The PM pulled the win back at a yesterday’s PMQs by running with Guido’s leaked email from Labour insiders who had been told there would be no policy announcement in today’s speech. Fast forward 24 hours and they’ve pulled one out of the hat. After the PM hinted that the 10p tax band would return, Miliband will shortly announce that Labour will reintroduce the rate scrapped by Gordon, funded by the LibDem policy of  a mansion tax on houses over £2 million. Funny that…

What we do know is as of Tuesday the Labour line was that there was no policy:

“Ed Miliband is going to make a ‘major’ speech on the economy on Thursday. It won’t have any new policies in it, but the plan is for Labour to release two or three big economic policies over the next couple of months.”

That was briefed out to supporters attending the speech, and now magically there is one. One that was suggested by a backbench Tory MP and does not look very well costed:

Breaking: Miliband promise for 2bn mansion tax to pay for re-introduction of 10p rate: but won't it cost 7bn?! Time for pledge audit.—
Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) February 14, 2013

@PickardJE full reversal would mean putting the 20p rate back to 22p. don't think anyone fancies that!—
Joey Jones (@joeyjonessky) February 14, 2013

Did the Eds work this one out on the back of their Valentine’s Day card envelopes?

UPDATE: Quoting a “key advisor” as late as yesterday evening, the line to Labour supporting sites was still that there would be no major policy announcement in today’s speech:

“But I fear most people will ignore it. This is partly because it will not contain major policy announcements to fight an election on. Their reasoning for this is simple: the election is still two years away and no one can predict the state of the economy then. Without knowing that, it is difficult to set budgets and make spending plans.”

With language like “we are taking a shot at the paradigm of the past”, there is no prize for guessing who that “key advisor” was…

The gloves are off. Not only are the LibDems planning on moving the writ today for the Eastleigh by-election, but they have also fired the first real shots of the campaign. Sadly for them, those shots were firmly into their own feet. By using his taxpayer-funded Cabinet Office email address to launch Nick Clegg’s by-election campaign last night, LibDem SpAd James McGrory has found himself in hot water on the first day of this very short campaign. Needless to say the partisan attack has gone down rather badly with his coalition partners. Backbench Tory MP Andrew Bridgen scores an easy goal this morning:

Dear Mr Heywood,

I am writing to ask you to investigate a breach of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers by James McGrory.

The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, last updated on June 2010, states:

‘You must not act in a way that is determined by party political considerations, or use official resources for party political purposes’

But in an email from his Cabinet Office account on Wednesday 6 February, Mr McGrory contacted journalists to brief a speech to be delivered by Nick Clegg on Thursday 7 February.

The email was saturated with party political content, centred around the upcoming Eastleigh by-election. Most troubling of all was a series of source quotes, stating:

“This is Nick firing the starting pistol on the Eastleigh by-election.

“It’s a speech that sets out the distinctive approach of the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government when it comes to tax.

“This is going to be a very keenly contested by-election and Nick is eager to remind the voters of Eastleigh, as well as the rest of the country, that the Liberal Democrats are cutting taxes for those on low and middle incomes.”

The email went on to offer up Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes for interviews around the Eastleigh campaign.

Given its political nature, Mr McGrory’s email therefore appears to be a clear breach of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers.

I also note that the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers states that those who hold the post must resign it if they wish to campaign in a by-election.

“if they wish to take part in a General, European or by-election campaign, or to help in a party headquarters or research unit during such a campaign, they must first resign their appointment. If they wish their appointment to carry on during a campaign, they may continue to give assistance to their Minister as before, but they must be careful not to take any active part in the campaign. They should not, for example, take part in public meetings or accompany their Minister to party political engagements which are related to the Election campaign”

Upon the conclusion of your investigation, I would therefore be grateful if you could update me as to whether it would be appropriate for Mr McGrory to resign his position.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Bridgen MP

Activate Sherlock Heywood…

Sacked Energy Minister Charles Hendry has not wasted any time cashing in on his expertise; he has just been announced as the chairman of the wind energy giants Forewind. The consortium comprising of four international companies -Scottish and Southern, RWE, Statoil and Statkraf – was awarded the contract in 2010 to build the huge “Dogger Bank” windfarm 125 kilometres off the Yorkshire coast.

