This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/may/02/politics-live-blog-leveson-pmqs

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Politics live blog: Wednesday 2 May Politics live blog – Wednesday 2 May
(about 6 hours later)
9.00am: Bad news for everyone who's been enjoying the Leveson inquiry. It could be over a lot sooner than we thought. Yesterday Lord Justice Leveson published a 25-page ruling with the snappy title: Ruling on the Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (pdf). Under the public inquiry rules, people who are going to be significantly criticised in an inquiry report have a right to be warned in advance and the ruling explains how Leveson will apply this rule. It's written in dense legalese - one section is headed "What constitutes a 'person'" - but the final paragraph contains some hot news. David Cameron ordered Leveson to conduct his inquiry in two parts: the first part, which is supposed to conclude by the end of this year, will make recommendations for the reform of media regulation; and second part, which will conclude after any criminal prosecutions are over, is supposed to explain exactly what went wrong at News International. But Leveson now seems to think that part two will be superfluous.9.00am: Bad news for everyone who's been enjoying the Leveson inquiry. It could be over a lot sooner than we thought. Yesterday Lord Justice Leveson published a 25-page ruling with the snappy title: Ruling on the Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (pdf). Under the public inquiry rules, people who are going to be significantly criticised in an inquiry report have a right to be warned in advance and the ruling explains how Leveson will apply this rule. It's written in dense legalese - one section is headed "What constitutes a 'person'" - but the final paragraph contains some hot news. David Cameron ordered Leveson to conduct his inquiry in two parts: the first part, which is supposed to conclude by the end of this year, will make recommendations for the reform of media regulation; and second part, which will conclude after any criminal prosecutions are over, is supposed to explain exactly what went wrong at News International. But Leveson now seems to think that part two will be superfluous.
Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment which I emphasise has played no part in my thinking or my analysis of the appropriate approach but which is, to my mind, a point worth making although I do so with some diffidence. The public concern which led to the setting up of this Inquiry is beyond argument or debate. I do not know whether there will be prosecutions but, having regard to the number of arrests and the quantity of material seized (including the 300m emails which it is said have had to be analysed), if there are, it is likely that the process of pre-trial disclosure and trial will be lengthy so that Part 2 of this Inquiry will be delayed for very many months if not longer. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interests that Part 1 goes as far as it possibly can. If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct. Obviously, the more restrictive in its analysis that Part 1 has been, the greater will be the legitimate public demand for Part 2. I repeat that this possibility has not affected my approach to what I perceive to be appropriate in law and, when necessary, in the exercise of my discretion but it is undeniably a sensible strategic consideration for those who have participated in this Inquiry.Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment which I emphasise has played no part in my thinking or my analysis of the appropriate approach but which is, to my mind, a point worth making although I do so with some diffidence. The public concern which led to the setting up of this Inquiry is beyond argument or debate. I do not know whether there will be prosecutions but, having regard to the number of arrests and the quantity of material seized (including the 300m emails which it is said have had to be analysed), if there are, it is likely that the process of pre-trial disclosure and trial will be lengthy so that Part 2 of this Inquiry will be delayed for very many months if not longer. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interests that Part 1 goes as far as it possibly can. If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct. Obviously, the more restrictive in its analysis that Part 1 has been, the greater will be the legitimate public demand for Part 2. I repeat that this possibility has not affected my approach to what I perceive to be appropriate in law and, when necessary, in the exercise of my discretion but it is undeniably a sensible strategic consideration for those who have participated in this Inquiry.
He seems to be saying: After part one is over, do I really have to keep going?He seems to be saying: After part one is over, do I really have to keep going?
I'm highlighting this at length because, with parliament prorogued and the government in purdah because of the local elections tomorrow, there's not much else going on. Bu, as usual, I'll be covering any breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon.I'm highlighting this at length because, with parliament prorogued and the government in purdah because of the local elections tomorrow, there's not much else going on. Bu, as usual, I'll be covering any breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon.
In response to a question from JamesCracknell, I'm also going to put up a post about what makes a "win" at PMQs.In response to a question from JamesCracknell, I'm also going to put up a post about what makes a "win" at PMQs.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog.And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog.
9.14am: Leveson will not cover exactly what went wrong at News International in detail in the first part of his inquiry because he does not want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. In his 25-page "Application of Rule 13" ruling (see 9.00am), which I'm afraid I've only skimmed, he also seems to be playing down the prospects of the report he will publish after part 1 of his inquiry is over containing extensive criticism of individuals.9.14am: Leveson will not cover exactly what went wrong at News International in detail in the first part of his inquiry because he does not want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. In his 25-page "Application of Rule 13" ruling (see 9.00am), which I'm afraid I've only skimmed, he also seems to be playing down the prospects of the report he will publish after part 1 of his inquiry is over containing extensive criticism of individuals.
He says he is more interested in finding out what was wrong with the culture of the press in general.He says he is more interested in finding out what was wrong with the culture of the press in general.
In this Part of the Inquiry, I am not addressing the detail for its own sake but, rather, the culture, practices and ethics of the press in general. The purpose (as defined by the Terms of Reference) is specifically to be able to make recommendations about an effective regulatory regime which itself requires me to look primarily at whether the present regulatory regime has either succeeded or failed: that is the reason why a narrative of facts is essential ...The identity of those who are responsible for any breach of standards is incidental to this exercise and does not take forward the necessary analysis.In this Part of the Inquiry, I am not addressing the detail for its own sake but, rather, the culture, practices and ethics of the press in general. The purpose (as defined by the Terms of Reference) is specifically to be able to make recommendations about an effective regulatory regime which itself requires me to look primarily at whether the present regulatory regime has either succeeded or failed: that is the reason why a narrative of facts is essential ...The identity of those who are responsible for any breach of standards is incidental to this exercise and does not take forward the necessary analysis.
He also says that, because he will not be able to criticise individuals facing possible criminal prosecution, it would be unfair to criticise others who may have been responsible for "less reprehensible conduct".He also says that, because he will not be able to criticise individuals facing possible criminal prosecution, it would be unfair to criticise others who may have been responsible for "less reprehensible conduct".
The limits that I place on criticising individuals revolve around the fact that those caught up in Operation Weeting or Operation Elveden have not been asked about those issues and cannot be criticised in relation to that which is there under investigation so that, in connection with that type of activity, it does not seem fair specifically to criticise others for less reprehensible conduct although that will not prevent me from identifying the evidence upon which I reach conclusions as to culture, practices or ethics and I recognise that this will not prevent anyone from searching the transcripts to identify names or titles used to exemplify the concerns that I express.The limits that I place on criticising individuals revolve around the fact that those caught up in Operation Weeting or Operation Elveden have not been asked about those issues and cannot be criticised in relation to that which is there under investigation so that, in connection with that type of activity, it does not seem fair specifically to criticise others for less reprehensible conduct although that will not prevent me from identifying the evidence upon which I reach conclusions as to culture, practices or ethics and I recognise that this will not prevent anyone from searching the transcripts to identify names or titles used to exemplify the concerns that I express.
Leveson stresses that this does not mean that he will not be criticising anyone at all. He will have something to say about phone hacking, he says.Leveson stresses that this does not mean that he will not be criticising anyone at all. He will have something to say about phone hacking, he says.

