Tellingly, when the European Parliament debated this matter earlier in the week not one of the MEPs from Sarkozy’s own political party, the UMP, took the floor. 

 Equally telling, in the midst of condemnation of Sarkozy from the all the centre-left parties in the European Parliament, Tory MEP Timothy Kirkhope asked MEPs to wait until the Commission made a formal ruling on the legality of the measures. “Then we can make an informed judgement based on all the facts and decide how to focus on better integration of the Roma people, rather than pre-emptively condemn a fellow Member State”. 

I was truly shocked by this mealy-mouthed Conservative point of view.  It therefore came as no surprise when the ECR – European Conservative and Reformists – Group, the majority of whose members are British Tories, abstained on this resolution  which, amongst other things, deeply condemned the measures taken by the French authorities as well as by other Member States’ authorities targeting Roma and Travellers and providing for their expulsion, urging them to immediately suspend all expulsions of Roma while calling the Commission, the Council and Member States to intervene with the same request.

The resolution, voted in the plenary session of the European Parliament earlier today, was, in fact, carried with 337 MEPs in favour, 245 against and 51 (mainly ECR) abstentions.  This shows that , fortunately for everyone living in the European Union, the majority of MEPs are reasonable people with strong humanitarian instincts.

The report was voted on in the European Parliament pleanary session on Tuesday.  I was pleased that the EU  Observer  quoted me in their online newspaper yesterday and thank them for coming to me for my views. 

You can read it here.

 One of his less remembered but important contributions was his work on the 2005 Gambling Act in his capacity as a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

 John Carr, one of Andrew’s GLC colleagues,  writes about this in today’s Guardian. Andrew was, in fact, very successful in this matter. Since the legislation became operative, children’s organisations are not aware of a single instance where a child has managed to evade the system.     

 I first met Andrew when I worked at County Hall in the late 1970s. I remember him as a friendly and approachable GLC Member, even though at the time we were in different Labour Party camps.  Then, as now, I was on the side of Ken Livingstone and supported Ken on the London Labour Party Executive where I was a member for much of the 1980s.     

 After Ken Livingstone became Leader of the Greater London in 1981, Andrew went on to serve in the House of Lords for nearly 30 years. He was Labour frontbench spokesperson variously on education, industry and the environment, rising to be deputy leader of the opposition in the Lords (1992-97). After 1997 Andrew became deputy chief whip in the Lords, speaking for those many departments with no Lords minister of their own until, in 2005, he gained ministerial office in the DCMS.

 Of particular interest to me as an MEP is the fact that Andrew was a member of the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly from 2005 and chair of its education and media subcommittee from 2008 until his death. He was very well regarded, a formidable chair, and in January 2007 the Council appointed him its rapporteur on media freedom. He also worked to advance the Bologna Process, designed to ease the movement of university students and staff around Europe, something I deal with in my role on the European Parliament Culture and Education Committee.

He was, in addition, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, a distinguished supporter of the British Humanist Association and a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group.

Steve Richards excellent interview with David Miliband in the Independent newspaper (the whole piece is worth reading) says it all:

“Labour’s possible next leader has a direct message for Nick Clegg on electoral reform: “I am strongly in favour of the Alternative Vote, but if the Liberal Democrats want AV they are going about it very oddly. Let us be clear. They need Labour to be in favour of it, yet they support a package that includes other constitutional changes being rushed through to help the Conservatives. It’s student politics and not clever politics. If Liberal Democrats want electoral reform they should think very carefully about supporting amendments to the legislation that we are putting forward. Remember we want AV to succeed and there are Tories who oppose electoral reform who are rubbing their hands about the way the Liberal Democrats have gone about this … if we want AV, which I do, we have to find a way around this.”

My thoughts exactly and demonstrates why David Miliband is the best candidate to lead the Labour Party.

I am number 14 in the Total Politics top 100 Labour blogs, up from 80 last year.