Though Hendry has waited for the appropriate cooling off period of three months since leaving government, a look through his declared meetings while a minister leaves an unfortunate taste in the mouth: between June 2010 and October 2011 Hendry hobnobbed six times with the representatives of the companies that make up Forewind, and now he is their boss. It seems the revolving doors spin far more than the windmills…

The airwaves are awash today with loyal Tories backing the PM and his speech. Though take a look at what they were saying on the 24 October 2011 when Cameron whipped his MPs against a non-binding motion urging the government to take up an In/Out Referendum:

Mrs Angie Bray:
Does my hon. Friend accept that although the country is undoubtedly interested in all matters EU, it is probably more interested in issues such as growth and jobs? Does he also accept that a referendum at this time would simply create uncertainty, which would hardly be conducive to attracting the foreign investors that we need to help with growth and jobs?

Mr Glyn Davies:
I think that to have a debate on a referendum would be a huge mistake while we in Britain must deal with huge financial and economic issues, along with another massive issue—the social dislocation felt by so many of our young people. A referendum on our future relationship

Mr Aidan Burley:
I must consider the impact that passing this motion would have on my constituents. That is the key point. Business men have told me that there are signs that give cause for optimism, but that the recovery is fragile. Those business men’s fear, and mine, is that the announcement of a referendum, involving the campaign extending to 2013 for which the motion calls, could have a devastating effect on business confidence and investment. This morning I spoke to a business man from my constituency who had come here to be given a tour of the House of Commons. He works for an international company in the private sector which has invested heavily in the United Kingdom and employs several hundred people in my constituency, and he has already been told by the members of his executive board in America that the potential further instability caused by a referendum could cause them to question future investment not just in Cannock Chase, but in the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe. At a time when business is crying out for stability, a referendum would move it in totally the opposite direction, creating yet more instability when what we need is foreign investment. While that business man would not oppose a referendum in principle, now is simply not the time for one.

Today: “Promise of an In/Out referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will be welcomed across Cannock Chase today.”

Mr Robert Walter:
The world has shrunk. More than ever, we travel, we trade and we live in each other’s countries. In 1972, this House voted not only to be part of that common European future but to be an architect of its destiny as a full member of the European Community. The European Union is not a perfect form of government, but neither are the British Government, any Department of State or any local government. If that were the case, we would not be here; we would all be wasting our time. Europe needs Britain and Britain needs Europe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary struck the right note earlier. We are in Europe, our history is European and our destiny is European. As far as I am concerned, we are here to stay and I beg my colleagues to reject the motion

Mr Tony Baldry:
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the last general election, the Conservative manifesto committed us to seeking to return powers from Europe on economic and social policy, but that nowhere did it contain a commitment to seek an in/out referendum or to seek to renegotiate our terms of membership of the European Union?

Mr Jake Berry:
I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that we must have a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with Europe, but we do not live in a bubble, and we must pay attention to the crisis in the eurozone and to politics in our own country. The crisis in the eurozone is like a spark in Pudding lane. If we do not continue to support member states in supporting the euro and in sorting out the Greek problem, the fire will rip through the City of London and our entire economy. A vote today to put in doubt our membership of the EU for up to 18 months would fuel market speculation, fatally wound the eurozone and its economies, and have exactly the same effect here in the UK.

Today: “Nick Clegg promised an in out referendum at the election. What’s changed mind? #UnitedConservativeParty”

Ms. Charlotte Leslie:
The motion is tragically timed, because it pits against each other the equally valid causes of ensuring that security and stability are maintained during a great euro crisis that will affect us here in the United Kingdom—even the discussion of a referendum on leaving the European Union will contribute to that instability—and giving the people the voice that they have been denied for so long in the determination of our role in Europe. It is a shame that that conflict has arisen today, but it makes our referendum lock and the conditions surrounding it all the more important.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind:
I say to the House that we cannot constrain the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in the incredibly difficult negotiations that will take place. To have a debate that might lead to a referendum on whether Britain will remain in the European Union or leave it entirely is such a massive distraction from the real concerns that this country and the rest of Europe have to address. [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, but I am entitled to my view, just as all my hon. Friends are entitled to theirs.

Guido never forgets.

An early contender for the funniest quote of 2013, spinmeister Lord Bell has been musing on lobbying and PR:

 ’Although people constantly accuse us of being the most evil, corrupt sons of the devil, we aren’t. We are actually the most truthful people in the world, because we know that the truth works.’

