By Toby Perkins MP

Pursuing issues in opposition that subsequently prove considerably trickier to resolve in government is an occupational hazard of becoming a new prime minister.

David Cameron has been hoisted on his own opportunistic petard numerous times already. From promises to retain EMA to freezing VAT and from promising more prison places to NHS re-organisations he has many debits on the tally sheet. However it may be that his craven U-turn on the issue of the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir tells us most about Cameron the man.

Whilst a relatively obscure issue, Cameron the opposition leader went big on his claim that the Islamist group should be banned. In Gordon Brown’s very first prime minister’s questions, he was both insistent on the banning of the organisation and incredulous at claims that it might be problematic, arguing: “The prime minister said that we need evidence about Hizb ut-Tahrir. That organisation says that Jews should be killed wherever they are found. What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation? … Two years ago, the government said that it should be banned. I ask again: when will this be done?”

Now PMQ’s can catch out even the most experienced politician, but at least the leader of the opposition knows what he is going to raise, so there’s little excuse for appearing to commit to a position that he wasn’t willing to sustain. But this exchange in 2007 was not an isolated incident.

In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle in 2009 Cameron listed the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir as one of the three measures he would introduce to reduce anti Semitism, and later that year his shadow home secretary said that he ‘would immediately ban Hizb ut-Tahrir’ [on taking the post].

And after a presumably thorough policy review it was still there in the 2010 Conservative party manifesto, which pledged that: “A Conservative government will ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and close down organisations which attempt to fund terrorism from the UK.”

And Mr Cameron is right that the record of Hizb ut-Tahrir is a worrying one. Passionately anti-semitic, they wrote: “O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me so come and kill him” in an article published back in 2000.

In 2002 their Danish spokesman was caught handing out literature demanding that Jews be killed and the organisation was suspended; a year later in Germany the organisation was banned from taking part in public activity, after further anti-semitic death threats and amid claims of links with the far right Neo-Nazis in Germany.

So this organisation -banned or restricted in other European states- is a seriously nasty group peddling racist hatred within our shores.

Yet in government there appears to have been a significant weakening of the Tory manifesto promise. When former home secretary Alan Johnson marked a year of Tory rule by asking Mr Cameron about the ban, the PM equivocated and in subsequent replies to questions from Ian Austin and myself his stance has got noticeably weaker still.

Dave Anderson QC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorist legislation also appeared to rule out adding Hizb ut-Tahrir to the proscribed list in his report to government which broadly arrived at the very same conclusions that Mr Cameron refused to accept from the previous administration.

Now I am willing to believe the PM if he says that the laws of the land do not allow them to be banned. But this leads us to one of only two conclusions about the character of the prime minister and the policy making at the top of the Tory party, neither of which reflects well on Mr Cameron and his party.

The PM either, on numerous occasions, floated a policy idea without ever checking out the legal basis of it, and furthermore included it in the Conservative party manifesto without making the basic enquiries as to whether he would legally be able to do such a thing.

Alternatively, it is possible the PM and his party did indeed do all the basic due diligence on policy prior to announcing it and knew that what he was proposing was illegal but decided to cynically use racist extremism for political ends knowing that if they got into government the policy would be quietly dropped as unworkable.

So what is it, Mr Cameron? Were you so careless that you allowed a policy into your manifesto without even making the basic checks as to the legality of it, or were you so cynical that you would play on racial tensions for naked political advantage?

Either way, another facet of our prime minister’s character is exposed and our politics is the poorer for it.

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED AT www.politicshome.co.uk

I was glad to be called by the Speaker under the Topical questions section, to ask a question on any area of the department’s work, and I asked the Business Minister, Mark Prisk about the apparent lack of a co-ordinated approach from government to supporting the work of the administrators, Deloitte, to find a buyer for Auto Windscreens.

Whilst I appreciate that the department can’t just go around showering struggling firms with money, I had been asking, all week, for the business department to make contact with the administrators to see if there was any potential help that could be given by government to ensure that the business survives.

I am frustrated that this has not happened yet, or that, as I saw it, the co-ordinated approach previously in place under a Labour government, that worked through the Regional Development Agencies was not being replicated now.