As I have already explained, I have no intention of making detailed findings of fact of the 'who did what' variety on any isolated basis, although some examples fully rehearsed in the evidence may exemplify rather wider conclusions about what I perceive to be the generally understood practices in, at least, some areas of the press. As a number of journalists have been prepared to speak specifically about interception of mobile telephone messages, it should not be a surprise if I reach conclusions about that.
As I have already explained, I have no intention of making detailed findings of fact of the 'who did what' variety on any isolated basis, although some examples fully rehearsed in the evidence may exemplify rather wider conclusions about what I perceive to be the generally understood practices in, at least, some areas of the press. As a number of journalists have been prepared to speak specifically about interception of mobile telephone messages, it should not be a surprise if I reach conclusions about that.
But generally he seems to be saying that he will not be publishing a wide-ranging, "name-and-shame" indictment. I can think of a few journos who might be quite relieved.But generally he seems to be saying that he will not be publishing a wide-ranging, "name-and-shame" indictment. I can think of a few journos who might be quite relieved.
9.39am: Members of the Commons culture committee are still arguing about the phone hacking report they published yesterday. Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said the committee did not spend any time discussing the claim that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit person to run a major company. But Paul Farrelly, a Labour member of the committee, told the Today programme this morning that the issue was dicussed. We've got a story about it here.9.39am: Members of the Commons culture committee are still arguing about the phone hacking report they published yesterday. Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said the committee did not spend any time discussing the claim that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit person to run a major company. But Paul Farrelly, a Labour member of the committee, told the Today programme this morning that the issue was dicussed. We've got a story about it here.
After Farrelly spoke to Today, Mensch took to Twitter to say she was not backing down.After Farrelly spoke to Today, Mensch took to Twitter to say she was not backing down.
Radio 4 today asked me for a quote but said they would not have me on; a great pity as we did not discuss "fit and proper".Radio 4 today asked me for a quote but said they would not have me on; a great pity as we did not discuss "fit and proper".
— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 2, 2012— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 2, 2012
10.11am: William Hague was on Radio 5 Live this morning. He made it pretty clear that he disagreed with the Commons culture committee finding about Rupert Murdoch not being a fit person to run a major international company. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.10.11am: William Hague was on Radio 5 Live this morning. He made it pretty clear that he disagreed with the Commons culture committee finding about Rupert Murdoch not being a fit person to run a major international company. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
I don't know [Rupert Murdoch] that well actually. What I would say about him - and actually all newspaper proprietors who have this difficult relationship with politicians - I don't think I've ever liked or disliked these proprietors they are just people you have to deal with. I'm not a very judgemental person. They are great business people, let us be clear about that. Of course people who run big businesses around the world are very capable people and they all have their charming ways, and they all have their downsides as well.I don't know [Rupert Murdoch] that well actually. What I would say about him - and actually all newspaper proprietors who have this difficult relationship with politicians - I don't think I've ever liked or disliked these proprietors they are just people you have to deal with. I'm not a very judgemental person. They are great business people, let us be clear about that. Of course people who run big businesses around the world are very capable people and they all have their charming ways, and they all have their downsides as well.
10.25am: Ministers are holding what has been dubbed a "whiplash summit" today. They want to cut the number of whiplash claims being submitted after driving accidents, following claims that this has become a £2bn racket which is driving up insurance premiums.10.25am: Ministers are holding what has been dubbed a "whiplash summit" today. They want to cut the number of whiplash claims being submitted after driving accidents, following claims that this has become a £2bn racket which is driving up insurance premiums.
Here's an extract from the story that the Press Assocation filed on this overnight.Here's an extract from the story that the Press Assocation filed on this overnight.
Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said the government's plans will aim to tackle questionable medical evidence and make it "quicker, cheaper and easier for valid injury claims to be dealt with through the small claims court".
Proposals, to be outlined in a consultation document this summer, will include consulting on the feasibility of introducing independent medical panels.
The independent medical experts, who would have no direct links to either claimants or defendants, would replace the current assessment of whiplash injuries by either GPs or doctors employed by medical reporting organisations.
Doctors can currently receive a fee of up to £195 to process these claims and some have a regular client base of solicitors.
Other proposals include raising the limit for personal injury cases in the small claims court from £1,000 to £5,000.
The government will also "strongly encourage insurers to pass on the savings back to their customers", Clarke said.
He added: "It is scandalous that we have a system where it is cheaper for insurers to settle a spurious whiplash claim out of court than defend it, creating rocketing insurance premiums for honest drivers.
"Our reforms will put a stop to this."
But Karl Tonks, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), said: "Whiplash injuries are real, they can be long term, and must not be trivialised.
"Before it announces a raft of propositions which risk barring genuinely injured people from bringing legitimate claims, the government must have a wider debate about the real issues, and it must also hold the insurance industry to account.
"I'm really concerned that in all the latest populist rhetoric about whiplash claims, everyone is being tarred with the same brush."		Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said the government's plans will aim to tackle questionable medical evidence and make it "quicker, cheaper and easier for valid injury claims to be dealt with through the small claims court".
Proposals, to be outlined in a consultation document this summer, will include consulting on the feasibility of introducing independent medical panels.
The independent medical experts, who would have no direct links to either claimants or defendants, would replace the current assessment of whiplash injuries by either GPs or doctors employed by medical reporting organisations.
Doctors can currently receive a fee of up to £195 to process these claims and some have a regular client base of solicitors.
Other proposals include raising the limit for personal injury cases in the small claims court from £1,000 to £5,000.
The government will also "strongly encourage insurers to pass on the savings back to their customers", Clarke said.
He added: "It is scandalous that we have a system where it is cheaper for insurers to settle a spurious whiplash claim out of court than defend it, creating rocketing insurance premiums for honest drivers.
"Our reforms will put a stop to this."
But Karl Tonks, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), said: "Whiplash injuries are real, they can be long term, and must not be trivialised.
"Before it announces a raft of propositions which risk barring genuinely injured people from bringing legitimate claims, the government must have a wider debate about the real issues, and it must also hold the insurance industry to account.
"I'm really concerned that in all the latest populist rhetoric about whiplash claims, everyone is being tarred with the same brush."
11.09am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.11.09am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.
As for the rest of the papers, here are some articles and stories that are particularly interesting.

