I have had a call from a journalist at the Sunday Times who is apparently writing a story for tomorrow about Sir Alan Sugar and his surprise elevation to the Peerage.  He wants to know what the reaction of the Labour Peers Group has been.

I haven’t spoken to him directly, but have left him a message saying:

“Many Labour Peers are looking forward to Alan Sugar joining them in the Government voting lobby late into the evening three times a week. They are, in particular, looking forward to seeing him support Government measures, like the Equalities Bill now going through Parliament, or those strengthening employment rights in the workforce.”

When I arrived in Parliament today, a friend pressed into my hand an organisational diagram showing the Ministerial appointments in the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (it’s DaBiz!).  My noble friend, Lord Peter Mandelson, who is now First Secretary of State (ie Deputy Prime Minister in all but name), Lord President of the Council, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, rules over a Department with ELEVEN Ministers – an unprecedented number – the size of many nineteenth century Cabinets. 

Of the eleven, a majority (six) are unelected and members of the House of Lords (and that excludes Sir (soon to be Lord??) Alan Sugar who is “an advisor” not a Minister (so why does he need a peerage?). 

More significantly, five of the Ministers are also holding posts in other Government Departments: Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Ministry of Defence; Department of Children, Schools and Families; Department of Communities and Local Government; and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. 

This gives the First Secretary of State what has been described to me as a “tentacular” reach into most of the rest of the Government. 

And, of course, as Lord President he presides over meetings of the Privy Council. 

Not bad for a former Lambeth Councillor. 

There is nothing that a few years as a member of a London Borough Council does not equip you to do …..

The European Election results are awful for Labour across the country so far.  However, I cannot help but notice that the results in London were still bad for Labour but not anything like as bad as those in Wales, the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber.  So far, the fall in the share of the vote in London is the lowest recorded in any region.  London is, of course, different, but maybe there is something about the London Labour Party that is working better with the electorate ….

I have been watching the BBC’s European Election Night coverage.  On the whole they seem to be getting more information out earlier than Sky News.

However, I am beginning to detect signs of bias from David Dimbleby.  He is sitting next to Nick Robinson.  Increasingly, as Nick Robinson speaks, David Dimbleby’s lip curls, and then he comes back to question what Nick Robinson has said.  He seems to have complete contempt for the quality of Nick Robinson’s intellectual analysis.

Surely that cannot be true?

I have recently got home to North London from speaking at a meeting of Lewisham East Labour Party.  The meeting was fixed months ago and at that time there was no indication that the political scene would be quite so volatile, so the topic I had originally been asked to speak on – “the outlook for the London Council elections in 2010″ – was hardly relevant.  Instead, I talked about the events of the last few weeks, leading up to today’s reshuffle and the implications of the local election results emerging since last night.

The discussion was lively and the prevailing message was that the disunity amongst members of the Parliamentary Labour Party must not continue.  Party members were divided on what they wanted to happen next, but all were clear that the crisis around the Leadership must be resolved within days.

Some commentators are tonight, of course, saying that following the reshuffle the Leadership crisis is over.  I am not so sure.  The European election votes have yet to be counted and it will be critical what the mood is when MPs return to Westminster on Monday and, in particular, what happens at the meeting that evening of the Parliamentary Labour Party (at which Gordon Brown will be speaking).  I wouldn’t like to predict how the next 72 hours will play out, but what I am clear about is that – whatever else happens - Lewisham East Labour Party members are right: the lack of unity must not be allowed to go on beyond the next few days.

Stuart Drummond, whose main claim to fame when he was first elected was that he dressed up in a monkey suit as mascot of the local football team, has been reelected comfortably as Mayor of Hartlepool for a third term.

When he was first elected, his election was portrayed as showing that the idea of directly-elected Mayors was a joke.  Certainly, his election was intended by local people as a protest against the main political parties.  However, they have since voted for him again twice, which rather suggests that he is getting something right.  His main challenger this time was also an independent – the boss of a local taxi firm.  The Labour candidate came third and the Conservative seventh after UKIP, the BNP and another independent.

Certainly, his re-election means that his original election can no longer be used as an argument that directly-elected Mayoral systems will automatically result in electors voting frivolously.

I have just received the following email:

“Please add your names by 10PM BST and forward to the address if you support the following.
 
 Dear Gordon,
Over the last 12 years in government, and before, you have made an enormous contribution to this country and to the Labour Party, and this is very widely acknowledged.
However we are writing now because we believe that in the current political situation, you can best serve the Labour Party and the country by stepping down as party leader and Prime Minister, and so allowing the party to choose a new leader to take us into the next general election.
Yours XXXX
 
Failure to do so will mean no seat is safe and a bigger Tory victory than would otherwise be the case. ”

It purports to be from Alistair Darling, but from a Googlemail address and it seems to have been sent indiscriminately to all Members of Parliament.

So I assume it’s a hoax …..

I have just been to vote in the European elections (peers can vote in local elections and elections for the European Parliament, but not for the UK Parliament).  It was quite busy.  I’ve certainly known that polling station much quieter at 9am on an election day.

Maybe the voter turnout is going to be rather higher than was being predicted.  I am not sure who that will benefit, but I suspect for once a higher turnout will not be much help to the Labour Party.  I am not sure that the beneficiaries will be the Conservatives either, but we will see.  The only Party represented outside the polling station were the Greens …….

I have been speaking in the Policing and Crime Bill Second Reading debate.  The Bill is a worthy measure.  It Bill draws together a number of disparate policy issues on policing and crime and , in particular, it:

• Introduces new provisions to improve police accountability and effectiveness (although the Government’s plans for directly elected police authorities, which provoked some controversy, have not been included in the Bill)
• Creates a new offence of paying for sex with someone who is controlled for gain and introduces new powers to close brothels
• Modifies the law on soliciting
• Tightens up the regulation of lap-dancing clubs by reclassifying them as ‘sex establishments’ rather than ‘entertainment’ venues
• Amends police powers to deal with young people drinking in public
• Introduces a new mandatory code of practice for alcohol sales
• Amends the criminal asset recovery scheme established under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
• Changes the arrangements for airport security and policing.

The proposals on prostitution are important but I focussed narrowly on those issues improving police effectiveness and accountability.

The Bill is – as I say – worthy, but does show some signs of being there because every Parliamentary Session is expected to contain a Bill on policing. 
For example, Clause 1 places a duty on Police Authorities to ‘have regard’ to the views of the public in carrying out their functions. This is fine. Welcome you may say, but there already exists a duty on Police Authorities to ‘obtain’ the views of the public.
So what is the point of Clause 1? How many Police Authorities obtain the views of the public and then fail to have regard to those views (even if on a particular issue those views are – for other reasons – over-ruled). ‘Have regard to’ does not mean ‘automatically accept’. It means considering those views before taking a decision and being clear, if those views are not accepted, why that it is. So what does Clause 1 add? The answer is not a lot.

Thanks to Faber Brent Security, my attention has been drawn to an article in the Washington Post, describing how when men working underground on the Washington Metro accidentally sliced through a cable within a matter of minutes three black SUVs appeared and a number of very serious men got out demanding to know what had happened to their secure connection! Nothing out of the ordinary in a cable being cut – unfortunately it happens all too often. But usually the problem is finding out what cable that has been cut actually does. In this instance, however, the mysterious men in the black SUVs took over extremely quickly!
If something similar happened in the UK, I wonder what the equivalent response time would be? Do the key parts of our critical national infrastructure even know where the critical cables are?