Boris Johnson remarked that he couldn’t understand the bonus awarded to Stephen Hester as it was “completely out of whack” with other people’s pay. Many argued the Mayor of London was being opportunist, jumping on a bandwagon due to the upcoming mayoral election.

But Boris’s remarks had a secondary effect which won’t have gone unnoticed by his rivals. The dramatic difference in opinion between the Mayor and his party catapulted him straight into the headlines, ahead of Ed Miliband. An opportunity for Mr Miliband to refer back to his previous comments on “predatory capitalism” suddenly vanished as he was relegated to the second commentator on the issue. Despite it being the major story on the BBC News Channel, at one point I counted 7 minutes before his interview was featured, as Boris “became the story”.

The received wisdom is that when Mr Johnson goes “off-message” it is immensely frustrating for the Conservative party. I suspect yesterday might have been an exception.

Last week, most heads of state or government of the member states showed their willingness to move ahead with European integration towards a fiscal stability union. They showed that they want more Europe, not less

The BBC News website has been an interesting one to watch lately. For all the accusations of bias, their comments sections on the EU articles go completely against the perceived line. Most of the top rated comments either attack the BBC’s reporting or praise Cameron’s veto. If (and it’s a big “if”, although the polling numbers support it) most people agree with Cameron, Barroso’s line will not go down well with the British public, and could well provide fodder for a debate on our membership of the EU.

Edit: Changed link for polling numbers to the original Daily Mail article, which was cited by the Huffington Post but not linked. The original Huffington Post article I linked to can be found here.

Edit 2: It appears the BBC have updated their article since I first wrote this post, but the quote can still be found about half way down

The public inevitably like optimism in politicians, particularly when it is contrasted with the “doom and gloom” of 24 hour news channels. So it’s interesting to see what’s being said around the EU veto.

A majority of the criticism of the Prime Minister revolves around isolation and loss of influence, but the eurosceptics are for the most part keeping quiet. Despite reports that they are happy with Cameron’s veto, it would be quite a stretch to accuse them of gloating.

One of the most prominent eurosceptics, Daniel Hannan MEP, has written an article in the Daily Mail about the current arguments between europhiles and eurosceptics. What struck me most about the article was the final few paragraphs:

We can be a friend and sponsor to European integration, but our place is in the wider world, exploiting the growing markets of developing and Anglosphere nations, rediscovering the global vocation which our parents took for granted.

We are tied to peoples on every continent by custom and law, by affinity and affection, by blood and speech. Let us raise our eyes to those older and more distant horizons.

This is remarkably optimistic language which wouldn’t be out of place in an election campaign, and stands out amongst talk of the collapse of the Eurozone. We may be about to see a dramatic shift in tone from those keen to repatriate powers from the EU, drawing large numbers of voters with them.

Labour also want to seem united on the matter, keen to avoid a Conservative-style split. Despite a few Labour names (including Keith Vaz and Kate Hoey) making their way onto the motion, they’re broadly against a referendum. But the motion only recommends a referendum – it doesn’t enforce it. Labour have the opportunity to embarrass the government by siding with the backbenchers, but they aren’t taking it, instead opting to accuse the Tories of “squabbling”. My guess is that they’re playing the long game, and don’t want referendum support to be cited in the general election campaigning.

That leaves the Conservatives, who appear to be taking the opposite approach.

There are many reasons why a free vote on the issue might be in Cameron’s favour. Firstly, there’s keeping everyone in the party happy. If MPs are allowed to vote however they want to without any pressure, then they can’t be accused of “squabbling” over an issue. Secondly, it would provide some ammunition to use against others, particularly their coalition partners. Pointing out that the Liberals not only ignored their referendum promise but actively voted against it would be a pretty effective attack during the general election. Finally, it could be portrayed as allowing open debate in a party, safe in the knowledge that with the other parties against the motion it is unlikely to pass.

Yet as I write this a three line whip remains in place is being predicted, despite some speculation it may be retracted. This may be to try and keep the coalition together and to keep the debate at arm’s length until the economy has calmed down, or in the hope that there will be a Conservative majority after the next election. Either way, it seems that whilst Labour have the upper-hand in the long term, there’s still plenty of room for manoeuvring by the government.

N.B. For a list of MPs supporting the motion, ConservativeHome is keeping track of these things

Correction:The three line whip is not in place for the Conservatives, but is “expected”: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-politics-15407589

Nevertheless, here’s my take on why people are calling for these measures.

The perception is that there has been a huge expansion of “rights” in the country. Arguably there has been little expansion, it’s just that more people are aware of their rights. We’ve all heard the stories of children in the classroom who defy the teachers based on “I’ve got my rights”.

The European Convention on Human Rights is, regardless of your thoughts on it, and incredibly important piece of legislation. There’s a reason why any proposal to scrap the Human Rights Act is accompanied by a promise to replace it with a “Bill of Rights”.

Perhaps the solution is an association of responsibility, but the principle behind many rights is that they are unconditional. Even the most violent rioter is entitled to our hope that one day he might reform and become a valuable member of society. Subsequently any attempt to instil a sense of responsibility cannot really be enforced by law – it has to be something more subtle, and I would contend, based on pride.

What if the rioters had a greater sense of pride in their community and country, recognising that their actions reflect poorly on both the area and the entire country?

Great Britain is in a slightly odd position, since although we have one of the greatest democracies in the world (and the “Mother of all parliaments”), we have no formal constitution. There are certainly constitutional documents such as the Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act, but nothing on the scale of the American constitution.