• Daniel Finkelstein in the Times (paywall) says two important facts explain the government's problems.		As for the rest of the papers, here are some articles and stories that are particularly interesting.

• Daniel Finkelstein in the Times (paywall) says two important facts explain the government's problems.
Two big, fat overwhelming things are true about this Government: two things that describe it and limit it; two things that have vastly more explanatory power than anything else I have seen advanced as an explanation of its current political problems.Two big, fat overwhelming things are true about this Government: two things that describe it and limit it; two things that have vastly more explanatory power than anything else I have seen advanced as an explanation of its current political problems.
First, the Prime Minister's party does not have a parliamentary majority. To govern he needs to make a fresh deal every day with a political force very different from his own. And second, the Government has no money, the economy isn't growing and the public are paying off debts and seeing their standard of living deteriorate.First, the Prime Minister's party does not have a parliamentary majority. To govern he needs to make a fresh deal every day with a political force very different from his own. And second, the Government has no money, the economy isn't growing and the public are paying off debts and seeing their standard of living deteriorate.
• Dan Hodges in the Daily Telegraph recalls what it was like working for Ken Livingstone as a press officer at Transport for London.• Dan Hodges in the Daily Telegraph recalls what it was like working for Ken Livingstone as a press officer at Transport for London.
This desire for control bordered on the pathological. No statement was too trivial to be checked at least two or three times. No fact was too minor to be challenged – and changed – if it didn't portray Ken in the best light. Some incidents were amusing. When the Tour de France came to London, Ken's team were desperate to show that the investment, and disruption, had been worthwhile. "How many can we say watched it?" I was asked. "About 750,000." "Can't we get it up to a million?" "Not sure. The police do the crowd figures." We checked with Scotland Yard. "Well, it's usually only the Queen who gets a million," our contact said. "But just this once…"This desire for control bordered on the pathological. No statement was too trivial to be checked at least two or three times. No fact was too minor to be challenged – and changed – if it didn't portray Ken in the best light. Some incidents were amusing. When the Tour de France came to London, Ken's team were desperate to show that the investment, and disruption, had been worthwhile. "How many can we say watched it?" I was asked. "About 750,000." "Can't we get it up to a million?" "Not sure. The police do the crowd figures." We checked with Scotland Yard. "Well, it's usually only the Queen who gets a million," our contact said. "But just this once…"
Other attempts at manipulation were more serious. Ken's decision to introduce free travel for the under-16s had resulted in a big spike in crime on the bus network, most of it fairly trivial. Still, the figures were quite clear, and people kept submitting Freedom of Information requests to get them. The mayor's office was constantly pushing us to find a way to refute the allegation that crime was up, even though it plainly was.Other attempts at manipulation were more serious. Ken's decision to introduce free travel for the under-16s had resulted in a big spike in crime on the bus network, most of it fairly trivial. Still, the figures were quite clear, and people kept submitting Freedom of Information requests to get them. The mayor's office was constantly pushing us to find a way to refute the allegation that crime was up, even though it plainly was.
• Ed Miliband tells the Independent in an interview that Boris Johnson is a typical Tory.• Ed Miliband tells the Independent in an interview that Boris Johnson is a typical Tory.
Boris Johnson's strategy for these mayoral elections is based on pretending he is not a Tory. He tries not to be seen in public with David Cameron and most of his election literature makes no reference to him being the Conservative candidate. But Boris Johnson has proven to be a typical Tory as mayor, raising fares, cutting services and standing up only for the powerful or wealthy in London.Boris Johnson's strategy for these mayoral elections is based on pretending he is not a Tory. He tries not to be seen in public with David Cameron and most of his election literature makes no reference to him being the Conservative candidate. But Boris Johnson has proven to be a typical Tory as mayor, raising fares, cutting services and standing up only for the powerful or wealthy in London.
• Boris Johnson tells the Sun in an interview that he would not have presented the budget that George Osborne did.• Boris Johnson tells the Sun in an interview that he would not have presented the budget that George Osborne did.