The Minister accused me of being ‘churlish’ for stating my dissatisfaction with the efforts of government, but I am very desperate that the jobs at Auto Windscreens be saved and felt frustrated that more wasn’t being done to help them.

I have spoken regularly to the administrator who is working hard to ensure that there will still be an Auto Windscreens, and though the time pressure is critical, I remain hopeful that there can be a future for Auto Windscreens.

There is much else to say about why the AV proposal is wrong for electing our House of Commons.  I will write again about the other reasons why I believe that everyone regardless of their political affiliation should vote No to AV, but in this article I want to explain why I think Andy and Ed are right and Will is very wrong.

I will turn shortly to what I see as the weaknesses in Will’s arguments, but firstly, I would like to explain why regardless of which side of the fence you start from Andy Burnham’s decision is the right one.

The elections in 2011 will probably be the most important electoral test facing us in this parliament. Elections to the Scottish parliament and Welsh Assemblies will set in place the devolved administrations that will still be in place when the 2015 General election is called, and Labour’s fightback in local government must start with the key local government elections across the shire counties of England.

The AV debate is an unwelcome distraction to these vital elections, but even more so if we are going to expect the tens of thousands of Labour Party members who will be voting No in the referendum to go out campaigning for a viewpoint they don’t share, have never been consulted on, and in many cases will mean their own political extermination.

I do also recognise that there are equally many people who believe we should be voting Yes in this referendum and, perhaps see political salvation for their local interest in the vote being successful, and so would not presume to foist my opinion into their leaflets either.

Fundamentally, the party does not have a settled view on the subject. this is underlined by a recent Labourlist survey which showed more Labour members surveyed opposed to the change than in favour of it. So to undermine crucial local election campaigns would be disrespectful to the Councillors, MSP’s, AM’s and local activists whose attention should be focused on the local elections.

Some might choose to undermine the arguments of those who speak out of personal self-preservation or self advancement. But to do so would be to ignore the fact that political self interest is the elephant in the room throughout the AV debate. It was present in our original conversion to AV, to the Lib Dems support of it, and to the Tories opposition. It is also relevant to Labour people now fighting shy of it and Tory’s now considering whether it might after all not be so bad.

Will Straw makes five central points in support of his assertion.

 Firstly that Labour committed to an AV referendum in the General election and that Ed Miliband said he would campaign for it during the leadership election.

I accept that the party’s inclusion of AV in the manifesto means that if this had stood alone in the bill presented to parliament we would have had to support the referendum, but it is a long distance from that acceptance to saying that we should campaign for it. Ed made it clear during the leadership campaign (as did most of the other leadership candidates) that he would campaign for it, but at no time did he say that he would commit the party to campaigning for it, many people who voted for him despite his support for AV would be left very disillusioned to find that he had now strengthened his view to commit supporters and opponents of AV to supporting it.

Will’s second point was that Labour has to prove it can work with the Lib Dems on areas of shared concern.  On tuition fees, VAT, EMA and Housing benefit, the Labour Party is adopting positions that are in line with the Liberal Democrat position prior to the election . They have abandoned their principles and genuine offers to work together on all of these policies, but now we should, according to Will, race to the Lib Dems aid and introduce a policy on which the Lib Dems (and Nationalists) will be the only certain winners.

His third point about candidates being capable of fighting for their own election whilst fighting the referendum was frankly naive and insensitive. Labour candidates that want to be focused on their own elections, have more than enough difficulties getting activists to work with them without asking them to promote a measure that many of them oppose and some of them will consider will mean their political extinction. Will seems to be operating from the position that the argument for AV within the party is largely won, he is VERY wrong on this, the opposition to it goes much deeper than he appears to realise.

His fourth contention is the most flawed. Namely that AV is in the party’s interest. At the recent General election, Labour would have lost a lot of seats to the Lib Dems on AV; Ashfield, Bristol NW, Rochdale,  Edinburgh South  (and yes, Chesterfield) to name a few. The argument of self-interest must accept this but contend that it would be outbalanced by more victories in Labour- Tory marginals, due to Lib Dem second preferences. At the 1997 election that would have been true; in 2010 it would have been less true, but it is possible that the balance of power would still have been in Labour’s favour. However is Will really saying that after five years of watching Tory and Lib Dem policy converge that those people that were still voting Lib Dem at that point would then vote Labour with their second vote?

