We know the Daily Mail gets politics wrong all the time - but you'd think Strictly would be simple enough for them to understand

The Daily Fail website recycles a Total Politics interview with Nadine Dorries in which she's as predictable as ever. I particularly like the way she describes, in the original interview, the Liberal Democrats as "more left wing than Labour" and then says Cameron is a social liberal just like us. I think the SwivelEyedometer just exploded.

We shouldn't really be taking lessons from someone who doesn't think Trident is a weapon of mass destruction. 

Anyway, it's not her particular brand of politics I want to highlight but the Daily Mail's inability to get even the most basic of facts right.

Nadine, apparently, wants to to Strictly Come Dancing. It's not a prospect I relish, to be honest, but it wouldn't stop me watching the show. The Fail had this to say about Vince Cable's appearance on the show and why he couldn't do a full series:

Business Secretary Vince Cable took part in a Christmas special of the show in December 2010 when he partnered with ballroom professional Erin Boag.

But rules on impartiality meant he could not take part in the full Strictly series.

No, that's not why Vince can't do the full series. It's because he already has stacks of qualifications in ballroom dancing so he wouldn't be learning from scratch. Being that experienced is fine in a Christmas special, because he was up against previous competitors, but it would give him too much of an advantage in the series proper. 

If I had my choice of which Liberal Democrat I'd put in, it would be Jo Swinson. She would actually be a serious contender because she has the physical stamina from all her running and a sense of rhythm too. 

Back to Vince, though. If we can't have him in the whole series, we at least have this memory of his beautiful foxtrot with Erin Boag to keep us going.

And so it begins...Nadine Dorries to be buried with beasties

Well, there's a surprise. Errant Conservative MP Nadine Dorries was voted by the great British public - including what seemed to be fairly sizable proportion of political types on Twitter. Tonight, for our entertainment, she will be buried for 10 minutes with a not very delightful abundance of antipodean beasties - you know, rats, maggots, cockroaches, spiders. Occasionally they put water in as well which must be really terrifying.

I wrote yesterday that these programmes can bring out some fairly unpleasant impulses in us. Taking pleasure in someone being very distressed isn't an attractive character trait. We're not there yet with Nadine, who seems to be coping quite well.

At the moment, the contestants have been split into two teams, so Nadine will be competing for food rations with Helen Flanagan, who played Rosie Webster on Coronation Street. She has been voted for presumably because she cried and screamed her way through negotiating her way across a very dodgy, high stepping stone bridge across a ravine. I couldn't have done it, and the fact is that she got there in the end. I suspect she may be learning that she's made of stronger stuff than she thinks. We have learned that her portrayal of the self obsessed Rosie involved no acting whatsoever.

Viewers may need to get smarter on strategy, though. Surely if you want Nadine to do the trials, you also need to make sure she gets beaten. If I had to make a prediction about tonight's trial, it would be that Helen will lose. She got through yesterday with some fantastic support from her team-mates. She won't have them with her today. When people are voting tonight, they may want to think about who from the other team can beat Nadine. Charlie Brooks looks pretty feisty and competitive, and they have a boxing champ there in David Haye. 

I actually want Nadine to win tonight. Not for glory for her, but so that Colin Baker can eat. I want him to stay well. He's a bit portly and not very fit, and seemed to be feeling it on last night's show. I've seen Colin at Doctor Who conventions in the past and he's witty and very entertaining. I could listen to him all day so I want him to stay healthy and sparkle. Nadine's team haven't had anything other than rice and beans to eat in 2 days. The other lot had a night in luxury in a beach house and then got all the food last night. Fair's fair. 

But tonight, if you are going to waste your money on voting on this, think about the bigger picture, that's all I'm saying.

Elsewhere on the programme, I am amazed at how much I liked Hugo. I did not have high expectations of a man I expected to be a posh git waste of space. He also criticised Nadine for being away from her constituents. I'm not discounting the possibility that that was inspired by a producer with a wooden spoon, though. 

Ashley Foster showed some good leadership skills and positive attitude in the first task which they lost, really, because the other lot were quicker on their feet than Colin. 

Brian Conley also showed himself to be funny and useful. Both he and Linda Robson were really good at keeping Helen safe as she crossed the ravine.

This series has potential. As long as we can avoid actual damaging cruelty, and it stays the right side of the line, it could be an enjoyable three weeks with some interesting characters. I want to see Nadine try to promote her pro-life views and get told off by one of the others. Or for someone to take her to task for abandoning her constituents in true Rhona Cameron style.

I'm feeling a bit sorry for Nadine Dorries.......