Huge numbers of people in London depend on their cars. Fuel duty is becoming a big factor in people's cost of living. I believe in trying to ease these burdens ...
Huge numbers of people in London depend on their cars. Fuel duty is becoming a big factor in people's cost of living. I believe in trying to ease these burdens ...
It wasn't my Budget. I haven't seen all the Treasury figures, but it's highly unlikely I would have presented that Budget.It wasn't my Budget. I haven't seen all the Treasury figures, but it's highly unlikely I would have presented that Budget.
• Christopher Williams in the Daily Telegraph says analyses of online searches and social networking suggest Boris Johnson will win the London mayoral contest.• Christopher Williams in the Daily Telegraph says analyses of online searches and social networking suggest Boris Johnson will win the London mayoral contest.
Google Insights, a service that helps digital advertisers track web trends, shows that last week there were almost five times more searches for "Boris Johnson" than for "Ken Livingstone" via google.co.uk. Britons looked up the Conservative candidate online 11,629 times, compared to 2,337 searches for Mr Livingstone ...Google Insights, a service that helps digital advertisers track web trends, shows that last week there were almost five times more searches for "Boris Johnson" than for "Ken Livingstone" via google.co.uk. Britons looked up the Conservative candidate online 11,629 times, compared to 2,337 searches for Mr Livingstone ...
The Tory lead in Google searches is repeated on social networks, according to analyses by iProspect and Lithium, another digital market firm, which both analysed posts on Facebook and Twitter, as well as forums and other web material.The Tory lead in Google searches is repeated on social networks, according to analyses by iProspect and Lithium, another digital market firm, which both analysed posts on Facebook and Twitter, as well as forums and other web material.
Prospect said its "sentiment analysis" found 7 per cent more positive sentiment towards Mr Johnson than Mr Livingstone in the past month.Prospect said its "sentiment analysis" found 7 per cent more positive sentiment towards Mr Johnson than Mr Livingstone in the past month.
The analysis aimed to capture how often each candidate was discussed, how often individuals mentioned them, as a measure of "passion", and the ratio of positive and negative language used.The analysis aimed to capture how often each candidate was discussed, how often individuals mentioned them, as a measure of "passion", and the ratio of positive and negative language used.
Lithium said its social network sentiment analysis tools predicted 54 per cent of the vote for Mr Johnson, on a head-to-head basis with Mr Livingstone.Lithium said its social network sentiment analysis tools predicted 54 per cent of the vote for Mr Johnson, on a head-to-head basis with Mr Livingstone.
• Rowena Mason in the Daily Telegraph says MPs will be offered free iPads.• Rowena Mason in the Daily Telegraph says MPs will be offered free iPads.
The House of Commons has decided that all 650 MPs are eligible for brand new devices which sell for at least £400 each.The House of Commons has decided that all 650 MPs are eligible for brand new devices which sell for at least £400 each.
The cost will be offset by around £50,000 as MPs will be required to hand back an old laptop or computer in return for an iPad.The cost will be offset by around £50,000 as MPs will be required to hand back an old laptop or computer in return for an iPad.
However, the total bill for the new mobile tablets is still likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, especially after monthly costs of downloading data are included.However, the total bill for the new mobile tablets is still likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, especially after monthly costs of downloading data are included.
A House of Commons advisory committee this year claimed MPs could save money by using mobile tablet-style computers to keep up to date with their parliamentary business.A House of Commons advisory committee this year claimed MPs could save money by using mobile tablet-style computers to keep up to date with their parliamentary business.
Its recommendation was this week accepted by the House of Commons Commission, chaired by John Bercow, the Speaker.Its recommendation was this week accepted by the House of Commons Commission, chaired by John Bercow, the Speaker.
11.56am: Public Affairs News says that Tony Blair has hired a new communications adviser (Rachel Grant, from the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) and that he wants to "re-engage" with the UK. But he does not want to get involved in domestic politics. The magazine quotes a source close to Blair.11.56am: Public Affairs News says that Tony Blair has hired a new communications adviser (Rachel Grant, from the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) and that he wants to "re-engage" with the UK. But he does not want to get involved in domestic politics. The magazine quotes a source close to Blair.
"He wants to re-engage in the UK ," said the source. "He has things to say and he thinks it's the right time."He wants to re-engage in the UK ," said the source. "He has things to say and he thinks it's the right time.
"The question is how he re-enters the UK scene without re-entering domestic politics and interfering with the Labour Party. He wants to intervene where he can add value to political debate, but it will be above party politics.""The question is how he re-enters the UK scene without re-entering domestic politics and interfering with the Labour Party. He wants to intervene where he can add value to political debate, but it will be above party politics."
I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
12.27pm: Nick Clegg (pictured) has written to Liberal Democrat campaigners wishing them good luck in tomorrow's elections. Here's an extract from his email.12.27pm: Nick Clegg (pictured) has written to Liberal Democrat campaigners wishing them good luck in tomorrow's elections. Here's an extract from his email.
Liberal Democrat councillors have a well-deserved reputation for dedication and commitment to their local communities. And our record on freezing council tax, protecting local libraries and giving pay rises for the lowest paid council workers shows the difference we make when we run local councils.Liberal Democrat councillors have a well-deserved reputation for dedication and commitment to their local communities. And our record on freezing council tax, protecting local libraries and giving pay rises for the lowest paid council workers shows the difference we make when we run local councils.
Labour may choose to lie in what they tell people about our record in government, but I remain very proud of what we have achieved: raising the income tax threshold and cutting taxes for 23 million ordinary working people, implementing the Pupil Premium, creating record numbers of apprenticeships and delivering the 'triple lock' guarantee for pensions.Labour may choose to lie in what they tell people about our record in government, but I remain very proud of what we have achieved: raising the income tax threshold and cutting taxes for 23 million ordinary working people, implementing the Pupil Premium, creating record numbers of apprenticeships and delivering the 'triple lock' guarantee for pensions.
12.42pm: Ed Miliband (left) is campaiging in Southampton. He told an audience of students that on Thursday they could vote for change and that the government was just interested in the rich and the powerful.12.42pm: Ed Miliband (left) is campaiging in Southampton. He told an audience of students that on Thursday they could vote for change and that the government was just interested in the rich and the powerful.
We know where this government's priorities lie: for the rich and powerful. We saw it in the Budget, we see it in their dealings with Rupert Murdoch ...We know where this government's priorities lie: for the rich and powerful. We saw it in the Budget, we see it in their dealings with Rupert Murdoch ...
Labour stands for the people who don't get special access, or favours. We stand for the young people looking for work, the people whose living standards are squeezed, the pensioners seeing their taxes going up.Labour stands for the people who don't get special access, or favours. We stand for the young people looking for work, the people whose living standards are squeezed, the pensioners seeing their taxes going up.
That is the choice at these elections: a Labour party standing for the many, or a Tory party that protects the rich and powerful.That is the choice at these elections: a Labour party standing for the many, or a Tory party that protects the rich and powerful.
1.30pm: Here's a lunchtime summary.

