A partial farewell to the spectacular Roger Helmer - at least from the (Brussels) Tory front bench. (Here is a reminder of his insightful contributions to the Conservative conference last month). The NHS-hating Dan Hannan has followed suit.

David Cameron promises to maintain a steel ring for Sun readers

The Standards and Privileges Committee comes under fire again

There was a report a few weeks ago that Alistair Darling was uncomfortable about having to repeat the claim that “up to 500,000 jobs” had been saved by government interventions since the credit crunch.

The Mail on Sunday claimed that Darling had argued against Gordon Brown’s entreaties to repeat the figure more often.

You may remember that the chancellor first made the claim in the Budget. Then Gordon Brown in July upped the ante by claiming the government had saved “at least 500,000 jobs.” The figure was always a bit debatable because it included jobs saved by interest rate cuts and quantative easing, both of which were carried out by the Bank of England.

Back in September I asked the Treasury press office half a dozen times to give me more detail about the number, in particular the lower level of the range of estimates. No one could tell me, as I blogged here.

Now Alex has obtained the Treasury’s original guidance to ministers back in April. It was impossible to give a definitive number, said officials. But it would be reasonable to use the figure of “250,000 to 450,000″.

So not only was the lower estimate half the figure used by ministers. They also rounded 450,000 up to 500,000 to give a nice, round and not altogether kosher figure.

UPDATE

Alex points out that at least the methodology used to reach the range of estimates was sound. The Treasury did not take account of the UK’s generous automatic stabilisers (for example, tax credits).

My colleague Matthew Engel once joked that Peter Mandelson’s career was “the greatest political story yet to be told”. Every improbable twist seems part of a carefully laid plot. Could he really go on to become Labour leader? It is a big stretch to even imagine the scenario. But that shouldn’t stop us from trying.

Now just picture David Miliband becoming the European Union’s foreign policy chief. Think what would happen once he quit UK politics. Most speculation has centred on Mandelson claiming his birthright as foreign secretary. But could Miliband’s constituency be as appealing?

South Shields is just 30 miles up the coast from Hartlepool, Mandelson’s old patch. The South Shields Labour party already know him at first hand: just two weeks ago, the First Lord graced the Harton Technology College to deliver the ‘South Shields Annual Lecture’. By all accounts it was a triumph. And what a lucky coincidence! Had it not been organised months ago, you’d have thought Mandelson was on manoeuvres. Since the trip, he has even been overheard in Westminster singing the praises of South Tyneside’s Britain’s finest chippie. All the campaign needs now is for the First Lord to call a competition inquiry should Joe McElderry, the pride of South Shields, face a shock elimination from The X Factor.

Would there be a problem running for office? Not necessarily. If Miliband stood down, it would be within 6 months of a general election, so there would be no need for a byelection. (The treaty becomes law on December 1.) Mandelson would have months to prepare the ground. And there would also be time for the Lords bill to pass giving him an escape route to the Commons.

Some killjoys will have spotted at least a dozen fatal flaws in this fantastic theory. But it is never wise to think about these scenarios too carefully. Why spoil the fun? Some stories are just too good to be fiction.

There are convincing arguments for and against the ban on family members. Many spouses do an extraordinary job. But even their supporters are often surprised to hear that almost a third of MPs put a family member on the Commons payroll. As Sir Christopher Kelly said today, it is out of step with most organisations in Britain and parliaments across the world. The US Congress outlawed hiring family members way back in the 1960s.

One other statistic that really stands out of the Kelly report is on pay and bonuses. Many spouses who work in the Commons no doubt deserve a bonus as much as any other hard working public servant. But should they they be receiving more than other staff? Take a look at this paragraph:

Family members are on average paid slightly more than other staff and receive higher bonuses (averaging 1,830 in 2008-09 as opposed to £1,400 for other staff who received bonuses). It is possible that this is because many of them have been employed longer than average, are appointed to more senior posts, or work longer hours.

Kelly does a good job at explaining why there could be a bonus gap of close to 30 per cent. But, even if spouses do carry on working in the Commons, it would seem only fair to end to a situation where MPs are determining the performance related pay of their loved ones.