Surely it is obvious that those Lib Dems who are appalled by the Lib Dem sell outs in this parliament are likely to have already come to Labour, and those who have stuck with the Lib Dems because they believe that Nick Clegg’s judging the situation right, will agree with Nick that the Tories are the best second choice.

Will finishes by claiming that the bond between the parties leadership’s is too tight for a defeat in the AV referendum to deliver a hammer blow to the coalition. I largely agree with this, which underlines my point above about why this could be very damaging to Labour in Lab/ Tory marginals. But surely he can see that the prospect of fighting the election under AV will bolster the Lib Dems in the coalition to feel considerably more confident in their ability to withstand the unpopularity of government. Similarly a loss in the AV referendum leaves the Lib Dems exposed and places extra leftward pressures on the future policy direction of the coalition.

So, for the reasons listed above, Andy and Ed are absolutely right to say that the party will keep the elections separate. Some of us support AV, some don’t. I don’t ask Will to march round the streets arguing against AV, so I hope he won’t ask me to support it.

Britain has a large national debt. This is because we, Labour, were fighting during the global  recession to help people who had played no part in the catastrophic banking collapse to save their jobs, pay their bills and protect their savings.  No country should ignore a deficit. However focusing on cuts rather than growth will fundamentally weaken the level of public services that people in Chesterfield have come to rely on.

Already we are seeing the impact of the cuts with a string of local people who rely on care services from the County Council contacting my office to say that their care has been cut. Meanwhile an independent study says that Chesterfield will be the worst hit area in Derbyshire with around 1,400 public sector jobs to be lost over the next six years.

I’ve been in business ever since leaving school so no-one needs to encourage me that a strong business community is vital to a prosperous economy, but whilst attending a recent CBI ‘Question time’ event in Derby I was struck by how the cuts to our public services and the new immigration policies are hurting the private sector as much as the public sector.

We have been well served by our local public services here. Schools right across Chesterfield are rated highly. The County Council was a beacon of quality services until the political change last May, whilst we enjoy an excellent local hospital and good primary care provision to name a few.  Across the board, I will be fighting to maintain that quality provision in the face of these damaging cuts.

Locally, I still see much to be optimistic about in Chesterfield. I spoke at the planning meeting against the Dunston Incinerator and was absolutely bowled over by the commitment and polite determination of the huge band of objectors who secured a big win for Chesterfield by successfully persuading the planning committee of the folly of the proposal.

Chesterfield FC have been enjoying some big wins of their own, starting the season in fine style and sit proudly at the top of the table. Their new stadium along with other developments there is a start towards a vibrant A61 corridor.

I was also reminded of the essential value of our voluntary services when working at the Barnardos store on Trevorrow Crescent as part of the Voluntary sector’s ‘make a Difference’ day on Saturday and subsequently when attending a meeting of Rethink’s award winning Mental and Spiritual Help (MASH) group.

Meanwhile in Parliament, I have been adapting to my new role as Labour’s shadow Minister for Education.  I am now Labour’s representative on issues like safeguarding children, children in care, Youth services, School Sport and Family Courts. Many of these are targeted for government cuts. I am meeting many hard-working and passionate professionals who fear the impact of these cuts will fall on the deprived communities they have served with such dedication and commitment.

At my weekly surgeries I regularly encounter the real life impact of decisions taken in Whitehall, so I am asking any workers or users of public services to keep me in touch with any significant adverse (or positive) changes to service provision as a result of cost cutting measures.

Following the relative orderly calm of the Lib Dem conference, the Labour leadership contest dominated the airwaves. Reactions and counter reactions were sought by commentators desperate for some good old fashioned in-fighting. The new leader ‘worked’ the conference tirelessly meeting with delegates from across the country and the wider movement, and was quick to assert his desire to unite the party rather than repeat the divisive mistakes of the past.

The leader’s speech is always a Conference highlight but this year, more than normally, the pressure was on. Ed’s speech had something for everyone, from his background introduction to his parents past, fleeing death at the hands of the Nazis, to setting out his pride in Labour’s successes, his contrition over past failures and finally his optimistic vision for Britain on behalf of the new generation of Labour politicians.