Needless to say, I’m very pleased and it’s good to know that there are so many people taking an interest in European politics.

My thanks to everyone who voted for me.

Schulz is indeed right.  What did the European Commission do about bankers’ bonuses at the beginning of the world economic crisis and what have they ever done in real terms to reduce the gap between the have and the have nots?

The debate, while wide ranging, was ultimately unsatisfying, largely because it was nearly all theory and very little about practical politics. More of a manifesto than a report on last year’s activities, European Commission President Barroso’s address, though upbeat, was curiously lightweight.

Barroso, of course, pressed all the right buttons, but as Martin Schulz pointed out, failed to expand or deal with any of the real issues.  The European Union, in particular the European Commission, really needs to get out of its wishful thinking mode.  As Martin Schulz said, Mr Barroso and his Commission nearly always cave into to the Franco/German alliance which is effectively in control of the Council of Ministers.

In fact, there is a real divergence between the aspiration of the European Council/Council of Minister and the European Commission.  While Martin Schulz disparages what he terms increasing intergovernmentalism, I think we should view this from another perspective.

Following enlargement of the European Union in 2004, not to mention the opposition to further EU integration from some other Member States, the vision of further European integration is, I believe, profoundly unrealistic.  But it’s a vision which has legs with the Leader of the centre-right European People’s Party, Joseph Daul from France, stating in his response to Barroso that people need “more Europe”.

To be fair to Mr Barroso he did not quite give us that.  It was, in effect, a shopping list with no really coherent political basis.  He talked, amongst other things, about the need for a functioning European single market, support for universities and lifelong learning, a European patent, energy security, climate change and creating green jobs and a global role for the European Union.

I have to admit, there was little I disagreed with.  Martin Schulz was again right when he called it a state of the union address for all people.       

However, while Barroso’s strong condemnation of racism and xenophobia was admirable, he failed to mention President Sarkozy’s expulsion of the Roma. Not exactly the approach we would expect of a serious political leader.

It’s hardly surprising that there were those who thought MEPs may not be in the Chamber to hear Mr Barroso.  The quality and content of his speech were more about boosting his profile than tackling the serious issues currently facing Europe.  However, the bribe to dock money from those MEPs who did not attend was extremely undignified and ultimately had to be withdrawn. Yet many were, in fact, present.  It’s a shame they were not regarded sufficiently to be given a speech of substance and, dare I say, vision.

So what’s the explanation for this particular gender gap? We certainly can’t put it down to some innate female capacity for empathy; leadership style is not dictated by sex. It is instead more likely that women’s greater preparation for top roles better equips them for effectively dealing with colleagues. As the institute’s chief, Penny de Valk, describes: ‘We know that women are unlikely to put themselves forward for new roles unless they feel 95% capable, whereas men will happily do so at 65%, so . . . when women are promoted, they are very familiar with the tasks their people are doing.’

Whatever the answer is, it is refreshing to see that the benefits women have brought to board rooms are being recognised. Too often, we are subjected to the same, implicitly sexist explanations for female exclusion: only two weeks ago, ukjobs.net released a ‘study’ cataloguing the reasons why women don’t make good bosses (a tendency for bitchiness and mood swings being among the reasons). Let’s just hope that employers respond to the Index of Leadership Trust findings when recruiting, acknowledging the varied and multiple attributes needed for good leadership, and recognising that these are not specific to either gender.

The story was not covered well even by responsible journalists, not to mention several bloggers. Iain Dale wrote the best account I have read on the subject which you can read here. The truth is it’s none of our business, and we really shouldn’t be so concerned with the details of this story.

The saddest part was that Hague felt forced to reveal that he and his wife had suffered multiple miscarriages. This is the kind of information no couple, whether or not  in the public domain, should have to share with the public. This is one story I hope becomes fish and chip paper sooner rather than later because it’s giving British journalism and the blogosphere a bad name.