So perhaps now is the time to look at formalising things – a written constitution comprising of the relevant legislation, setting out rights which comply with the ECHR, taught in schools as part of the values upheld in being “British”.

This isn’t part of some nationalistic or isolationist fantasy – we should celebrate being British and invite others to hold the same values. Nor is it something which will deal with all the causes of the riots. But the people guarding buildings against looters and amassing on the streets with brooms are more British than any rioter, and I wonder if it might be time to recognise this.

There was some coverage of the possibility that police were paid for information – something presumably done to speed up access to information so the paper could print before its competitors.

Yesterday, the Sun and the Mirror were both in court over accusations that they were in contempt of court by publishing information about the murder of Jo Yeates, specifically the way they reported the arrest of Christopher Jefferies.

I’d like to say all this will lead to a complete revolution in the way reporting is done, with a renewed emphasis on privacy and the presumption of innocence. I certainly think that’s what we need, but I can’t help but feel a little pessimistic.

I’m not sure anyone really expected it to do the coalition any good. No government wants a strike on its hands since images of thousands of people waving signs protesting against it will dominate the headlines that day.

Ed Miliband had a very difficult line to tread as there’s some debate as to whether or not the strikes are broadly supported by the public. He tried to strike a delicate balance between attacking the government and cautioning the unions. Unfortunately for him, he did so by repeating the same prepared line in the hope it would be the only one quoted, and then the whole footage was released. Worse still, the unions themselves criticised his comments – not something any Labour leader wants to happen.

That leaves the unions. Last night on Newsnight, Danny Finkelstein pointed out the problems with the timing of the strike, arguing it would have been more effective had they waited for a year when the coalition might be weaker. It’s worth noting how little coverage of yesterday’s strikes appears in the news today.

The government won’t say it as it would look stroppy, but I suspect a lot of them are thinking the following:

You said you wanted changes, and we made them. Now you’re attacking us for making changes. What do you want us to do?

It’s a fair point. Most pieces of legislation under any government which are attacked by the other side are deemed “controversial”. The difference here is that rather than ploughing ahead (which would have been politically difficult) the government announced a “listening exercise” consulting medical personnel, and then followed the suggestions.

I don’t think a U-turn is a bad thing in many scenarios, particularly where there has been extended debate. I’d go as far as to say that in certain circumstances parties should be praised for U-turns – recognising faults in policies and doing something about it. But is it any wonder that other policies will be battered through even if they’re unpopular when we attack people for doing the opposite? Does anyone recall ID cards – a hugely unpopular scheme which was floated for years before it was scrapped? By all means attack attempts to smash unwanted legislation through, and if they do change their minds feel free to remind the public how long it took.

But government response to public demand should be celebrated, not attacked.

Understandably, alarm bells are ringing for a lot of people. The general train of thought is that the following will happen:

1. Universities such as this, despite the lack of government funding, will be able to attract the best lecturers and subsequently get the best results
2. Only the rich will be able to afford these fees
3. Anyone unable to afford the fees will be unable to have the same education

Obviously it’s incredibly difficult to dismiss these claims so I won’t even try. I think there is an element of “wait and see”, but it is a worrying possibility. It might also be worth bearing in mind that we still have Oxford and Cambridge – two of the leading universities in the world, and both state funded. It would take quite a lot to knock those two off the top spot.

I suspect a lot of the outrage will obscure the debate over why this university is being set-up. Many will argue that it is a lack of funding and blame the cuts, not to mention linking it with an apparent creeping “privatisation” of universities associated with increased tuition fees. But I was intrigued by this quote from the founder Professor AC Grayling:

The £9,000 cap is completely unsustainable. The true cost is way more and that ceiling is going to have to be burst.

Despite the protests over raising the fees cap, it seems there is an argument that it is simply not enough.

It’s often forgotten that the universities lobbied for increased fees, and that several wanted the cap removed altogether – factors worth remembering when thinking about this issue.

Details of this new university (or rather, college) seem a bit sketchy. One thing that hasn’t been covered is whether it will conduct research in the same way as state-funded universities. My reading of the news reports suggests otherwise, and that these will be purely educational establishments.

I am sure it varies between subjects, but I imagine that to some extent traditional universities are a little torn between the two elements of research and tuition. This is arguably inevitable – you have men and women who are leaders in their fields attempting to impart their knowledge to those who have just finished A-levels whilst simultaneously conducting their own research into incredibly advanced theories and concepts.

I can’t help but wonder whether the separation of research and tuition is something we’re likely to see spreading, or whether the traditional model will survive. As I say, I’m sure it varies from subject to subject – the sciences almost certainly benefit from combining education and research. But I’m curious as to where this split will lead for the humanities.

Economic policy is unchanged. Actually, Ed and I have similar views

Either way, there is another aspect to this story. It may be worth remembering that Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader when the final round distributed the second preference votes of Ed Balls. Both men are perceived* to be backed by the trade unions.

There has been some comment from Ed Miliband in an effort to calm talks of strikes. It will be interesting to see if the language changes over the next few months. I suspect there may be little movement in Labour’s position on the issue to try to detach themselves from being seen as a “party of the unions”. However, it might be worth watching how each side reacts.

* Whilst looking up articles for this post, I found a bit of number-crunching by the BBC that suggests Ed Balls didn’t get the union backing many expected. Nevertheless, perception could be everything.