Oh dear. It would appear that Omar’s boss has been ticked off again.

Last autumn, Emily Thornberry sent out what emerges came to 10,400 unsolicited letters to constituents using Commons stationary. Following a flurry of complaints, the Parliamentary Standards Officer Sir Philip Mawer has written to confirm that the cost of this stationary will now have to be paid back:

“It is clear to me that Ms Thornberry should not have used pre-paid envelopes at all for this exercise (since her letter was unsolicited) but should have covered the cost of the stationery and envelopes and the postage required directly, either from her Communications Allowance or out of her own pocket.”

…

“She has indicated that she will reimburse the cost of the pre-paid envelopes she used and I have asked her to do this.”

This whole adventure is estimated to have cost her around £4,250.

Of course, the “unwise” Ms Thornberry has form. Still, could be worse. At least she didn’t back Peter Hain in the deputy leadership contest!

UPDATE: Following my latest Swinsongate story, Young Labour have airbrushed their news story out of existence. This is at least better than retrospectively turning it into a different story entirely.

They teach airbrushing technique young in the Labour Party it seems. You may recall, dear reader, that I took Chair of London Young Labour Omar Salem to task before Christmas for manufacturing a story about the Lib Dem reshuffle by selectively quoting this website and getting a whole heap of facts wrong, a story which sadly Independent Political Editor Andrew Grice allowed himself to be taken in by. Now it would appear that Omar has gone back and tried to destroy all the evidence of his stupidity.

Of course, that leaves me with a bit of a problem - I’m now open to the accusation that I made the whole thing up. Fortunately, someone saw fit to send me Omar’s press release in PDF format for your perusal. Enjoy!

UPDATE: It occurred to me I ought to include the web version of the press release for you to compare and contrast (and just in case Omar decides to change it back again!). Plus, I should point out that, as a researcher for Emily Thornberry MP, Omar has of course learned from the best when it comes to doctoring press releases.

James Purnell is quoted in the Guardian today as saying:

“When Brian [McMaster, a former director of the Edinburgh International Festival who wrote a policy review to be published on Thursday commissioned by Purnell] talks about the potential for a new Renaissance, I don’t think that’s an overstatement. It’s exactly true.”

There can be only one response to that (pictured).

On a slightly more serious note, and we will clearly have to wait for the full report, but the suggestion that a) a renaissance can be contained within national borders and b) that it can happen within the arts exclusively is rather crass. One could argue that we are a good 50 years into a renaissance already - look at how the quality of life has been transformed. We’re waiting for the established arts to catch up, not lead the way.

For the past four years, I’ve spent much of my job working on party funding related issues. This has given me a rather apolitical outlook when it comes to funding scandals.

“Abrahamsgate” and “Wendygate” are no exceptions. Don’t get me wrong; the decision of Peter Watt, apparently his predeccessors and almost certainly a lot of others within the party to break the law in covering up the identity of a major party donor is a real scandal. With the Wendy Alexander debacle, a similar dismissive attitude about the law seems to have been in place. But no party has clean hands, least of all the Conservatives who continue to use unincorporated associations to legally protect the anonymity of their donors. It may be legal, but they are doing exactly the same thing on a daily basis, only less hamfistedly.

It is really hard to see how some of the smaller donations which are getting journalists so excited at the moment have that much significance. £950 here or £2,000 there is not as much of an issue as the fact that, for example, the £306,000 in donations that were reported late by the main parties in the last quarter alone. The fact is, none of the main party’s systems are that good and they could all do with being improved (admittedly, Labour’s seems to be in a bigger mess than either the Tories or Lib Dems).

But if the central party machine’s systems are not that perfect, what about - for example - the campaign teams of leadership candidates? Most of the scandals that are hitting the headlines at the moment concern the Labour Deputy Leadership and the Scottish Leadership contests (or non-contest in the latter case). I hope that Team Clegg and Team Huhne are making extra sure that all their donations are above board and that they are registering every single one of them; it could so easily happen to us.