Another story to cast a cloud over journalism which has resurfaced over the weekend is that of the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Andy Coulson the No. 10 communication chief was accused by a former colleague of encouraging journalists at he News of the World to carry out the illegal practice of phone hacking. Several senior politicians have claimed they were affected by this and you can read full coverage in the Guardian’s story here.

David Cameron might find he is in a difficult position, but there is absolutely no question in my mind that the correct thing to do is to hold an independent investigation.

 This is a dark story and so much has been swept under the carpet, but it is time to reveal exactly what went on. Why was a culture of ‘getting the story at whatever means’ able to preside for so long unchallenged?

The document showed that women will pay for an astonishing 66% of the planned cuts in London.

And the report also revealed that women who work in the public sector will also come under threat from the planned cuts. This is especially important as they represent some 65% of the public sector workforce in London.

I am of course concerned by this revelation and also to learn that the Treasury has failed to indicate whether it assessed how and if its budget proposals would affect inequality between men and women, something it is required to do under equality laws. I am surprised it has yet to be challenged on this in any significant way and it is something I will look into.

Livingstone also claims that since Boris Johnson succeeded him there has been a reduction in the number of women in senior positions in the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Whether it is Ken or Oona who is selected to represent the Labour Party following the impending ballot I hope that they will take the Mayor to task on this. It sends out a shocking message to Londoners.

The GLA should be at the forefront of equal rights and if this is not happening then the party led by the new candidate must challenge this.

It’s a hard choice, but one Labour Party members have to make. I have come to my decision. It quite simply has to be Ken.

As a feminist and a longstanding campaigner for more women in public life, I would dearly like to support a female candidate, this would be my natural choice and what people would expect me to do. I find it a real shame that there is no woman standing as Labour Mayoral candidate who has the right experience.

However, I have decided to support Ken as he is the candidate with a proven track record in running London with the ability to deliver in the future.

Yet I would never claim that Ken has no warts. But I am supporting him ‘warts and all.’

I first came across Ken Livingstone in the 1970s when he was a new Member of the GLC and I was an employee. I later worked on the campaign to save the GLC from abolition by Margaret Thatcher. During the last 10 years as a Labour MEP I have, of course, had dealings with the Labour Mayor of London.

I did not always find it easy dealing with City Hall when Ken was in charge. Since his staff were not from the same political wing of the Labour Party as me, co-operation was not always forthcoming and I was, on occasion, obviously omitted from women’s events where I, as Labour Spokesperson on Women’s Rights in the European Parliament, would have been an obvious choice.

It must be said, both Ken and Oona are experienced politicians who both have considerable experience of political campaigns. However, the selection we as members make must be based on the person who has the highest level of experience, who can deliver for Londoners and who will be the strongest opponent that Boris can face. That candidate is Ken Livingstone.

Livingstone had a truly daunting task as the first elected Mayor of London and he rose to the challenge. When he left office he left many accolades: the congestion charge, the opening up of Trafalgar Square, the improvements at Vauxhall Cross, the London low emission zone – the list goes on. As the one-time Leader of the Greater London Council who introduced “Fares Fair” on the Underground, Ken understood how to get things done.

Ken has done it once and will do it again.

Although he is the candidate better suited to run London this by no means detracts from Oona King. Oona is intelligent and hardworking, and she was an excellent MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. I remember canvassing with her during the 2005 general election campaign when her popularity was evident and her knowledge of her constituents second to none. I would like to see Oona back in the House of Commons where I am sure she would carve out a successful career.

Politically I am closer to Oona King than left- wing ‘Red Ken’. But I believe it would be a mistake to elect the Mayoral candidate on the basis of political philosophy alone. Too often in the Labour Party we choose our representatives and leaders for what they say rather than what they can actually do.

As a London representative, I understand that what a challenge running London is and how important it is to deliver for the people of our city.

I am aware that Ken is not perfect. He is, however, our only realistic choice.