The week of Tory Conference was spent back home in Chesterfield. The chaotic and ill thought out announcement of the cuts to child benefit was hotly followed by the plans for huge rises to tuition fees that the Lib Dem party seem willing to support – having opposed all tuition fees only a few months ago.

On Saturday, I attended the protest march against the Dunston incinerator where hundreds of men, women and children joined politicians of every hue and business owners to express their opposition to the plans for the incineration plant. The final decision will be taken on the 19^th October at 1pm at County Hall in Matlock, the public are invited to attend.

Whilst marching with objectors a phone call came through: “Would I be available to take a phone call from Ed Miliband at 130pm?”

 I must admit my thoughts immediately turned to the shadow ministerial team that Ed would be putting together, but it seemed so unlikely that I might be involved just a few months into my parliamentary career. The call when it came was brief. Within five minutes I had been appointed to and accepted a place in the Shadow Education Team.

Two days later at 236pm I stood at the despatch box for the first time. The first member of the 2010 intake to speak from the despatch box. My question was solid if unspectacular – about the importance of recognising the strength of a school’s intake as well as its outputs- but for a guy from Chesterfield, who had left school at 17 and been married in a little two up two down in Birdholme, being able to deliver it on behalf of our schoolchildren, my constituents and all the people who have helped to get me there meant the world to me.

I went to bed on Monday night proud, humble and determined- it’s been quite a few weeks!

The early months of the ConDem government has demonstrated their obsession with an ideological remodelling of Britain that favours a small state and a reduced role for public servants. Understandably, much of the attention of Labour’s campaigning will be around the fight for both the principle and the future shape of our public services.

However, this vital battle mustn’t prevent the Labour party re-evaluating its strategy towards business and the private sector (particularly SME) workers. In the myriad articles about how we can reconnect with our ‘core’ there has been too little discussion about what our core vote is or should be.

With some notable exceptions the days where working class people worked in huge factories or nationalised industries are gone. People who have considered themselves to be ‘core’ Labour voters are now as likely to work down the pub, or in the bookies; to serve us at Tesco’s or Matalan; to be encouraging us to change electricity suppliers at our doorstep or driving taxis; they make cappuccino’s and answer the phone in huge call centres.

Too often Labour appeared to view these people and their careers with a mixture of scorn and alarm. Well intentioned Labour measures on the licensing and smoking laws have contributed to the closure of thousands of pubs and the dismissal of David Cameron as ‘a salesman’ said to the hundreds of thousands of people whose sales mean Britain has a private sector economy that Labour wasn’t the party for them.

On pensions, job security and flexible working, people in the private sector felt there was one rule for them and one for the ‘special’ people in the public sector.

Similarly many ‘core’ supporters now run their own businesses or work for small firms. The man who used to be the pit electrician will now rewire your house in a smart white van with his name on the side; two Chesterfield miners used their ‘redundo’ to set up a firm that refills laser printer toners. For Labour to be back in the box seat when it comes to winning elections, people like these must feel comfortable voting Labour again.

And of course the reality for many of the new working class is not that their reduced working conditions are compensated by higher salaries. Pubs and fast food restaurants, cafes and retail sector are often offering just minimum wage in exchange for your labours.

Partly Labour’s recovery is a question of acknowledgement and language, simply by valuing the contribution of, and acknowledging the issues facing private sector workers and the self employed we will start to break down barriers. But for them to really feel that they are a part of the modern Labour movement we must reflect their concerns in our policies as well as our language.

The exact direction our policies take in this area will of course be subject to debate in the party, and the needs of the differing people I have referred to will of course be aired. But actually acknowledging the tax burden on the lower paid, the insecurity of their pension and job prospects, and a commitment to a genuine fair contribution to society from the poorest to the wealthiest will enable Labour to reconnect with many of the people who we have lost. Labour does have a duty to stand up for the hard working majority that we speak about so often, understanding them and debating their issues would be a great start.

If I am honest, I didn’t start out expecting to support David so let me tell you why I ultimately chose to.

My support for David is entirely positive. It is not a reflection on characteristics that the other candidates are lacking but more a recognition that he was the best candidate of those on offer to lead the Labour Party and to place in front of the country as a future Prime Minister.