Shortly after I posted my own comment on Miranda Grell’s failed appeal, she posted her own:

Following yesterday’s decision at Snaresbrook Crown Court to uphold my conviction for two offences against the Representation of the People Act 1983, I have, this morning, resigned from both the Labour party and my job working for the Deputy Mayor of London, at the Greater London Authority.

Although I know I am innocent, what I have been convicted of amounts to bringing the Labour party into disrepute and gross misconduct of the Greater London Authority constitution.

I cannot expect either of these organisations to continue to formally support me in these circumstances.

I have also resigned from the Compass Management Committee.

Many thanks to all of you who have today sent through messages of support.

Our fight continues.

All fair enough, but she seems to have conveniently forgotten that she admitted, in court, to spreading unsubstantiated rumours about her opponent’s sexuality door-to-door (even if she denies ever calling him a paedophile, which the court decided she did). She also continues to fail to even recognise the huge consequences that had on Barry Smith’s personal life.

Denial is a horrible thing; it’s so all-encompassing. I really do plead with her, and her friends, to recognise the damage she caused and to contemplate on that fact. Apart from the fact that this looks very much like a fight she cannot win, there is a danger that it will end up consuming her.

I can’t presume to know the mind of Barry Smith, but if ever there was a case for restorative justice, this is it. Both of them could gain enormously from sitting in a room together with a mediator and talking over their experiences.

I don’t think Miranda Grell is a homophobe. I think she got carried away by a party strategy of dirty tricks and discovered she was a little too good at it. It’s clear to anyone who has walked in Labour circles that she was well liked and a lot of people thought she was set to be the next big thing. I think she’s capable of redemption, but she needs to recognise her guilt first.

Stop fighting Miranda, or you’ll destroy yourself.

Despite the occasional slippage, I’ve resisted the temptation to blog much about Miranda Grell’s fall from grace. She is entitled to defend her reputation and mount an appeal, but now that appeal has failed, I thought I’d make a few points myself.

Though it appalls me to realise this fact, I’ve been around the block a few times now, so when I read people make extravagant claims that this court case is the thin end of the wedge which will lead to councillors being convicted of making slurs they did not utter left, right and centre, I can only laugh hollowly. This is the first conviction brought forth under the RPA 1983, and only came about because it appears that Grell was so blatant that even her own ward colleagues baulked at her behaviour and that the consequences were so severe that a blameless man was driven out of his home. I can recall at least one occassion when a coucillor of my acquaintance was subject to a concerted campaign to out him on the doorsteps of his ward. It wasn’t a pleasant experience for him by any means but it didn’t lead to any action.

Secondly, what I truly don’t understand is that despite the fact that Grell has even admitted some culpability (making a qualified admission that she may have suggested that Smith was sleeping with an above-the-age-of-consent-but-still-young-nudge-nudge-wink-wink 19 year old), absolutely no mea culpa has been forthcoming. She’s a young woman, a three year ban is no hindrance to a politician playing the long game. Why didn’t she simply accept she had behaved appallingly, take it on the chin, personally apologise to Barry Smith and start her political rehabilitation?

Lib Dems out for blood may not have been satisfied, but it would have calmed things down and, apart from anything else, would have been the right thing to do. It would have been the Christian thing to do.

Instead, we’ve been witness to this pantomime where she has managed to turn the whole thing into an attack on both her ward and on black politicians generally. Without a hint of irony, she’s plastered a photo of her as a baby on her website - what the hell does that mean? We’ve had at least one example of blatant sock-puppetry from her campaign designed entirely to confuse the issue. Thus far, she does not appear to have shown even the slightest remorse over the fact that, for whatever reason, Barry Smith has been attacked in the street and forced to move out of the area. If she’d won the appeal, and I’ve never personally discounted that possibility, it was clear that a torrent of self-righteous abuse would now be being rained down upon everyone who even hinted that she may have been a little bit naughty.

Yet a man’s life has been wrecked.

She is still a member of the Labour Party and still a member of Compass’ Management Committee. Is it really too much to ask that both organisations now take swift action to rectify this situation?

