Alan Duncan has been sent directly to prison, told not to pass Go, and certainly not to collect £200. It seems that he hasn’t got a “get out of jail free card”.
However, as much as we my like to see an MP or two sent to prison for defrauding their expenses, Duncan has actually just been demoted from his position as shadow leader of the Commons to shadow prisons minister.
However, he really should see this as a chance to earn credibility as a serious politician, as he really is seen …

Three quick points on the Tory reshuffle:

Bringing Ken Clarke back into the fold, as Shadow Business Secretary – good move.
Promoting Eric Pickles to Party Chairman – good move.
Chris Grayling as Shadow Home Secretary – I don’t get it.

But it is obviously now a team that can run the country.

I’m so bored of the newspapers (and blogs) being continually full of rumours/tips/gossip/whispers and just general crap being talked about the next Shadow Cabinet reshuffle.
Can these journalists please get some real stories or shut the fuck up? Especially since they all seem to revolve around two main points: Ken Clarke coming in and back and Alan Duncan to go.
Lobby hacks: either write something new and original or nothing at all. Thanks.

William Hague is trying to justify his role as a part-time Shadow Foreign Secretary by claiming that having outside interests makes him a better politician:

You can gain in your effectiveness as a politician from a wide acquaintance with the world and from a degree of independence that having some outside interests gives.
That is my personal view, and I think it has made me a better politician having these interests than I was before.

Yes, some outside intersts will do that. Some. A couple of hours a week, an external interest of …

When Cameron considers reshuffling his Shadow Cabinet for 2009, there is more than the one question Iain Dale suggests that Cameon should ask.

Who will dedicate themselves to their role?

Who would Labour least like to be in the Shadow Cabinet?

Who would be effective in each position?

Who would be able to perform each role in government?

These are the very least questions that Cameron must ask himself of each and every person that sits on his front bench.
If that means bringing back Ken Clarke, he should be brought back. And I can see …

Members of the Shadow Cabinet will continue to be part-time. Why? Because they don’t want to lose the money and perks the outside jobs will bring them.
A month ago when this idea was first mooted in the press, I said:

Rather than banning them, making them subject to approval would be a better course of action – based on the amount of time they take, the potential for a conflict of interest to arise with regards to a Shadow Cabinet member’s portfolio, as well as more personal contexts. Alongside an understanding …

Should the members of the Shadow Cabinet have outside interests? David Cameron is reportedly planning to stop them from doing so.
Is this a good idea? Yes in some ways, and no in others.
Reasons for:

A “full-time” Shadow Cabinet members should be more effective in fighting the party’s corner;
They would have more time to immerse themselves in their area and for developing policy;
It would show that the Conservatives are ready for government; and
Remove any potential conflicts of interest.

Reasons against:

It could potentially cost them a lot of money;
It would remove an arena …

The Sun points out that just two out of 21 Cabinet ministers have constituencies south of Watford – the most heavily populated part of Britain. Double that number of Cabinet Ministers represent Scottish constituencies, whose population is less than that of London. The excessive Northern bias of Labour’s Cabinet is unacceptable.
To be fair, as Kerron Cross points out, there are only nine Shadow Cabinet members north of Watford. But since this far greater reflects the population distribution of Britain – and nine is significantly greater than two in anyone’s money. …