Having spoken to all of the candidates, it was David that seemed to have the calm assurance that you expect in a Leader, his analysis on the reasons Labour lost is unquestionably the most thoughtful and his performance in the debate showed a man comfortable in his own skin, with the confidence to defend Labour’s record, coupled with the vision to identify the ways in which the leadership of the party has been too top down and autocratic in it’s consultation and dealings with both the party and the public.

David’s influence in assisting Diane Abbott to be on the ballot paper was typical of his desire to have a debate about the future direction of the party in an open way without trashing the record of the party in government.

The performance of the Coalition government so far show that they are clearly embarking on a huge programme of public sector cuts, apparently without any pretence about cutting waste, (Future Jobs Fund, University places, Working Neighbourhoods Fund). 

The cuts will directly affect the poorest in our communities and require a robust response that reflects the best of Labour, our values yes, but allied to our pragmatic ability to deliver change that really impacts on people’s lives. 

David is the candidate that will best hold the Tories to account. He is by far the most accomplished Commons debater, the most experienced in Government and the one that the Tories fear most. In David, the Tories realise that we have a candidate that can restore Labour’s appeal across the class divide and rebuild the broad coalition needed to form a government again.

This is a time of great opportunity but also great danger. The coalition will not fall apart by itself. After thirteen years out of power the Tories are desperate to return to their position as the natural party of government, and the Lib Dems are clearly willing to ditch many of their principles in order to sit at the top table. But a Liberal influence on a Tory government could deliver a gentler face to the Tory cuts agenda and if the Tories’ attempt to attribute every cut to the previous Labour government is met by an unconvincing response from the Labour leadership, or worse, if we concede our role as the voice of progressive aspiration and retreat to the language of envy and tribalism, the potential dangers to our position as the major force in progressive politics are huge.

Simultaneously, get our response to the cuts right, put pressure on the Lib Dems to define what they stand for, and articulate a positive message about our alternative plan for government and our role as THE voice of progressive opinion can be hugely strengthened.

And whilst the public may not be listening to Labour, they are certainly watching us. David is the man that opinion polls consistently show is most likely to deliver a win for Labour. He is the candidate who has stayed solid on what he believes in, and is engaging in this debate with an open mind but resolute in defending the strengths of our party that has delivered a better, fairer and safer Britain over the last thirteen years.

Far from being a narrow race, I think the differences between the candidates will become clear as the race develops. Ed Balls has a strong background as a fighter for working people, and his history in the Treasury and as DCSF Secretary of State show him to be a serious politician; whilst Ed Miliband’s speeches are passionate and moving, and his appeal for the trade union and youth vote will keep him in the race. Andy Burnham has a strong history running one of the key offices of state at Health and Diane Abbott will provide a valuable voice for the left of the party.

But notwithstanding the attributes that are apparent in all of our candidates, David is the one who can couple the ability to devolve power to the party and the wider trade union movement with an ability to form a winning coalition.

That’s why I will be supporting David, and I hope that you will too.

The full text of my maiden speech is featured below:   

I congratulate hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches, particularly Joseph Johnson, who should not be so self-deprecating. If it is in fact true that he has no sense of humour, someone has written him a great speech.

It is a great privilege to be only the fifth person to represent the Chesterfield constituency in Parliament in the past 80 years. The most recent of my predecessors was Paul Holmes, and I should like to start my maiden speech by reflecting on some of the strengths that he brought to the House in the nine years during which he served it. He was a diligent constituency Member of Parliament and a determined fighter for council housing, particularly through his membership of the Defend Council Housing group. As a former secondary school teacher, he was also an outspoken advocate of comprehensive schools and the teaching profession. As MP for an area that suffered a great deal from firms that went into liquidation with failed pension schemes, he consistently added his voice to those calling for a fair deal for those pensioners.

As a guide to the history of Chesterfield and as a commentary on the times, I also want to reflect on the maiden speeches of some of my other predecessors. Sir George Benson was a stalwart member of the Government who is still remembered fondly by some of Chesterfield’s most experienced citizens. His first major address to the House was in 1931, when he controversially called for the end of flogging with the cat o’ nine tails. I am pleased to inform the House that on the basis of an informal survey that I conducted during the recent election campaign, Sir George’s stance against corporal punishment still enjoys some support.