.....which I know is not going to be popular view, but I suspect the next week is going to showcase some not very attractive facets of the mob mentality that sometimes arises around these reality tv shows. Almost 10 years ago, Channel 4 had to get in extra security when Adele left Big Brother. Why? Because people thought that she had been a bit two faced and there was such over-the-top hatred towards her, fuelled by the tabloid press.Then they same papers fuelled hatred towards Jade Goody by depicting her as a pig, starting off the rollercoaster that saw them make her, break her and finally raise her to virtual sainthood before her premature death from Cancer in 2009.

I do watch I'm a Celebrity. It can be quite compelling. It actually changed my opinion of Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick. His series was a classic, though, with George Takei, Martina Navratilova and Esther Rantzen providing much amusement and quality banter. Brian was not in my good books because he'd criticised his 2008 London mayoral campaign team, led by my friend Andrew Reeves, in the press. He later learned his lesson, recognised that he had been a bit of a diva and went on to fight a very good campaign in the same role this year. However, in 2008, I have to admit, not to my credit, that a huge motivation for tuning in  was to see him get covered in beasties and eat unmentionables.

Now, there comes a point, though, if a person is showing real distress, that enjoying their discomfort goes from being not very nice to inappropriate or even unacceptable. In the first week, viewers can choose who does the bush tucker trials, where a celebrity goes through an extremely unpleasant experience, usually involving bugs and beasties, to earn meals for everyone else. The viewers inevitably choose the people who are most scared. Last year it was Sinitta, or occasionally Antony Cotton. It's been Jordan and Gillian McKeith in the past. If someone has had to have oxygen because they are so scared, then it would never occur to me to pick up the phone  to put them through it again. There comes a time when, however much they're being paid, however self inflicted it all is, putting them through actual suffering is not nice.

I think we can guess who'll be voted to do all the trials this week. Nadine Dorries, the controversial Tory MP who's abandoned her constituents so she can lecture us all about abortion from around the camp fire, has, in my view, no redeeming features. The one bad consequence of the Liberal Democrats voting against the boundary changes is that her constituency will remain in existence. She has therefore had a pretty major reward for her bad behaviour in voting against Lords reform.

In my view, Nadine should not have agreed to take part in this programme. For an MP to be out of the country and uncontactable for 3 weeks purely to take part in a tv show is not on. There are obviously times when MPs have to take  extended spells out of Westminster. They're human beings and subject to the same crises in terms of illness or caring for sick relatives that we all go through and we'd take time off for. People have sympathy with that. They are less likely to understand an indulgent ego trip, done without consulting anyone, which will benefit nobody but Nadine. I'm sure she sees a future for herself as a Christine Hamilton type, rehabilitated by reality tv almost to national treasure status. Well, that worked so well for Lembit when he did it after losing his seat in 2010. And as Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael pointed out in his inimitable style this week:

If Nadine struggles in the jungle, I won't be wasting too much of my energy feeling sorry for her, but I don't think it is to anyone's credit if they take pleasure in actual suffering of another human being, no matter how self indulgent, self inflicted or insignificant in the scheme of things it is.

I am maybe being a bit soft here - but then I can't imagine  that, had I lived in an earlier time, that I'd have had much truck with throwing things at people who'd been  put in the stocks. These reality shows can sometimes be the modern day equivalent.

Nick Clegg does PMQs - the tweets

Nick Clegg did Prime Minister's Questions today while David Cameron is schmoozing his way round the Middle East. He was so assured, confident and natural and spoke completely without notes. He even answered the question he was given and not the one he wanted to answer, too. He made David Cameron look like a complete amateur, to be honest, and Gordon Brown, too.

My Liberal Democrat Voice colleague Nick Thornsby reminded us on Twitter this morning that four years ago, two days after Barack Obama was elected the first time round, Clegg, then a humble third party leader, questioned PM Gordon Brown, who put him down quite snidily. And the subject of Clegg's questions? Taxing the wealthy and cutting taxes for the poorest. Nothing if not consistent. Have a look here.



It was quite a contrast to see Clegg in Brown's position today.

There was one irritation, though. In fact, two. Alan Reid and Simon Hughes both got up and asked the pathetically toadying soft ball question that always seems to come from the Government side in both Holyrood and Westminster. I can't stand it whoever is doing it. I don't know what Alistair Carmichael had on those two, whether they'd stolen his orange Clubs or something, but seeing grown liberals toadying is so not a good look. And it's completely unnecessary. Nick didn't need it as he'd already peppered references to the same points throughout the proceedings.

I think my favourite bit was when Peter Bone asked a really friendly question. Nobody could ever have expected that and Nick looked quite surprised about it. Mrs Bone didn't get a mention, though. He will probably be in big trouble later. During the exchange, Nick got his obligatory Nadine Dorries joke in, saying that when he'd heard she'd gone off to the jungle to eat insects, he assumed it was a punishment from the Chief Whip. As if the gentlemanly Sir George Young would ever do anything so, well, naff.