Hat tips: Antony Hook, Lib Dem Voice, Andy Mayer, Liberal England.

As we all know, no Labour candidate is ever guilty of anything and Labour stands by them, even if they admit to making homophobic smears in court (”but I technically didn’t call ‘im a nonce, guv!“). So I wonder what they will make of this.

Actually, I already know that. The official Labour response at the end of the film dismissed the whole thing out of hand on the basis that it was cooked up by the political opponents and depended on the account of a drug addict. So no denial there then.

Hat tip: John Hemming.

I find this quite perplexing:

‘Gordon is trying to build up a systematic argument in a slow burn,’ one cabinet minister said. ‘If you talk about Britain’s, and his, commitment to liberty, then you provide a context for further debates about issues such as 90 days [for detention without charge.] It is a new approach. Under Tony, the 90-day idea came out of nowhere.’ A change on detention without charge - doubling the current limit of 28 days to 56 - is likely to be signalled in the Queen’s Speech once Brown’s message on liberty has been digested.

So, basically, Brown is paying lip service to Britain’s deep commitment to liberty in order to destroy it? And this is presented by an unnamed cabinet minister as clever politics? Where has Labour’s moral compass gone?

God, Labour really are in a full scale rout at the moment, aren’t they?

The tax system should reward married couples, a cabinet minister has said.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Andy Burnham told the Daily Telegraph: “It’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise commitment and marriage.”

He did not advocate specific changes to the tax system, but said there was a “moral case” for using tax to promote the traditional family unit.

On the claim that there is a ‘moral case’ for using tax to promote marriage, he could not be more wrong. One of the least moral reasons going for getting married is acquiring tax advantages and if the system ends up penalising single parents, many of whom are not single through choice, then already unstable families will end up doing worse out of the system.

If there is a moral argument for marriage, money ought to be immaterial. You can’t tax and spend your way to righteousness.

Presumably we can depend on Harriet Harman, the only member of the Brown government to have a mandate from the party, to put the opposing view? After all, she’s been lambasting Cameron on this issue for months. But of course Harman’s first act as a government minister back in 1997 was to cut benefits for single mothers. I’m sure she’ll find a way to reconcile her own stated views with Andy Burnham’s. Her idea of radicalism in office is to call on Gordon Brown to do something that he committed himself to doing in a White Paper published three months ago, and which will not materially affect anything (if the Prime Minister has a majority in the Commons and demanded an election, do you seriously believe the party would turn him down?).

What amazes and appalls me the most though is how, in the space of a fortnight, Labour have seemingly done everything they can to transform Gideon Osborne’s reputation from whining top hatted toff who is totally out of his depth to a Svengali-figure who sets the entire political agenda of the UK. It’s utter madness. He came up with a few proposals that were economically irresponsible and fundamentally didn’t add up, and the entire Labour front bench falls down in a heap, struggling to emulate him in every way they can. Truly this is the single greatest mystery of modern politics.

Labour in freefall: huge Lib Dem opportunity. Time to step up a gear perhaps?

Since the Tories were making such a big deal about the by-elections last week, here are a couple of results that happened within hours of David Cameron’s conference speech:

Leicestershire CC, Shepshed
Lab 1217 (30.2; -12.7), Con 1074 (26.6; -10.2), LD John Popley 933 (23.1;
+2.8), BNP 807 (20.0; +20.0).
Majority 143. Turnout 37.3%. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.

Windsor and Maidenhead UA, Datchet
Con 799 (63.8; -8.6), LD Tim O’Flynn 352 (28.1; +12.0), Ind 102 (8.1; +8.1),
[Lab (0.0; -11.5)].
Majority 447. Turnout 35.8%. Con hold. Last fought 2007.

I’ve singled out the Tories here, but it isn’t such good news for Labour either. The only party to have raised their share of the vote in both seats are the Lib Dems. Congratulations in particular should go to Lib Dem Cllr Andrew Nisbet in Helensburgh and Lomond South, Argyll and Bute who gained a seat from an independent.

Make of that what you will.