In Eric Varley, a local miner’s son who rose to the Cabinet and was posthumously given the freedom of the borough of Chesterfield, my constituency had a famous son who is fondly remembered across the borough. There is also, of course, Tony Benn, one of the greatest political figures of the 20th century, a man who bestrode the politics of his time as few can. I am mindful of those who have trodden this path before me in Chesterfield’s name.

Chesterfield has made its mark in other ways than through political history. Despite the comments of my hon. Friend Chi Onwurah, George Stephenson was actually from Chesterfield. Thanks to the vision of Bill Flanagan, the council leader for 27 years, an innovation centre now stands on the Stephenson’s family’s former estate; new firms grow in new industries, overlooked by the grandfather of innovation.

Football fans will know of the town as the home of goalkeepers, with legends such as Gordon Banks, the England World cup-winning goalkeeper, before him, Samuel Hardy, the England goalkeeper for 14 years at the end of the 19th century, and Bob Wilson, who served Arsenal, Scotland and sports broadcasting with tremendous distinction, all learning their trade in the town. Chesterfield football club, the Spireites, is a useful metaphor for the town, having had its moments in the hearts of the nation, as it did in 1997-a great year-when, as a third division club, it was cruelly denied a place in the FA cup final by a combination of the Old Trafford crossbar and a short-sighted football referee. Now, after a quiet period, the club gets ready to welcome the new season at the sparkling new B2net stadium-a brand new home on the north entrance to the town, and a symbol of the regeneration of Chesterfield.

The campaign that brought me here to represent the people of Chesterfield focused most strongly on jobs. With Junction 29A, or Skinner’s Junction, a huge site open for business as a result of the tireless work of my hon. Friend Mr Skinner, working with Labour party councillors who have fought for the area for so long, such as John Williams, Walter Burrows and John Burrows, Chesterfield and north Derbyshire finally get the investment in jobs that we needed-indeed the biggest investment in the area since the pits were sunk.

As Chesterfield rebuilds its economic prosperity, tourism also plays an increasingly important part, our world-famous crooked spire being just the highlight. While it is true that the number of people drawing the dole is less than a quarter of those who did so at its peak in the ’80s, thanks to the Labour Government‘s steps to save jobs during the recession, the need for skilled work for those who do not go to university, or for graduate and apprenticeship opportunities, is still keenly felt.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has stated that his purpose is to improve the quality of life for the worst-off in society so that they can play a part and, one hopes, pay tax themselves one day. No one on the Labour Benches would oppose that aspiration; indeed, it was that aspiration that led Labour, in the face of Conservative opposition, to introduce the national minimum wage and the tax credits system. The starting point in reducing benefit dependency is not an increase in the rhetoric against the unemployed, but an increase in work opportunities. It is therefore depressing that the coalition should choose the future jobs fund as one of the first examples of waste to be cut.

The Secretary of State is right to say that benefit recipients should be free to try to work their way off sickness-related benefits while retaining some security, as previewed by the previous Labour Government in the pathways to work pilot. No one could object to his intention to make benefits simpler and fairer, but surely one of the key reasons benefits are complicated is that so are the circumstances of people’s lives. The current system at least attempted to reflect logically the complexities of ordinary people’s lives, and the Secretary of State has not yet demonstrated how he can simplify the system without increasing unfairness; until he does, I will remain a sceptic. From my perspective, however, I will provide any support that I can to help him to convince his own party of the need to invest more in jobs, not in cutting them, and to understand that benefit recipients are more often the victims than the architects of their circumstances. Alongside a call for personal responsibility must come governmental responsibility to put job creation before the benefit cuts and to ensure that the most needy are not the victims of the simplification of benefit payments.

Chesterfield has a great deal going for it; under Labour, it improved so much. I came into politics to fight for the next generation of working opportunities for Chesterfield and Staveley-to fight inequality and to protect the public services that our people rely on. As I stand here in this magnificent place, bearing a dual responsibility, sent here to represent the people of Chesterfield and the Labour party, there is not a prouder man alive.