As is my wont, I have saved various tweets from the proceedngs in a storify thingy for you to read.

Angry with Jeremy Hunt's views on abortion? Here's something constructive you can do...

There's been a bit of a drama this morning about the fact that Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has expressed his views that there should be a 12 week time limit on abortions. The Independent reports that in a Times interview he said:

Everyone looks at the evidence and comes to a view about when that moment is and my own view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it

Adding, rather scarily:

There are some issues that cut across health and morality, a bit like capital punishment does for crime.

Actually, I think capital punishment doesn't cut across anything. It's just plain wrong and should never happen. End of.

I tend to agree with Stephen Tall, who says that although he might disagree with Jeremy Hunt, he should be able to give his view. I'd rather know what I was dealing with and the last thing I'd want is to find out that Parliament had been filled by stealth with pro-lifers.

The drama this morning is probably unnecessary. We know fine what Jeremy Hunt thinks about abortion. His Commons voting record shows us that he voted for a 12 week limit 4 years ago when the matter was last debated. This is not a surprise. It's also not a surprise that new Culture Secretary Maria Miller favours a limit of 20 weeks. The difference between 2008 and now is that these three individuals are in a position of power and have more of a profile to shape the debate.

This is where Jennie is right to be concerned. That's what comes from having an early night last night and a lie in this norning. All the points I would have made have already been said. It does seem to be like a concerted push by Conservative ministers to get this issue on to the agenda - and to try to build a consensus around a cut in the time limit. They don't have that far to go to get a parliamentary majority to cut the limit to 22 weeks and I believe that would be a disaster.

In 2008, the Commons voted against a cut to 22 weeks by 304 votes to 233. A mere 36 votes are required to change hands. That's bloody scary. And let's have a wee look at who voted for 22 weeks. There's a fair old clutch of Lib Dems and Labour in there as well as Conservatives. A good whack of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, also voted for that change.

I am as pro-choice on this matter as they come. Let's nail those colours to the mast straight away. I do not believe a woman should be forced to carry on with a pregnancy against her wishes. I do not want to see any decrease in the current time limit, nor do I want Nadine Dorries' silly ideas about enforced counselling finding their way into law. Women know their own minds and their wishes should be paramount in this process.

Very few abortions take place after 13 weeks. Less than 1 in 10, in fact. And nobody would ever want to be in that situation, because it's a hellish thing to go through. Some birth defects and conditions are not discovered until the 20 week scan. I know people who have been in that situation so I understand the shock and horror of it. They need to be given time and space to make an informed decision about what they do. It's not something you want to rush into with the clock ticking.

Nothing new has happened today. Jeremy Hunt's views were never going to have changed and I don't think there's anything he can do without the approval of Parliament to restrict women's access to abortion.

We Liberal Democrats need to win the battle in our own party and try to persuade all our MPs on to the side of keeping the limit as it is.

If, however, pro-life camp is wanting to re-open the 1967 Act, then the pro-choice side should get in there too. A few months ago, the excellent Sophie Bridger used an article on Lib Dem Voice to launch her Your Choice campaign to get rid of the requirement for two doctors to agree before a woman can have her pregnancy terminated. She said:

Abortion is often a difficult decision, and certainly not one you forget making. But this shouldn’t be a debate about the ethics of abortion itself, but who should be given the power to make that decision. The state, the church and doctors all have claims, but as Sally Sheldon pointed out last week in the Guardian, women ‘are far better placed to understand the implications for themselves and their families’. So let’s start treating them like the autonomous individuals they are.

I find this requirement both patronising and paternalistic and I want it to be repealed. No other procedures require two doctors to agree - and often in practice it's meaningless anyway.

Let's just hope that the debate on abortion over here never degenerates into the basket case that exists in the States, where women who miscarry are arrested and charged with murder and those who die rather than have the abortion which would have saved their lives are exalted. Except that second example comes from the Catholic Herald here in the UK.

Those who care about the rights of women to have control over their own bodies must be vigilant.

Lords Reform dropped? Sulk a bit, then carry on...

So, if the Guardian is to be be believed, David Cameron is about to drop Lords Reform because there is no way to get it past the right wingers in his party who all stood for election in a manifesto that included changes to the Upper Chamber. If David Cameron isn't a bit scared that Peter Bone and Nadine Dorries have the upper hand in his party at the moment, then I'd be very surprised.

