed every female member of my maternal family including my mother at only seven years older than I am now. In short, it was a bit of a stressful week (although, thankfully, I later received the all clear regarding my health worry).  John told me that MPs are “bloody awful” at admitting they are either wealth or health deficient. He suggested that I lean on him. He was so kind and I felt so relieved at having shared my stress that I shed a tear. He then apologised for making me cry.

Penny Mordaunt MP: To deliver the Conservative vision and the Big Society, we need the public, private, voluntary and non-profit sectors to work together

Penny Mordaunt is Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North.  Follow Penny on Twitter.

Political blogs and websites never want for comments on a forthcoming election, the current cause célèbre, the latest ‘ism’ of political philosophy, or the most recent opinion polls.  We read of ‘kitchen-table-Conservatives’, ‘red Tories’ and ‘blue Labour’; and that it is time for ‘common sense’ and ‘compassionate Conservatism’.  Yes, it is all fascinating stuff.  What all these aspects of the daily political discourse have in common is that they come before real action. The focus is on winning elections, not what should be done afterwards.  Competence is an under-rated political skill.

Back in 2009 David Cameron looked beyond election victory and left us in no doubt about his ambition:

It will be a steep climb. But the view from the summit will be worth it. Let me tell you what I can see. I see a country where more children grow up with security and love because family life comes first. I see a country where you choose the most important things in life — the school your child goes to and the healthcare you get. I see a country where communities govern themselves — organising local services, independent of Whitehall, a great handing back of power to people. I see a country with entrepreneurs everywhere, bringing their ideas to life — and life to our great towns and cities... And when we look back we will say not that the government made it happen… but the businesswoman made it happen… the police officer made it happen… the father made it happen… the teacher made it happen. You made it happen.

Penny Mordaunt: Lords reform is not a Coalition breaker... it’s much more important than that!

Penny Mordaunt is Conservative MP for Portsmouth North.
Follow her on Twitter.
 
Yesterday House of Lords reform was described by BBC’s Andrew Neil as “the straw which could break the Coalition's back”. I doubt that the irony of a head-to-head on that topic between Lord Oakeshott (who, after disagreeing with coalition policy, ceased to be its Treasury Spokesman but remains a Lib Dem peer) and Philip Davis MP (who, after disagreeing with coalition policy, has lunch) was lost on many Sunday Politics viewers.

You can watch their exchange here but I will sum up Oakeshott’s arguments as to why Conservative MPs ought to support the Lords Reform proposals:

a) It’s in your manifesto, you dummy
b) It’s in the coalition programme, so button it
c) If you don’t vote for this then we are taking our bat home on constituency reform
d) You are a dinosaur/ toff/ head-banger etc.

Let me deal with these distracting “arguments” swiftly. The 2010 Conservative manifesto called for a consensus to be built for a mainly elected second chamber. The preceding sentence mentioned our support for the first-past-the-post system for Westminster elections. The Coalition agreement says that “proposals will be brought forward for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation”, and that, “the committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010”. It is this motion that is giving many Members of both Houses cause for concern.

Penny Mordaunt MP: I am a Eurosceptic but won't be supporting tomorrow's referendum motion

Penny Mordaunt is the Member of Parliament for Porstmouth North.

Tomorrow we will debate what is rapidly becoming known as the ‘Hokey Cokey Motion’: a request for a referendum to decide whether we should be in, out, or shake it all about as far as our membership of the European Union is concerned. The danger for the government, and the party leadership, is not that it will lose the vote tomorrow, but rather that it will not learn any lessons from the last few days.

The government is helped by the fact that Motion has no internal logic; a victim of its own contortionism.  Rather than call for a simple in/ out referendum, a third option is requested: ‘re-negotiate the terms of [Britain’s] membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation’.  This is quite plainly an impossible question to put; what would happen should 40 per cent vote to leave, 30 per cent vote for the status quo, and 30 per cent for a renegotiated relationship?  Yet not only could it produce a result impossible to implement, it would be unacceptable to the Electoral Commission which must surely demand a fourth option to balance the third – that of greater integration.  Needless to say, this would not improve the chances of a decisive outcome.

So what about the simplest option of all, which, it is hardly incidental to note, was not part of our manifesto?  A referendum which asks the British people whether they want to leave the European Union or remain a part of it is perhaps the only European question that would solicit a positive (in) response from a eurosceptic, but not europhobic electorate.  Knowledge of the answer is not in itself a reason to refuse to ask the question, but one should reflect that it is the inevitable losers of such a referendum who are driving tomorrow's Motion forward, signing the peoples pledge and Downing Street petitions.  A resounding ‘in’ vote would hardly advance the cause of Euroscepticism, so what is the motivation?  What, more importantly, is to be gained?