The same thing you thought hard about

NPF Part Two...

So we get to Sunday, the final day. By now most of the amendments have been finalised, with the trade unions in particular taking rather a long time to send up their plume of white smoke. We vote on what's left.

The voting works like this: with 162 members present, if an amendment gets 81 votes (50%) it is passed. If it gets more than 41 votes (between 25-50%) it goes to Conference as what's called a 'minority position' to be voted on there. Actually all of it goes to Conference, as that's our sovereign policy-making body, and in theory what is agreed at the NPF could be overturned there, but it's unlikely.

We ended the day with several minority positions: one was about law centres, and one was on directly-elected police authorities, one might have been on elected mayors - can't remember at this precise moment as I couldn't face carrying all the paperwork home on the train. And there were four issues on which activists actually won the vote in face of Government opposition: votes at 16; a wholly-elected House of Lords; regulation of estate agents; and compulsory labelling of fur products. I say Government 'opposition': on votes at 16 they wanted us to wait till their Commission reports next Spring; on House of Lords they wanted to stick to the possibly 80%, possibly 100% version approved by MPs; on estate agents they said they were doing things already; and on labelling fur there was some half-hearted stuff about EU rules making it difficult.

So - this doesn't mean that it's Labour policy yet to introduce votes at 16 and have a wholly-elected House of Lords, but unless something very unusual happens at Conference, it will be. Particularly pleased with votes at 16 - I'd been urging them all weekend to stick to their guns and take it to a vote, and was the only MP to break ranks and support it (although a few Ministers were secretly delighted with the result). A good job done by the youth reps, who even managed to persuade the unions to back them at the last moment. Future Government ministers, no doubt. And the Youth Parliament will be happy too.

This, and all the stuff that was agreed behind the scenes will no doubt appear somewhere soon as 'the Warwick Agreement Mark II'. Lots of stuff on skills, apprenticeships, public procurement, pensions, etc from the unions, and housing, climate change, child poverty and health from the constituencies, to name just a few issues. And in the small print somewhere will be some wording on therapeutic services for abused children, an "unconditional" ban on seal products, support for academies, encouraging young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to volunteer, enforcement of the hunting ban, post-16 education, and a few other things... which will be mine.

Hope you're reading this Chris - the hunting ban discussions were particularly protracted because we were talking to Defra, and they're not responsible for prosecutions, but Hilary Benn managed to track down Vernon Coaker, the Home Office Minister, and between us all we managed to come up with some wording which reflects the fact that although there have been prosecutions to date (27 I think, or 29), many people feel that the law is being broken with impunity and we need to get tougher on those who do so.

So - a good weekend's work.

Being boiled

Well the good news yesterday was that my modem at home wasn't working, so unfortunately I couldn't spend the twilight hours reading comments from angry smokers.

Today's good news will no doubt lead to a convoy of combine harvesters congregating on parliament, with dairy farmers throwing cows off the ramparts onto the heads of treacherous MPs.* (And yes, I do know combine harvesters are nothing to do with milk production). The Government has announced that it's not going to authorise a badger cull. Pretty sure I've blogged before as to why I think this is the right decision, and it's not just because - to quote the really, really tall MP with the Polish name - 'badgers are sweet'. In fact it's not because of that at all.

Obviously the last 24 hours or so has been a lesson in the perils of the Google alert. How many times have I blogged about the smoking ban before without attracting a single comment? But ridicule a certain organisation for holding a champagne tea party...

When I posted on the Canadian seal hunt earlier this year I got a few negative comments from Canadians; next time I'll actually mention Bash the Seal, Inc. by name and watch my comments count go through the roof. (Someone is going to Google that now and tell me there really is a company of that name, or at least an online game. And someone else is going to comment on this post that clubbing seals is not remotely funny. Yes, I know).

(In future I'm just going to put "yes I know" in brackets whenever I make a flippant comment.)

On the subject of being lobbied en masse, I got an irate email from someone the other day. I'd sent his elderly father a letter explaining why I wasn't able to sign the EDM on post office accounts (because I don't sign any EDMs) . The son's email basically said, what's the point of telling my father you're not going to sign the EDM when you don't even tell him what the EDM is about? I replied saying that seeing as his father had sent me a postcard urging me to sign the EDM it was, I thought, a reasonable assumption on my part that he would actually know what he was asking for....

This was, I suppose, a little disingenuous on my part. Last year I got more than 600 postcards about the double-taxation of bingo profits, and dutifully forwarded a reply from the Treasury to them all, probably to their complete bafflement. The front of the postcard said "Save our Bingo" and I don't think it's being patronising to assume that was what motivated most of them to write in. (Although by all means accuse me of it, as seems par for the course at the moment). On the other hand, most of the people who write in on individual issues are incredibly well-informed.

* I should point out this is a reference to a comment left on a previous post, about a certain episode of Alan Partridge. Included for an audience of one.

The virtual MP

Busy few days back in Westminster after the Bank Holiday. Four more sessions of the Local Transport Bill committee; PPS-ing for DFID in a debate on the Congo and an emergency statement on Burma; meeting with Save the Children staff; voting to abolish the blasphemy laws (by 378 to 57 I think, with only some Tories and unionists voting against); stepping up the "Keep Casualty in Bristol" campaign; and a whole host of other things.

On Tuesday I met with some guys from IFAW to follow up on the seal hunt issue. And apologies in advance to all the techies out there if I'm using the wrong terminology or whatever... I have just about heard of Second Life, which is some kind of virtual reality world on the internet. (How am I doing so far?)

Anyway, IFAW have a virtual island on Second Life with virtual zebras and all sorts. On Saturday there will be a concert on the island in support of an EU ban on the trade in seal products, with real live music (folkies from America) but with virtual counterparts appearing on the stage. Then in true Live 8 style, they will cut to a video link from 'an EU politician'. That would be me. Or rather, a virtual reality me. (They are under strict instructions to make her considerably more attractive). Will try to put a link on my main website if I can work out how...

Incidentally, the USA banned the trade in seal products in 1972, which is why the emphasis is on an EU-wide ban now.