After the solemn early exchanges on the subject of the Israeli attack on the aid convoy and the terrible tragedy in Cumbria, the fiirst clashes were on the subject of Tory plans to allow rape defendants (uniquely) anonymity. Three times Harriet Harman pressed the Prime Minister to justify his position which would give men accused of rape a unique status in criminal justive terms, yet the PM insisted that this was his way of preventing the disgracefully low level of convictions on rape.

Rape is a notoriously difficult charge to make stick, particularly because of the often private nature of the offence, and often it is only when rape cases are publicised that other women come forward to report their own rapes. In a predominantly assured performance this exchange saw the Prime Minister at his least comfortable.

I felt he was also unconvincing on his defence of prioritising marriage, as he seemed to be claiming that married couples would stay together for £3.20 a week, which is not borne out by any discussions I have had with couples who are facing the terrible strain of relationship break up.

After the initial questions taking quite a long time to get through, the next few passed quickly and suddenly I heard the Speaker say: “Toby Perkins”, and I was on my feet. My question was; “Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of two school teachers from Chesterfield who I met this weekend, that children from more deprived communities will disproportionatly suffer from his cuts to 10,000 university places?”

In reply the PM welcomed me to the house graciously and namechecked Tony Benn, and then replied about his pupil premium which may or may not deliver for poorer children but has nothing to do with the cuts to 10,000 University places from this year’s budget.

He did also say that the remaining number going was still higher than the previous year under Labour (in other words his cut was to Labour’s planned expansion, not to the amount Labour had achieved last year).

Nonetheless my feeling is that to promise that he could find £6Bm worth of savings in waste prior to the election and then to offer cuts to university places and Future Jobs Fund neither of which could be described as waste is disingenous at best.

There was a bit of first day at school feel to it and it was nothing like as much of a bearpit as I anticipate it will become in the future, and so it was a pretty gentle introduction to PMQ’s for me, but one that I enjoyed, and I will certainly remember the response that I have had and see how the reality of this policy is felt by constituents in Chesterfield as we get to University clearing time this summer.

When I wrote last week’s journal Gordon Brown had just resigned and negotiations between the parties were still ongoing and I was still getting my bearings in Westminster with that dazed look.

As you will all be aware the negotiations ended with a ‘ConDem’ coalition as Tory leader David Cameron and Lib Dem Nick Clegg frolicked on the Downing Street lawn like a couple of over excited schoolboys- power can be a heady cocktail.

As they rejoiced in their joint discovery of the joy of cuts, the Labour Party faced it’s own moment of truth, as MP’s and activists faced the fact of our defeat in the General election and looked forward to a leadership election where the party could (finally) have a debate over it’s future direction.

It sunk in for me when I returned from a Parliamentary briefing to find three voicemails from potential leadership contenders wanting to discuss ‘the future of the party’. The atmosphere is slightly surreal, Labour MP’s, who have just lost are in that moment of calm before the storm, apparently released from the burden of power and not yet in a state of righteous anger about the untold misery of the cuts to come.

Tory and Lib Dem MP’s face a different quandary, happy to finally assume the reins of power (in a limited way, due to the coalition) and yet still facing their own immortality as they attempt to build public support for the masochism strategy that at least half of them have just spent a month denouncing.

Only the public sector and Local Government workers who may now pay for the Lib Dem change of heart with their jobs are likely to be feeling less than chipper about the new reality that we face.

Into this confusing maelstrom was added a first appearance on Newsnight last Wednesday, which I attended at just a couple of hours notice to discuss the ‘New Politics’ with a Tory MP and a Tory Think tank wonk. I emerged outnumbered but happy as my ‘opponents’ were forced to admit that in fact there was nothing very new about the Tory Party right now and vowing to do better in the future.

As you can imagine, it was a pleasure to return to the relative calm of Chesterfield on Thursday evening, where I set about recruiting office staff and finding an office location in the town to run my constituency office from. Another pleasurable aside involved the Celebration party to mark the election victory in Chesterfield which was held at Chesterfield Labour Club last Saturday. Around 100 people packed into the limited confines of the club, and a great time was had by all.

Sunday was a groggy day that I seem to have come out the other side of, and now on Monday evening, I write this whilst on a train down to London to be officially sworn in as the Member of Parliament for Chesterfield, another proud week awaits!