Kelly certainly pulled no punches, particularly when it came to his dealings with the political class. He kicked off his press conference by blaming the party leaders for leaking incomplete accounts of his report and causing “distress”. He went on to suggest that none of the leaders were able to give him a straight answer on whether his report will be fully implemented. But his most pointed remarks were saved for Harriet Harman. She must be fuming.

You may remember that Harman took to the airwaves last Sunday to decry any recomendation that would force MPs to sack their wives. Kelly obviously found this a bit strange and told the assembled journalists that they may want to look at the evidence the Leader of the House gave to his committee, which didn’t quite tally with her TV appearance. Here are some extracts from her testimony:

It is quite difficult to create the sense that there has been equality of opportunity in that employment because it is quite difficult to see how you would have an open competition for a job if the person who is ultimately doing it ultimately you are married to.

So I think there are perception problems but I do want to say, just to put on the record for those colleagues who I work with on all sides of the House that I see spouses working incredibly hard but I think the public perception problem has overtaken the situation here.

…In particular cases there is quite a lot of support for the idea of the MP employing their wife but I do think that the overriding perception has been tainted and there is the proper concept of equality of opportunity which overrides that but I just want to mention that. I think some of the public really bond with the MP’s spouse.

An excruciating moment after PMQs when the Speaker announced the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy* as chair of the new IPSA expenses regulation body.

The announcement - and the fact that the professor will be paid up to £100,000 a year - was met by MPs with catcalls, jeering and laughter around the chamber. As Sir Ian was described as an “eminent” candidate, there were more hoots and jeers. At least one red-faced MP was jabbing his hands in the air with disgust.

This will not look good at all on television tonight.

* He chaired the inquiry into the Bristol Royal Infirmary scandal

It was a long, long press conference that was half empty by the end. But for some reason Sir Christopher Kelly never called on me during the Q&A. Perhaps he knew what I was going to ask: has the Committee come to a view on wife swapping?

This is a pressing issue for the 200 odd MPs who hire members of their families. In the panic over the Kelly proposals, which recommend phasing out the practice over the next five years, many MPs have been mulling the option of employing each other’s relatives. Wife swapping sounds terribly amusing, but it is a serious issue for some MP’s families who would otherwise face a severe cut in their household income.

Well, the good news for MPs is that Kelly doesn’t seem to mind. “If you want to employ somebody else and they are good at their job why would any party want to object to that,” he told Jim when approached at the end of the session. He added, of course, that he would want “more open competition for these posts”. But well-qualified wives should be in a strong position.

So Sir Christopher Kelly has spoken. Here are some of his key recommendations and his response to MPs’ gripes:

– Bad day for homeowners. MPs will not have to shift into rented accommodation for five years. But any capital gains on homes from today until 2015 should be paid back (apparently HMRC can easily work out how this is all valued) . In future there should be an agency to oversee the rental payments for MPs second homes. In some cases this will be more expensive than a mortgage. But most MPs who rent at the moment spend less than those with mortgages. And there are plenty of relatively cheap places to live near Westminster (i.e. welcome to Lambeth Mr MP)

– Bad day for political families on public payroll. MPs with partners who are MPs will not be allowed two allowances. They will have five years to sack any family members on Commons staff (that applies to about 200 serving MPs). Aren’t politicians a special case? No: Kelly says their practices are out of step with modern organisations and other parliaments across the world. Can’t be compared to “vicarages and GPs”.

– Bad day for commuters. Those within a “reasonable commuting distance” of London will banned from claiming second home. This cover about 66 MPs, 12 more than at present. They also won’t be allowed to claim journeys from the Commons to their homes if it is a “reasonable distance”.

– Bad day for MPs who want to retire in five year’s time. The resettlement grant of up to £64,000 for MPs stepping down voluntarily will end after this general election. Those who want to leave after that will receive just 8 weeks pay. Many will have calculators out to compare pension accruals with payout. Does also increase the incentive to be deselected, so watch out for more rebellions. Kelly insists this payout is a “small” part of deciding whether to stay on.

– Good day for transparency. Receipts for everything. All candidates *at this election* should declare all their external financial interests and second jobs.

– Good day for black cabbies. MPs working late will be able to take a cab home or stay in a hotel (at less than £120)

– Bad day for parliamentarians in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. He wants a ban on “second jobbing” in the Commons. We’ll have more on what this all means for the Robinson family later.