As a Liberal Democrat, I'm gutted that it looks like one of our major constitutional reforms, backed in some form by all parties in 2010 and therefore endorsed by the electorate, looks like it's dead in the water. When we've come up against a silly Tory plan we really can't live with, we've at least behaved like adults within the Coalition and made changes for the better.It's clear that we've succeeded, given the depth of the hostility towards us that openly emanates from the Tory backbenches.

David Cameron has abjectly failed to show that he leads a modern party. His true colours have come out. I doubt he was ever that keen on Lords Reform anyway, certainly not enough to put any effort into getting it through. His leadership looks weak and as under siege from the right as John Major's was - and he has far less in the way of political skill than his predecessor. It's not pretty. Bone, Dorries et al will be all pumped now and looking to scupper other Coalition measures they don't like, with equal civil marriage no doubt top of their list.

The Labour Party have chosen the path of unprincipled opportunism. They could still change their mind and decide to back the programme motion which would allow the legislation to proceed. I can't see it, though. They see their mission as one to destabilise the coalition and if that means voting against things they say they believe in, then so be it. Be clear, it's not about protecting the people of Britain from cuts because they would have pretty much done all the same things. We know Darling talked about raising VAT and for every £8 the Coalition has cut, Labour would have cut £7. It's about showing that Coalition doesn't work so that they and the Tories can go back to the bad old days of keeping all the power to themselves. Labour are supposed to be progressive, but they're hardly putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to enacting constitutional reform. I wrote a few weeks ago about how Paddy Ashdown led the Liberal Democrats into the lobbies for the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 when they could have brought Major's government down. Yes, we might want to harbour dreams that it could have led to a Labour/Lib Dem coalition with John Smith asn PM, but we can't be certain of that. The divisive election campaign that followed might have led to a withdrawal from Europe that would have been disastrous for people's livelihoods. At elast we were true to ourselves and what we believe in. Then and now, we act like grown ups, for the good of the country.

So, what should happen now? We should definitely sulk for a bit. We are quite definitely on the side of the Angels here and we have been wronged by people we'd made an Agreement with. We've stuck by that agrreement, endorsed by a Special Conference of our Party, when at times we would have rathered not, when it was clearly not in our electoral interests to do so.As Willie Rennie said after the local elections, any idea that we were ever in this for ourselves is clearly nonsense.

But sulking won't get us very far. So the other possibility is revenge. Do we scupper the boundary changes that we really don't want? I am not so sure.

If we have the chance to demand change, it has to be change that means something to ordinary people, not change that would give us a better chance of retaining nmore seats. What would be on my list? Well, first, scupper Theresa May's appalling family immigration rule changes. UK citizens should have the right to have their spouses live with them in this country regardless of income. End of. The web snooping stuff can join Lords Reform in the legislative bin, too. Let's not even waste the Committee's time. Bin this illiberal nonsense now.

What other prizes could we exact? Because of the Liberal Democrats, the wealthiest are now paying more tax, but not enough. Let's look again at the Mansion Tax, build a case for it in the country. Let's get a real campaign going. The wealthiest are not yet paying their fair share and we need to look at this again.

We have to resist any Tory moves to give a sub-inflation rise in benefits and the minimum wage. We held our nerve and insisted on the full whack last year and we have to do the same again.

And we must absolutely not give any ground  on equal marriage. In fact, we might want to take it further and follow Scotland's example and allow those religious bodies who want to carry out same sex marriage ceremonies to do so.

We must look again at mental health, an area Nick Clegg has done so much to break down stigma and make sure people have access to the right therapies. Let's look at where we could add to that, to really improve the quality of people's lives, particularly in light of the study this week that showed that people with Depression, stress and anxiety have a higher risk of premature death from heart attacks and strokes.

So, yes, we can allow ourselves some anger. We need to make sure that the blame for the failure of Lords reform is equally shared between both conservative parties. We need to remind people for years that we wanted democratic change, the others blocked it.  We must not allow this to break the Coalition, though, which is still the best possible Government for this country at the present time. We need to continue to behave like the honourable grown ups we are within the Government but we must be more robust about saying no constructively, emphatically and publicly.

Nick Clegg needs to take Cameron on a bit more, particularly on post 2015 policy ideas. They are fair game.

Of course,  it's not too late to reform the Lords. All the Labour party has to do is to say it supports the Programme Motion and we can get on with having a nationwide debate about it. If we have to agree to a refrendum in the process, I'm prepared to go with it. Will Ed Miliband's party have  the courage of its convictions to do that?  Even  if he does, the Tories will still have broken the Coalition Agreement and we need to make sure that they are seen to give us something in return.

There's always an excuse..... #lordsreform

Remember the Labservatives? That was the brilliant Liberal Democrat advertising campaign which satirised how Labour and the Conservatives collude to prevent meaningful reform.

