Having kicked out [most of] the hereditary peers, castrated the historic office of Lord Chancellor and established an ersatz  ”Supreme Court”, Labour wants to tinker with the Constitution again – only this time not out of a long-held and irrational fear of the nobility, but merely so that Lord Mandelson can return to the Commons. (BBC News)

The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, it demonstrates Labour’s willingness to fiddle about with what is meant to be an ancient and solid constitution. Perhaps more worringly, this isn’t just a superficial alteration; rather, it means that Labour is quite prepared to change the rules of the game once it becomes clear that they’re going to lose. Secondly, the concept of politicians hopping between the two houses as it suits them undermines the bicemeral system completely – why have an upper chamber if it’s nothing but a holding-space for politicians who saw fit to leave domestic politics and now want to have a second bite at the apple?

Harriet Harperson is, herself, oblivious to the lovely “British” ideals of equality before the law – her inappropriately named “equalities” bill literally and explicitly gives employers the right to discriminate based on sex. Furthermore, she’s now decided that even the Constitution of the Labour Party is below her own personal ambitions, declaring that men are incapable of running the government on their own and suggesting that one (or both) of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party must be female (Times). Unusually concise, John Prescott asks, “Why take away from the party the right to choose its leaders on the basis of ability?” – it seems that the concepts of meritocracy and fairness are beyond Ms Harperson.

Apparently, she spoke to senior Party officials about her plans and was immediately told to sling her hook. It is, clearly, a very overt and overambitious ploy to establish herself as leader of the Labour Party. Perhaps this is her response to Blairite-mediated attempts to bring Mandy back to the Commons; there is, it seems, an open feud between the two of them (Telegraph).

Personally, I’d much prefer Peter Mandelson in number ten, simply because he is the lesser of two evils. Indeed, he could even prove to be a disasterous spanner in the works of the Conservative Party Machine.