Parliament

Adam Holloway, PPS to the Europe Minister David Lidington, has just effectively quit his job by giving a speech setting out his intention to vote for the motion. That the Europe Minister’s PPS is walking over this issue is an embarrassment for the government and a sign of how strongly opinion on this issue is running. The most striking thing about William Hague’s speech was the near silence in which it was listened to on the Tory benches. When Hague mocked the motion, he didn’t draw laughs from even the most sycophantic backbenchers. Whatever happens tonight, this debate has widened divisions on the Tory side. There is a real danger

David Liddington, the Europe Minister, has just told the Murnaghan Show that the moment for a referendum on the European Union is once a treaty change has been agreed. Liddington argued that then everyone would know what they were voting on. This is quite a significant shift in the government’s position. Up to now, the position has been that there would only be a referendum if yet more powers were transferred from Westminster to Brussels. Liddington appeared to be saying that a vote would follow any new treaty, even one that brought powers back. This moves the government far closer to a position of renegotiation followed by a referendum. If

Today’s Daily Express poll will add to the sense of momentum that the Tory rebels are feeling ahead of Monday’s vote. The fact that 81 per cent of Tory voters want their MP to vote for the motion will make it harder for the whips to dissuade those who are inclined to vote for the motion. The poll results also demonstrate that only a small percentage of the public would vote for the country’s current set-up with the European Union if they had the chance. Only 15 per cent would vote to stay in, compared to 28 per cent who would vote to leave, while 47 per cent would plump

Adjust your calendars, CoffeeHousers. The parliamentary vote on an EU referendum is no longer set for next Thursday. As the Mail’s James Chapman revealed this evening, Downing Street has moved it forward to Monday so that David Cameron and William Hague can both attend. They would have been away on government business otherwise. What to make of this hasty measure? I suppose it could feasibly be seen as a scare tactic on the part of No.10: strengthening the current three line whip by making it very clear that Dave Is Watching You. But it’s far more likely that Cameron is appearing in order to set out the sorts of concessions

I understand that Number 10 will lean on Cabinet ministers not to object to what the boundary review does to their seats. This is an intriguing development because at least three Tory Secretaries of State are deeply unhappy with the proposed changes to their constituencies. It’ll be fascinating to see whether Downing Street can persuade them to hold their peace on the matter. Their disquiet reflects broader grumbling throughout the Tory parliamentary party. All sorts of conspiracy theories are doing the rounds. Number 10 needs to move quickly to offer some reassurance to nervous MPs. If the boundary review’s plan is to be made agreeable to the Tory parliamentary party,

The Culture, Media and Sport committee has recalled James Murdoch to give further evidence into phone hacking and James Murdoch’s people are briefing journalists that he is happy to appear. Sophy Ridge reports that the committee had a long discussion about who to recall, but were largely in agreement and there was no vote. In truth, their decision was virtually inevitable after Tom Crone said he was certain that he and Colin Myler had spoken to Murdoch about the ‘For Neville’ email, which suggested that hacking was widespread. Myler has corroborated Crone’s claims.  Committee chairman John Whittingdale has said that Murdoch will be asked to clarify this and other questions.

George Osborne made a firm statement on the Vickers report this afternoon; if he felt uneasy about the proposed abolition of his seat or Natalie Rowe’s latest sally against him it didn’t show. As expected, he accepted Vickers’ proposals “in principle”, giving himself and his coalition partners enough room to manoeuvre within an agreed timetable that is equitable to both parties. Osborne also said that the annual £7 billion burden of Vickers’ capital requirements “should fall on shareholders and the wholesale debt holders, not small depositors or taxpayers.” Politically, it’s imperative that he achieves that objective. There is yet uncertainty on the subject and Barclays sought a clarification earlier this afternoon.