We saw it with the AV referendum. Much as though I'd prefer we just hadn't gone there, the nasty and vitriolic no campaign, backed by rich, powerful vested interests, fuelled by a collusion of people like Tom Harris from Labour and Tory Nadine Dorries emphasised that politically and socially conservative forces would stop at nothing to hinder even the most modest of reforms. Ed Miliband's half hearted support for the Yes campaign and his reluctance to work with the Liberal Democrats did no favours for either him or his party.

And now we have it again over Lords Reform. Ed Miliband's Labour Party, which went to the country promising:

Further democratic reform to create a fully elected Second Chamber will then be achieved in stages. At the end of the next Parliament one third of the House of Lords will be elected; a further one third of members will be elected at the general election after that. Until the final stage, the representation of all groups should be maintained in equal proportions to now. We will consult widely on these proposals, and on an open-listproportional representation electoral system for the Second Chamber, before putting them to the people in a referendum.

Nick Clegg's House of Lords Reform Bill gives them pretty much what they want. Not all, but closer to what they want than the status quo by a long chalk. Why on earth they are intending on walking into the voting lobbies behind the likes of Nadine Dorries and Eleanor Laing and other right wing Tories is beyond me. For a party that's supposed to believe in democratic accountability, this is a major betrayal of the British people. Do they really think defeating the Programme Motion gives the Bill a better chance of scrutiny? Really? By giving the floor to the Tory right to pontificate for hours on how much they hate Nick Clegg   how giving power away brings them out in hives. Structure to the debate is always preferable to that sort of anarchy.

Every Tory MP stood on a platform of building a consensus on a democratically elected second Chamber. Nick Thornsby has had a good look at their recent history on this. In terms of consensus building, the Liberal Democrats have been prepared to compromise and so should they.

Now, let's face it,  there are elements of the House of Lords Reform Bill that make me foam at the mouth. Why on earth we are keeping in an albeit small number of places for Bishops is beyond me. Nobody should sit in a Parliament by rights because of their religious position. If they want to be in Parliament, they should stand for election like everybody else. I'd also rather see the Chamber 100% elected rather than 80% and I think there should be the option for people to re-stand. Having said all of that, I'd happily vote for the Bill as it stands. There is no way, in a modern democracy, that members of a parliament should be appointed by the political leaders of the day for life with no way of ever getting rid of them whatever they do. It is a major change to ensure that 4/5 are chosen by the people.

You can always find an excuse not to do what you know needs doing but you really don't want to. I know that more than most. There's always an excuse not to give up overeating unhealthy food (well, I'm going out for dinner 3 weeks on Saturday, no point in starting now) or go to the gym, even though I know perfectly well that, however much I don't want to, I'll be a lot healthier and happier even if I managed it half the time.

Labour needs to stop being so precious and decide whether it's for greater democracy or against it. It failed to deliver Lords reform in 13 years when it had a parliamentary majority so we know their heart isn't in it even though on paper they accept it's the right thing to do. If Ed Miliband follows Peter Bone and Nadine Dorries into the no lobby tonight, he'll be saying that his Labour party is no different to its predecessor.

The Guardian, not exactly the Liberal Democrats' best friends, has strongly urged Labour to get a grip and seize the opportunity to reform this arcane institution.

If Labour cannot bring themselves to agree such a motion, then they are not being true to their history as a party of reform. Neither dislike of the coalition nor frustration at its proposed timetable justifies going into the lobbies with Tory MPs whose only concern – as they made clear in a torrent of reactionary interventions and speeches yesterday – is to preserve the Lords as it exists today. To vote in a way which effectively abandons the bill to filibuster and delay would be a shameful decision for Labour, with its fine record, ancient and modern, on Lords reform. Keir Hardie and Robin Cook would turn in their graves.

So, what will Ed Miliband do?

Also in the Guardian, our Charles Kennedy says:

There are only two reasons to oppose this bill: to defend the establishment and the status quo, or to give a bloody nose to the coalition generally and Nick Clegg specifically. Progressive politicians can have no truck with the former, while the latter is cynical short-termism of the most counterproductive kind.

Labour politicians for generations have fought to bring democracy to the House of Lords. Most recently Jack Straw made a valiant effort to try to end the hereditary principle. He did so with the support of the Lib Dems. But the establishment kicked back and his reforms, while progress, were minor and piecemeal. And at the last general election, reforming the House of Lords was included in the Labour manifesto by its author, Ed Miliband.