• Nick Clegg has said there are there are "big question marks" about Rupert Murdoch's fitness to run News Corporation. And Ed Miliband has told the World at One that Ofcom needs to "add urgency" into its investigation into whether News Corporation meets the "fit and proper" test that allows it to own a stake in BSkyB in the light of yesterday's Commons culture committee report.		1.30pm: Here's a lunchtime summary.

• Nick Clegg has said there are there are "big question marks" about Rupert Murdoch's fitness to run News Corporation. And Ed Miliband has told the World at One that Ofcom needs to "add urgency" into its investigation into whether News Corporation meets the "fit and proper" test that allows it to own a stake in BSkyB in the light of yesterday's Commons culture committee report.
• Two MPs on the Commons culture have contradicted each other over whether the committee had discussed the fitness of Rupert Murdoch to run an international company before the criticism was tabled on Monday by the Labour MP Tom Watson. Paul Farrelly, a Labour MP, said the issue was discussed in advance, but Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said it wasn't.

• Lord Justice Leveson has suggested that the second part of his inquiry, which is supposed to explore in detail what went wrong at News International, might not go ahead. In a legal ruling published on his inquiry's website, he also played down the prospect of his report containing extensive criticism of individuals. (See 9.00am and 9.14am.)

• Fresh details of how News International (NI) apparently sought goodwill by dangling two offers of sponsorship in front of the London mayor, Boris Johnson, have been released in evidence published by the Leveson inquiry. As David Leigh and Dave Hill report, In September 2010, Johnson publicly attacked the hacking disclosures, calling them party political "codswallop". Documents subsequently revealed that NI was at the time offering him £2m towards an academy school in London and talking of donating millions more to sponsor another Johnson project, a cable car crossing the river Thames.		• Two MPs on the Commons culture have contradicted each other over whether the committee had discussed the fitness of Rupert Murdoch to run an international company before the criticism was tabled on Monday by the Labour MP Tom Watson. Paul Farrelly, a Labour MP, said the issue was discussed in advance, but Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said it wasn't.

• Lord Justice Leveson has suggested that the second part of his inquiry, which is supposed to explore in detail what went wrong at News International, might not go ahead. In a legal ruling published on his inquiry's website, he also played down the prospect of his report containing extensive criticism of individuals. (See 9.00am and 9.14am.)

• Fresh details of how News International (NI) apparently sought goodwill by dangling two offers of sponsorship in front of the London mayor, Boris Johnson, have been released in evidence published by the Leveson inquiry. As David Leigh and Dave Hill report, In September 2010, Johnson publicly attacked the hacking disclosures, calling them party political "codswallop". Documents subsequently revealed that NI was at the time offering him £2m towards an academy school in London and talking of donating millions more to sponsor another Johnson project, a cable car crossing the river Thames.
• Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, has said that another dry winter could make the drought in England serious enough to require the use of standpipes in the street.• Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, has said that another dry winter could make the drought in England serious enough to require the use of standpipes in the street.
2.35pm: With no PMQs today, I've had a moment to address a question that James Cracknell posed in the comments on his blog on Monday: What constitutes a good peformance in the House of Commons? Or, more bluntly, how do you decide who's won? It's a very good question, and it's been bugging me for ages, not least because there are few subjects which generate more argument here below the line. I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer, but here are some thoughts anyway.2.35pm: With no PMQs today, I've had a moment to address a question that James Cracknell posed in the comments on his blog on Monday: What constitutes a good peformance in the House of Commons? Or, more bluntly, how do you decide who's won? It's a very good question, and it's been bugging me for ages, not least because there are few subjects which generate more argument here below the line. I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer, but here are some thoughts anyway.
1. Words matter. In politics, and in life, we frequently hear arguments and debates that don't make any difference, because we've already made up our minds about the speaker or the argument. But often, in the Commons and elsewhere, MPs can sway you with their rhetoric. This is at the heart of what politics is all about.1. Words matter. In politics, and in life, we frequently hear arguments and debates that don't make any difference, because we've already made up our minds about the speaker or the argument. But often, in the Commons and elsewhere, MPs can sway you with their rhetoric. This is at the heart of what politics is all about.
2. It's subjective. If you think X won, because he or she made a better case, no one can tell you that you are wrong. X convinced you. But what matters politically is the overall impact.2. It's subjective. If you think X won, because he or she made a better case, no one can tell you that you are wrong. X convinced you. But what matters politically is the overall impact.
3. At PMQs there are at last two audiences that matter: the MPs in the chamber, and the millions of people who see PMQs mediated through the TV news. There are only 650 MPs, but a good performance at PMQs can matter enormously in party management terms. Arguably, William Hague would never have survived for four years as Tory leader given his dismal poll ratings if it had not been for his ability to outshine Tony Blair at PMQs. What ordinary voters think is probably more important, but what they get to see depends upon the editorial judgment made by broadcast journalists who often try to present a balanced picture because they are under a statutory duty to be fair.