Rewind back to November 1977  though and Tim Bell himself claims that he was not telling the truth after he was charged with “wilfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely” exposing himself “with intent to insult a female” under Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act. He was found guilty and fined £50 by Hampstead Magistrates Court after a solo erotic incident visible at his bathroom window. According to his biographer Mark Hollingsworth, Bell “admitted the conviction but denied that the event took place. He confided to a colleague that his lawyers, Butcher Brooks and Co. advised him to plead guilty to avoid a scandal.” Was he guilty – as he claimed – or not? Is that “how the truth works”?

Not content with claiming to have his honour all but restored, important to a man with such a long and distinguished military career, Andrew Mitchell is stepping up his fight and going directly after Met boss Bernard Hogan Howe. As Guido pointed out the other day, the heat is on the Commissioner after his very public backing of the officers involved, despite the fact that even the Police Federation are running for the hills now. Mitchell says he has ‘no confidence’ in Hogan Howe, but how he can totally clear his name still remains to be seen. Perhaps one of them should hire the services of Jon Gaunt, the former DJ, who did spin wonders for the Police Federation’s campaign back in the autumn…

Paul McKeever, the rent-a-rozzer head of the Police Federation has told the BBC this afternoon that he would be “first in queue to apologise” if Mitchell has “been done a calumny.” Which reminded Guido of what the very same police union were saying during the autumn:

“Members of the West Midlands Police Federation said Andrew Mitchell had “no option but to resign”, following a meeting with the chief whip. They said Mr Mitchell repeated a “profound apology with feeling” but continued to deny using the words attributed to him during an outburst at police officers outside Number 10. This meant his position had become “untenable”, they said.”

Apparently he now feels “we can all say we can do things better” when asked about his aggressive campaign to decapitate the former Chief Whip. Guido isn’t sure it’s going to be that easy for the militant union, if Mitchell does eventually vindicate himself…

Claire Perry and Paul Dacre’s plan to censor the internet by putting up mandatory firewalls is back on. Despite expert advice saying it is a waste of time and civil liberties groups hammering their keyboards, the numbers in the crucial mothers polling group must be telling No. 10 something. Taking to the Mail today, Dave says:

“…with our new system, every parent will be prompted to protect their child online. If they don’t make choices, protection will be automatically on. No other Government has taken such radical steps before. And once all this is in place, Britain will have the most robust internet child protection measures of any country in the world – bar none.

To get all this underway, I have appointed Claire Perry MP to be my adviser on preventing the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood. Claire is a passionate campaigner for internet safety and mother of three. Her job will be to see this through, to get internet companies on board, to do what it takes to protect children and young people online.All this comes back to something really important. It’s not just about the internet, or modern technology – it’s about childhood.”

She finally gets that long conveted promotion then. Presumably the new filter would block kids searching about Perry’s more passionate moments?

The LibDem strategy to distance themselves from their coalition partners rumbles on. It’s not subtle at the best of times, but it’s probably a good idea to check you don’t send out your notes in the subject line of a press release:

From: Rob Banks [mailto:Rob.Banks@local.gov.uk]
Sent: 19 December 2012 16:25
To: Rob Banks
Subject: FW: Sending this imminently….. Amended as requested – and toned down on Pickles (on Paul’s request)

LGA Liberal Democrat Group
News Release

Speaking on the Local Government Settlement, Cllr Paul Tilsley, Lib Dem Finance spokesperson at the LGA said:

“It would have been a lot worse if it hadn’t been for the Lib Dems in government.

Smooth…

Over the last few days the Hacked Off brigade have been desperate for it to emerge that the prank call nurse had been contacted by hacks before she took her own life. Evan Harris salivated on Saturday:

Good question. Anyone know? RT @ChristinaMaroc do we know if our press were hassling Jacintha Saldanha?—
Dr Evan Harris (@DrEvanHarris) December 08, 2012

Tom Watson even went as far as directly accusing journalists of “spooking” the woman, despite the fact they did not know her name:

Ask yourself how many reporters spooked that poor, poor woman? It wasn't irrelevant at all Jim Dowd: theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=201…—
  (@tom_watson) December 07, 2012

Now the Press Complaints Commission have poured water on the press-haters’ wet dream. Lord Hunt told MPs earlier:

MP: “Was nurse hounded by press before she took her life?”
LH: “I don’t think so”

Yet another one in the eye for Watson. He’s not having a good run of it lately…