I actually feel quite fearful and sad this morning at the way vested interests and conservative forces are trying to hold us back, to stamp all over the dreams and rights of others. In Scotland we have a Cardinal, the head of the Catholic Church, basically telling LGBT people that he's coming to get them.  We can't allow a Church to threaten the democratically elected Government of the day when poll after poll shows that a significant majority of people back equal marriage. It's not for me to set the Catholic Church's priorities for them, but surely any war chest of £100,000 would be better spent on helping the poor and vulnerable than funding a campaign of hatred against people who simply want to marry the person they love. It's not even as if the Catholic Church is going to be forced to conduct same sex marriages so why they should feel the need to prevent others from exercising a basic human right is beyond me.

Liberals have to stand up to this sort of pressure from vested interests, whether it comes from within the Westminster Bubble or from the churches or from large corporations. It will be very clear, looking back on all of this, that the Liberal Democrats were unwavering in their quest to give power away, to tackle the establishment, to argue for the freedom and tolerance that is so important for any society. If the arguments over Lords Reform and equal marriage prove anything, it's that the Liberal Democrats are badly needed. Labour and the Tories definitely can't be trusted to challenge the established order of things. We'll see how far the SNP will go on equal marriage and whether they will stand up and how, or if, they vote tonight on Lords reform. Their Angus McNeil made a lot of interventions yesterday but didn't actually tell us very much. There's a surprise.

I'm finding the whole atmosphere of politics really difficult at the moment. It's poisonous, polarising and not helpful for proper development of ideas and debate. Politicians generally need to do better. It's hardly surprising people just aren't engaged in the debate or think that politics or politicians can do anything to help them.

Dorries accuses Evan Harris of blackmail!

I am so glad that Nadine Dorries' amendments on abortion counselling failed so spectacularly yesterday, with even the co-sponsor Frank Field distancing himself from them.

The Burd came up with a cracking, if chilling phrase to describe Dorries' proposal:

it insults women and represents potentially the worst attack on their legal capacity since the 19th Century when married women were not allowed to own their own property

I am very pleased to say that no Scottish Liberal Democrat MP voted with Dorries and 9 out of the 11, including Mike Moore and Danny Alexander, voted against. Charles Kennedy and Bob Smith didn't vote.

Now that the threat has passed, if you are in the mood for some comedy, you might want to read the account of the debate. Nadine, fresh from reminding the world how influential the Liberal Democrats are in Government (oh, go on then, if you insist I'll put the video up.....)



Now, where was I. Ah yes, Nadine and her increasingly farcical speech. I think my favourite bit was when she had a go at Evan Harris, accusing him of blackmailing the Prime Minister. Pure, dead brilliant!

Last weekend, the former MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, Evan Harris, who has spent most of the day in the office of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—he is still here, tabling his amendments—turned up on the airwaves expounding the theory that there is no evidence of a problem, that the amendment is unnecessary as nothing needs to be fixed, that the status quo should remain and that the abortion industry should be allowed to continue under the veil of secrecy that it has.

I received a message informing me that the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon had approached the Deputy Prime Minister’s office and exerted pressure. In fact, he tweeted exactly that, saying that he had applied pressure on the Deputy Prime Minister, who had now forced the Prime Minister to make a climbdown. Basically, a Liberal Democrat—in fact, a former MP who lost his seat in this place—is blackmailing our Prime Minister and our Government. Our Prime Minister is being put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health Bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP, who has focused on this amendment.

I'm annoyed that speaker John Bercow didn't slap her down more when Martin Horwood made a point of order. All he said was:

My understanding at present is that there has been no breach of order. However, I would say to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and to the House that temperate language, moderation and good humour are the essential features referred to in “Erskine May”, and it is best if they inform our debates.

As an additional treat, here's Evan taking a coach and horses through Nadine's arguments on Sky News last week.

Nadine Dorries confronts Cameron about too much Liberal Democrat influence in Government #PMQs

They say a broken clock is right twice a day. I doubt, to be honest, that Nadine Dorries manages twice a day, but she made Prime Minister's Questions worth watching today.

I'll get the Hansard quote later, but the basic thrust of her question was that the Liberal Democrats had only 8% of MPs, so why were they able to stop the Tories doing so much. Was it not, she asked, time for Cameron to tell Nick Clegg who was boss?

This is just the latest in a series of complaints by Tories about the extent to which the Liberal Democrats are influencing the Government.

I have never been so pleased by anything that comes out of the mouth of that woman.

Cameron was so flabbergasted, he couldn't keep a straight face and ended up ducking the question completely. I'd much rather listen to Nick than Nadine any day and it seems he feels the same way.

Another Tory MP whinged about the PM listening to the Liberal Democrats, and implored him to listen to Conservative colleagues by holding a referendum on Europe.

Nadine gave us all a reminder of what life would be like if the Tories were governing on their own. The right wingers would be having a field day and would be constantly pressuring Cameron to adopt their foolish and damaging policies. What a tea party that would be.