4. Assessing who won a debate is hard - but not impossible. You can find out who won a debate scientifically. All you need is a representative sample of viewers, and the ability to poll them afterwards. It happened after all three leaders' debate at the general election. Sometimes, when people are asked "who won", they will simply name the leader they most support. This seemed to be happening by the final leaders' debate, when the poll results were more in line with the overall state-of-the-parties polling. But Nick Clegg clearly won the first debate, easily beating David Cameron and Gordon Brown even though his party was well behind. You could, in theory, find out who won PMQs each week by polling a sample of viewers who watched it on the news. But this doesn't happen, and so instead we have to guess what those results would show if they existed.

5. Parliamentary debate is not just about having the best argument. Of course facts and reason should be at the heart of debate, but you don't just win an argument by appealing to someone's head. Sometimes you have to appeal to their heart too, or convey a statement about your character. It's what used to be taught as rhetoric. And it explains why prime ministers can sometimes get away with not answering a question. PMQs isn't Mastermind. Avoiding a question is bad if it makes you look evasive, shifty, ignorant or cowardly. But if you can do it with wit, style or brio, you can get away with it. Of course these are subjective judgments (see above). And context matters enormously too. In his memoirs Roy Jenkins recalls how he once flatened an opponent in a debate with a jibe that was actually quite crude.		3. At PMQs there are at last two audiences that matter: the MPs in the chamber, and the millions of people who see PMQs mediated through the TV news. There are only 650 MPs, but a good performance at PMQs can matter enormously in party management terms. Arguably, William Hague would never have survived for four years as Tory leader given his dismal poll ratings if it had not been for his ability to outshine Tony Blair at PMQs. What ordinary voters think is probably more important, but what they get to see depends upon the editorial judgment made by broadcast journalists who often try to present a balanced picture because they are under a statutory duty to be fair.

4. Assessing who won a debate is hard - but not impossible. You can find out who won a debate scientifically. All you need is a representative sample of viewers, and the ability to poll them afterwards. It happened after all three leaders' debate at the general election. Sometimes, when people are asked "who won", they will simply name the leader they most support. This seemed to be happening by the final leaders' debate, when the poll results were more in line with the overall state-of-the-parties polling. But Nick Clegg clearly won the first debate, easily beating David Cameron and Gordon Brown even though his party was well behind. You could, in theory, find out who won PMQs each week by polling a sample of viewers who watched it on the news. But this doesn't happen, and so instead we have to guess what those results would show if they existed.