I'd been getting so frustrated with PMQs towards the end of the last session of Parliament. Today was a much needed reminder of why it's worth watching.

I have to give respectful kudos for Mr Monnery, for getting his blog post on this up first.

And Mr Thornsby for having the technical know how to get the video up.

I agree with Nadine Dorries!

Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.

Today, EPolitix.com reports that Nadine Dorries said the following at a Conservative Party conference fringe meeting:

"In my own perspective, and speaking in no other capacity but as an individual, I would rather die than go into a full election as a coalition candidate," 

I think that every single Liberal Democrat would feel the same way, even if they wouldn't express it in quite that manner. But seeing that nobody has either seriously, or jokingly suggested this as an idea, I think we can all rest easy.

It was Nadine's later comments, about her Lib Dem opponent Linda Jack which I thought were absolutely atrocious. Linda has always been sceptical about the Coalition, but given her experience of fighting Nadine, it's hardly surprising. You might remember Linda from the news coverage of Conference - she was the representative who asked Nick Clegg at the Question and Answer session whether she could still trust him with her Party.

Anyway, back to Nadine. She said of Linda:

"My previous Lib Dem opponent, she is a bit like a Japanese prisoner of war, no one has told her the election happened. She still thinks it is going on; she is still fighting the Lib Dem corner.

Apart from the obvious tastelessness of the analogy, she clearly doesn't get one of the key things that the Liberal Democrats are about - campaigning all year round, and not just at election time. We may be in coalition with the Conservatives but we will still fight them, and beat them - between now and the next election in 2015.

Nadine Dorries really is a walking, talking advertisement for both a power to sack an MP and for a fairer voting system which gives people more power over who represents them. I am not sure she'd do so well under PR given the number of people she offends - the most recent being disabled people who have the nerve to use social networking and have political opinions. I've already written about that but you might want to have a look at this from Rachel Olgeirrson.

Why Nadine Dorries is wrong - aka Twitter saved my sanity

Spidey and Andrew have already taken Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire Nadine Dorries to task for her ill informed comments about Twitter. Just to remind you, the lady thinks there must be something wrong with you if you tweet a lot:

I wonder if very soon someone is going to identify a Twitter syndrome and we get to read about people who have become compulsive Tweeters. Will we hear stories of people who Tweet, oh I don't know, say 50 times a day and need to go into re-hab?

I will put money on that being a Daily Mail story one day. In the meantime, do you know of anyone else who has Tweeted more than 35,000 times in less than six months? If so, email my office and let me know. Or, better still, if it's someone you know is on benefits, contact the DWP.

To me, the telling phrase is "I will put money on that being a Daily Mail story one day." There's a paper never prone to hysterical hyperbole if ever there was one.

I have managed a mere almost 26000 tweets in 2 years, but I have to say that when I was ill last year, Twitter was my lifeline. I'd joined up in September 2008 but couldn't really see the point in it. When I became ill to the point where I could barely stay out of bed for more than a couple of hours last year, it meant that my social life had to be heavily curtailed. I have always been pretty sociable and outgoing and my friends mean an awful lot to me. While I can be quite happy in my own company, isolation for a prolonged period gets me down.


For me, Twitter was a way of keeping in touch with my friends - and getting to know more brilliant people. It was also something I could do from bed and with a maximum of 140 characters, it meant that it didn't take too much time or energy to take part in a conversation and just feel that I was still part of the outside world.


I am sure that if I hadn't had that sort of interaction that I would quickly have gone under. I've suffered from Depression before on many occasions and I know how scary, dark and horrible a place that is. I credit Twitter as being one of the things that spared me another crippling spell with the Black Dog and thus enabling me to return to my normal productive self as quickly as I possibly could.


And a word to Nadine about how people at a keyboard are clearly capable of working. Well, thing is, you can do keyboard stuff without getting out of bed. I was discussing my illness with a friend of mine with a similar condition yesterday and we both had similar experiences of being able to sit in one place, but actually even walking from one room to another was enough to exhaust me. The end of the street for a time might have well as been on the moon. Commuting to work, walking to the office and climbing a huge staircase before I even started to do anything was way beyond my capabilities. Even now, some days are more difficult than others. Hoovering might one week be undemanding, the next it might floor me. It all seems pretty random.


I'm so much better now, but even a year on, I find that if I don't pace myself properly, I'll end up paying the price. These days I'm often physically able to power on through, do it anyway, and take the consequences later in a way that wasn't possible when it was at its worst. However, because I'm going out tonight (thank you, Willie Rennie, for organising a do on the opening night of Strictly. I am so delighted to be missing the return of my favourite programme, really I am), I know I'll have to ease up this afternoon.