5. Parliamentary debate is not just about having the best argument. Of course facts and reason should be at the heart of debate, but you don't just win an argument by appealing to someone's head. Sometimes you have to appeal to their heart too, or convey a statement about your character. It's what used to be taught as rhetoric. And it explains why prime ministers can sometimes get away with not answering a question. PMQs isn't Mastermind. Avoiding a question is bad if it makes you look evasive, shifty, ignorant or cowardly. But if you can do it with wit, style or brio, you can get away with it. Of course these are subjective judgments (see above). And context matters enormously too. In his memoirs Roy Jenkins recalls how he once flatened an opponent in a debate with a jibe that was actually quite crude.
It was not an argument. It was just an attempted put-down, and the fact that it worked is a classic illustration of the irrational way in which a full House of Commons operates. In the middle of a speech going badly, it could have been a disaster. In the middle of one going well, it was regarded as a crushing riposte.It was not an argument. It was just an attempted put-down, and the fact that it worked is a classic illustration of the irrational way in which a full House of Commons operates. In the middle of a speech going badly, it could have been a disaster. In the middle of one going well, it was regarded as a crushing riposte.
6. Insults and aggression can work. There has been a lot of comment about David Cameron's "Flashman" performances at PMQs and I know, not least from readers of this blog, that many people find his verbal brutality deeply off-putting. But I'm not sure that it's always fatal. People expect their leaders to be tough and a bit brutal. (Remember, Gordon Brown's opinion ratings went up when Andrew Rawnsley published allegations about his "bullying" manner.) And the MP audience for PMQs, which is disproportionally male and influenced by the testosterone-charged atmosphere of the chamber, is particularly forgiving of rhetorical aggro. This issue came up on Monday, when Cameron was criticised for being gratuitiously rude to Dennis Skinner, even though Skinner has made a point of being gratuitously rude to his opponents for more than 40 years. I thought Simon Hoggart got it right when he explained in his sketch that sometimes raw anger could work.6. Insults and aggression can work. There has been a lot of comment about David Cameron's "Flashman" performances at PMQs and I know, not least from readers of this blog, that many people find his verbal brutality deeply off-putting. But I'm not sure that it's always fatal. People expect their leaders to be tough and a bit brutal. (Remember, Gordon Brown's opinion ratings went up when Andrew Rawnsley published allegations about his "bullying" manner.) And the MP audience for PMQs, which is disproportionally male and influenced by the testosterone-charged atmosphere of the chamber, is particularly forgiving of rhetorical aggro. This issue came up on Monday, when Cameron was criticised for being gratuitiously rude to Dennis Skinner, even though Skinner has made a point of being gratuitously rude to his opponents for more than 40 years. I thought Simon Hoggart got it right when he explained in his sketch that sometimes raw anger could work.
There comes a point when surfing on sheer rage is enough to carry a man, more effective than logic, judgment or facts could ever be.There comes a point when surfing on sheer rage is enough to carry a man, more effective than logic, judgment or facts could ever be.
7. And jokes can work too. Hague was a master at this. Tony Blair responded by saying that, although Hague was good at humour, he was hopeless at serious politics. Blair used to say this partly because he believed it. But, as Alastair Campbell reveals in his diaries, Blair also wanted to embarrass Hague into dropping the jokes, because Blair knew the jokes were effective. Here's what Campbell wrote in his diary on 29 November 1999.7. And jokes can work too. Hague was a master at this. Tony Blair responded by saying that, although Hague was good at humour, he was hopeless at serious politics. Blair used to say this partly because he believed it. But, as Alastair Campbell reveals in his diaries, Blair also wanted to embarrass Hague into dropping the jokes, because Blair knew the jokes were effective. Here's what Campbell wrote in his diary on 29 November 1999.
At the morning meeting, I said we really had to push the line on jokes not judgement re Hague, get a paper done on it and get Margaret [Beckett] to put her name on it. Partly, it was about trying to make Hague feel less comfortable using jokes, because he did it so well.At the morning meeting, I said we really had to push the line on jokes not judgement re Hague, get a paper done on it and get Margaret [Beckett] to put her name on it. Partly, it was about trying to make Hague feel less comfortable using jokes, because he did it so well.
Sometimes I suspect that Labour are trying to do the same thing when they complain about "Flashman". Politicians do not offer their opponents strategic advice in public out of a desire to be helpful, and Cameron's "bully" routine fits with his determination to depict Ed Miliband as "weak".Sometimes I suspect that Labour are trying to do the same thing when they complain about "Flashman". Politicians do not offer their opponents strategic advice in public out of a desire to be helpful, and Cameron's "bully" routine fits with his determination to depict Ed Miliband as "weak".
8. It's not a level playing field. At PMQs the leader of the opposition can raise any question he or she chooses. But it is relatively easy for Number 10 can guess what those questions might be, and the prime minister has other advantages with can outweigh those enjoyed by his or her opponent. Again, the Jekins autobiography (which has been on my bedside table this week) explains this well.8. It's not a level playing field. At PMQs the leader of the opposition can raise any question he or she chooses. But it is relatively easy for Number 10 can guess what those questions might be, and the prime minister has other advantages with can outweigh those enjoyed by his or her opponent. Again, the Jekins autobiography (which has been on my bedside table this week) explains this well.
[Standing in for Harold Wilson against Edward Heath, when Heath was prime minister] I suddenly realised, as I had not previously done, what an enormous built-in advantage lies with the responder rather than the questioner in such exchanges. In cricketing terms the questioner always has to try to force and score a boundary off every ball, whereas the minister replying can choose his time, play a defensive shot when he wishes, and then punish any loose ball which comes along; and once he is on top it is almost impossible to seize the initiative from him.[Standing in for Harold Wilson against Edward Heath, when Heath was prime minister] I suddenly realised, as I had not previously done, what an enormous built-in advantage lies with the responder rather than the questioner in such exchanges. In cricketing terms the questioner always has to try to force and score a boundary off every ball, whereas the minister replying can choose his time, play a defensive shot when he wishes, and then punish any loose ball which comes along; and once he is on top it is almost impossible to seize the initiative from him.
9. It's no good being second best. In that respect, PMQs is like Wimbledon. The person who becomes prime minister is usually, at least for a while, the most successful politician in the land. If the leader of the opposition finds the PM hard to beat, that shouldn't be surprising. But it's an arena where you don't get any prizes for being a runner up.9. It's no good being second best. In that respect, PMQs is like Wimbledon. The person who becomes prime minister is usually, at least for a while, the most successful politician in the land. If the leader of the opposition finds the PM hard to beat, that shouldn't be surprising. But it's an arena where you don't get any prizes for being a runner up.
10. You can't pretend that "who won" doesn't matter. At one stage when I was doing the PMQs live blog I tried to ignore the "who won" question. Because these issues are so subjective, and because so many exchanges seem relatively inconclusive, it all seemed a bit pointless. But I found it impossible to discuss PMQs without addressing the issue - because that's the prism through which everyone else watches it. That includes Cameron and Miliband, who certainly talk about PMQs in terms of who won and who lost when they are discussing it in private.10. You can't pretend that "who won" doesn't matter. At one stage when I was doing the PMQs live blog I tried to ignore the "who won" question. Because these issues are so subjective, and because so many exchanges seem relatively inconclusive, it all seemed a bit pointless. But I found it impossible to discuss PMQs without addressing the issue - because that's the prism through which everyone else watches it. That includes Cameron and Miliband, who certainly talk about PMQs in terms of who won and who lost when they are discussing it in private.
While we're on the subejct of PMQs, the other question people often ask about it is, what's the point? I wrote a blog about this four years ago and I've just read it again now. Do take a look if you're interested, because I think the arguments are still valid.While we're on the subejct of PMQs, the other question people often ask about it is, what's the point? I wrote a blog about this four years ago and I've just read it again now. Do take a look if you're interested, because I think the arguments are still valid.
3.18pm: David Cameron has been speaking to ITV about tomorrow's elections. He seems to be urging people not to use the poll to punish the government.3.18pm: David Cameron has been speaking to ITV about tomorrow's elections. He seems to be urging people not to use the poll to punish the government.
I recognise it's a difficult time for families, it's a tough time for families. I just hope that people will look at these elections and recognise it's about electing your local council - who is going to keep the council tax down, who's going to provide value for money, who's going to look after your area?I recognise it's a difficult time for families, it's a tough time for families. I just hope that people will look at these elections and recognise it's about electing your local council - who is going to keep the council tax down, who's going to provide value for money, who's going to look after your area?
3.51pm: Here's an afternoon reading list.

• Gavin Kelly at the New Statesman says that new research shows that the new tuition fee system will create an effective 99% tax rate for families earning between £17,000 and £44,000.		3.51pm: Here's an afternoon reading list.

• Gavin Kelly at the New Statesman says that new research shows that the new tuition fee system will create an effective 99% tax rate for families earning between £17,000 and £44,000.