So, Nadine, as ever, is talking absolute nonsense. Her Twitter experience was definitely different from mine. I love to engage and debate and discuss and generally have a bit of fun. She used to block people who disagreed with her, including many people I have a very high opinion of, like Mark Thompson and Matt Raven and Sara Bedford. I remember being involved on the fringes of a debate between her, Mark and Matt in which they wre arguing that alcohol abuse was frequently more harmful than recreational drug use and she ended up blocking either or both of them.


Her final tweet before deleting her account on election night, was to insult Evan Harris as he lost his seat. That sums up the sort of person she is. I'm not taking lectures on how I should spend my time from someone who's capable of that sort of bile.


I've been tagged in a meme about Twitter but I think I shall make that a separate post.

Bercow re-elected as Speaker as Dorries humiliated by coup failure

Sometimes I wonder if I'm still in a dream, that I had a nap when the polls closed on election day and I haven't woken up yet. There was a feeling of unreality which I switched on the tv to see the Liberal Democrats, for the first time in my lifetime, sitting on the Government benches, on the left as you watch on tv. It is kind of fitting that we have appropriated the banches previously occupied by Labour's Awkward Squad.

It was faintly depressing to see such an overwhelming sea of grey suits on the green benches. You do wonder when we're ever going to get to a situation where less than three quarters of our MPs are white men.

The grey was broken up by a lot of purple though - presumably in honour of the Take Back Parliament. It was good to see Nick Clegg wear the symbol of protest as he sat next to the New Prime Minister.

The first business was the election of the Speaker, accomplished with much doffing of hats from selected members of the House of Lords. Iain Dale said last night that his pal, the awful Nadine Dorries, had hatched a plot to provide Bercow with some competition. Tom Harris said that even if one person had shouted out no when Father of the House Peter Tapsell asked for approval of Bercow as Speaker, then there would be a vote of all of the House. In fact, when Nadine and her small coterie yelled their disapproval, they sounded so insignificant, that Sir Peter decided not to bother with the vote.

I have not forgiven Nadine Dorries for her dreadful tweet the night of the election when she gloated over Dr Evan Harris' defeat. It was ungracious and downright horrible so I was quite pleased to see her completely humiliated today.

Oh, and before I forget - another reason why Harriet Harman should stand for the Labour leadership. In her remarks to new members she told them not to listen to any advice to keep their heads down but to start trailblazing and fighting for their constituents.

The next big Parliamentary Event is the Queen's Speech next Tuesday, a day of pomp and circumstance which will take place the day after the £6bn worth of cuts is announced. If you want to be really geeky, you could watch BBC Parliament from 3 tomorrow to see MPs being sworn in to see if any of them forget there are mikes around the place and say things they shouldn't. I think it was the very funny and much missed Tony Banks who got caught taking the oath with his fingers crossed.

Nadine Dorries thinks Trident isn't a weapon of mass destruction

Yes, you did read that right. Tory MP Nadine Dorries actually said on Question Time (and I replayed it several times to make sure, because I thought my dodgy ears couldn't possibly be right) that Trident, which her Party has vowed to replace in the unfortunate event of them ever returning to office, is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It's a pity she couldn't have looked up her leader's plans for a more important item of defence spending - the aircraft carriers which are due to be built at Rosyth dockyard if this Government ever stops delaying the project. She was asked the direct question and she said she didn't know. I think we should be told the Tory plans for a project which is so vital for the Fife economy, where unemployment is up a jaw dropping 70% on last year. You would think that when she was appearing on a tv programme being filmed a hop, skip and a jump from Rosyth that somebody in the Tory party would have had the sense to brief her. Of course, there's always the possibility that they don't want to make their plans public.... Why could that be?

Anyway, I think the clear star performer last night was Nicola Sturgeon. She is usually very good in these combative settings and she did shine last night, despite not having particularly great opposition.

What on earth are the Labour Party going to do about Iain Gray, though? He's a nice enough man with his heart in the right place, but he was clearly otherwise engaged when charisma was being handed out. His delivery is wooden and he can barely string an argument together.

Nadine was, well, Nadine and totally out of her comfort zone. The bizarre SNP/Tory love in lives on as she praised a lot of what was happening in Scotland and had to be reminded by David Steel that the Tories had completely and obstinately opposed devolution in any form.

I wasn't too enamoured with David Steel saying he saw the point of the people in the audience who were calling for everyone's DNA to be taken at birth and put on a database and not advancing any of the arguments why this would be a really bad idea.

Nadine's Trident comment has to be the quote of the week, though - the audience gasped with sheer incredulity.

LibDig This!