To understand how this will actually play out in practice Professor Hills considers two families each with a child about to go to the University of Oxford. One family has earnings of £17k and the other £44k – so a difference in gross earnings of £27k. After we take account of the impact of the overall tax and benefit system the difference between these families falls to £13,250. But once we factor in the additional impact of all the different elements of the new student support system the gap collapses to a grand total of £200 (yes, you read that right).
To understand how this will actually play out in practice Professor Hills considers two families each with a child about to go to the University of Oxford. One family has earnings of £17k and the other £44k – so a difference in gross earnings of £27k. After we take account of the impact of the overall tax and benefit system the difference between these families falls to £13,250. But once we factor in the additional impact of all the different elements of the new student support system the gap collapses to a grand total of £200 (yes, you read that right).
To restate: an initial difference in gross earnings of £27k between (broadly speaking) a low-income and middle-income family is completely wiped out. The withdrawal of student support, together with the tax and benefit system, creates an effective 99 per cent tax rate on earnings between £17k and £44k. There is no point being better off. And that's before we consider some truly scary effective tax rates at particular points in the earnings distribution (see chart). I think it is fair to say that the coalition hasn't fully got its head around the politics of this.To restate: an initial difference in gross earnings of £27k between (broadly speaking) a low-income and middle-income family is completely wiped out. The withdrawal of student support, together with the tax and benefit system, creates an effective 99 per cent tax rate on earnings between £17k and £44k. There is no point being better off. And that's before we consider some truly scary effective tax rates at particular points in the earnings distribution (see chart). I think it is fair to say that the coalition hasn't fully got its head around the politics of this.


• David Clark at Comment is free says Ed Miliband could transform society as radically as Margaret Thatcher.

• David Clark at Comment is free says Ed Miliband could transform society as radically as Margaret Thatcher.
Miliband has started cautiously, but then so did Thatcher. She calibrated her radicalism to the course of events, peaking with the Winter of Discontent. But her real genius was to recognise that in moments of profound crisis the centre-ground is an empty construct. She didn't move her party to the right so much as change our understanding of what it means to be right and left. At least part of her appeal tapped into the yearning for personal liberation and the revolt against the mass society that had animated the New Left.Miliband has started cautiously, but then so did Thatcher. She calibrated her radicalism to the course of events, peaking with the Winter of Discontent. But her real genius was to recognise that in moments of profound crisis the centre-ground is an empty construct. She didn't move her party to the right so much as change our understanding of what it means to be right and left. At least part of her appeal tapped into the yearning for personal liberation and the revolt against the mass society that had animated the New Left.
Miliband has spotted a similar opportunity for Labour to connect with authentically conservative concerns about the corrosive impact of our morally degraded form of capitalism and its tendency to reward the wrong people for doing the wrong things. There is a winning coalition to be built around broad popular demands for greater economic security and social responsibility.Miliband has spotted a similar opportunity for Labour to connect with authentically conservative concerns about the corrosive impact of our morally degraded form of capitalism and its tendency to reward the wrong people for doing the wrong things. There is a winning coalition to be built around broad popular demands for greater economic security and social responsibility.
But converting that opportunity into a majority will require Miliband to keep two further lessons of the Thatcher era in mind. The first is that dismantling an entrenched consensus demands persistence and self-belief. As late as the autumn of 1978 it looked like Thatcher would fail. But by focussing on how to change the country instead of how to win the election, she reaped the reward. The second lesson is that you don't get anywhere as a leader by pandering to the voices of caution and desperation in your own party. Miliband needs to be more challenging to Labour to make his breakthrough with the electorate.But converting that opportunity into a majority will require Miliband to keep two further lessons of the Thatcher era in mind. The first is that dismantling an entrenched consensus demands persistence and self-belief. As late as the autumn of 1978 it looked like Thatcher would fail. But by focussing on how to change the country instead of how to win the election, she reaped the reward. The second lesson is that you don't get anywhere as a leader by pandering to the voices of caution and desperation in your own party. Miliband needs to be more challenging to Labour to make his breakthrough with the electorate.
• Labour Uncut says the 2016 London mayoral contest could be a fight between David Lammy and Louise Mensch.• Labour Uncut says the 2016 London mayoral contest could be a fight between David Lammy and Louise Mensch.
• Paul Waugh at PoliticsHome on what David Cameron is doing - and not doing - to win over British Indian voters. This is what Cameron said at a recent event.• Paul Waugh at PoliticsHome on what David Cameron is doing - and not doing - to win over British Indian voters. This is what Cameron said at a recent event.

We were the first party to have a woman Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher], we were the first party in [Benjamin] Disraeli to have a Jewish Prime Minister and when I look at the talent behind me I think we are going to be the first party to have a British Indian Prime Minister.
We were the first party to have a woman Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher], we were the first party in [Benjamin] Disraeli to have a Jewish Prime Minister and when I look at the talent behind me I think we are going to be the first party to have a British Indian Prime Minister.
4.15pm: Here's an afternoon summary.4.15pm: Here's an afternoon summary.
• David Cameron has urged people not to use tomorrow's local elections to punish the government. "I just hope that people will look at these elections and recognise it's about electing your local council," he said. In an interview with the Evening Standard, he also said: "You don't have to be Conservative to vote for Boris."• David Cameron has urged people not to use tomorrow's local elections to punish the government. "I just hope that people will look at these elections and recognise it's about electing your local council," he said. In an interview with the Evening Standard, he also said: "You don't have to be Conservative to vote for Boris."
• A House of Lords committee has said that water bills should be allowed to rise to encourage people to save water.• A House of Lords committee has said that water bills should be allowed to rise to encourage people to save water.
• MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee had six weeks to consider the statement that Rupert Murdoch was "not fit" to run a major corporation before a final vote that left them split along party political lines, it has been revealed.

• Immigration border staff announced their intention to join next week's civil service strike over pensions.		• MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee had six weeks to consider the statement that Rupert Murdoch was "not fit" to run a major corporation before a final vote that left them split along party political lines, it has been revealed.

• Immigration border staff announced their intention to join next week's civil service strike over pensions.
That's it for today.That's it for today.
Tomorrow a colleague will be writing the blog during the day. I'll be taking over in the evening to cover the local election results as they come in through the night.Tomorrow a colleague will be writing the blog during the day. I'll be taking over in the evening to cover the local election results as they come in through the night.
Thanks for the comments.Thanks for the comments.