More about Alistair
Last week I blogged during the recess to remind readers that Chancellor Alistair Darling still had some serious questions to answer about his expenses and related tax matters. Since then even more questions have emerged, the Lib Dems have accused him of having his "fingers in the till" and this morning the Chancellor bowed to pressure and promised to repay one particular claim.
More ominously, the Prime Minister was asked three times only an hour or so ago if Mr Darling would still be in his job in 10 days time -- and three times the PM dodged the bullet and stonewalled with variations of the phrase "Alistair Darling has been a great Chancellor". But even the dissembling spoke volumes: Mr Brown used the past tense!
Maybe these weekend rumours that he was about to be replaced by the PM's favourite policy wonk and political fixer, Ed Balls, are true after all (they seemed unlikely when I read them yesterday). As they would say in the less salubrious parts of Mr Darling's Edinburgh's constituency: "The Chancellor's jaiket is hingin' by a shoogly peg" [Translation on request].
But perhaps the PM's jacket is hanging only a little less precariously. I stick to the Westminster received wisdom that Mr Brown will not be the victim of a palace coup after Thursday's election results, even if they are dire for him and Labour, but I do so with a little less conviction every day.
Consider the following: if Ukip does come ahead of Labour in share of the popular vote in the Euro-elections (as some polls suggest and Ukip is now predicting) and the BNP win one or two seats (an important second condition for this scenario), then a majority of Labour MPs could well conclude that it was "time to ditch Gordon".
Coming behind Ukip would be humiliating; but presiding over a state of affairs which resulted in the first ever election of British fascists to a legislature (it never even happened in fascism's heyday in the 1930s) would be seen as an historic disgrace. It could tilt Labour over the edge into a "Brown must go" fervour.
Just how that rebellious mood would work out in practice I don't know. Alan Johnson is cheekily waving from the wings shouting "I'm here" but the senior "men in suits" who'd have to tell the PM his time was up -- Jack Straw and Peter Mandelson -- have so far ruled themselves out of this unappetising role. Which is why there are rumours this morning of Labour backbenchers taking matters into their own hands if the cabinet proves supine (see the Daily Mail splash). But I'm not quite sure how that works out either. All I can tell you is that the 10 days after the June 4th elections are going to be riveting. So stay tuned!
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~10~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why do we need politicians when we have a free market economy and most of our laws emanate from the EU?
A permanent Civil Service would make a better job of it.
Complain about this comment
The senior 'Men in Suits' as you put it, Peter Mandelson and Jack Straw, are hardly whiter than white when it comes to alleged financial misdeeds so they are hardly likely to put GB in the firing line as they would then attract 'Friendly Fire' themselves.
It will be a backbench rebellion if it is to occur, and I can see it happening as most of the current Labour MPs will either be standing down or will lose their seats at the next election so they have nothing to lose.
The thing that worries me is that all this scandal over MPs and MEPs expenses might prompt even greater voter apathy, turnout at elections is pitiful and as such we get the MPs we deserve.
I urge everyone to cast their vote in all elections, the more people vote the more accountable our representatives will be.
Look at the candidates and parties on offer, choose wisely even if you intend a protest vote.
But most importantly make sure that you and everybody you know casts their vote
Complain about this comment
What about Harriet?
1) She has the authority of being elected unlike Brown so cann speak for 'the Party'.
2) She can be seen to speak for the interests of 'the Party' not out of personal ambition - having already ruled herself out of the running in pretty definitive terms.
2) She's untouched by expenses scandal (unlike Straw) and Mandelson has virtually ruled himself out of any delegation.
So her resignation speech - if it came to that - would have bite and traction (unlike Blears or after today even Darling).
On top of that she would still retain her elected position
Complain about this comment
Please tell me that we will not be expected to accept another unelected prime minister if Gordon Brown is turfed out.
I am not usually politically motivated but the the recent wrecking of our country's finances has just caused me to join the Conservative party (never belonged to a party before) and I think I would take to the streets with all my friends if we had 2 unelected prime ministers plus Tony Blair swanning around earning vast amounts of money to add to whatever expenses he claimed in office.
Complain about this comment
Good afternoon Andrew,
I wish that we were not being treated like idiots. Darling and others will not be ditched over the expenses scandals, they will be ditched because they are not good enough. Same with others. Brown has one tool at his dosposal, the power to sack ministers. It could well be that Johnson will be moved, he is a threat therefore, why not hand him defence like was done to Portillo.
This will be the night of Mac of knife, the evnts dear boy, or you've never had it so 'good', only read bad, and Brown is the only man who can save us. Honest, now this is important, the sun is shining and now I am off to the beach having taken out some, no listen this is important, weeds. Hello little weed, bye for now. I will keep listening for the next ten days, after I have voted, None Of The Above, my NOTA solution to this issue. And if somebody I don't like gets in then that is tough on me.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I am stunned by the fact the MPs still just don't get it.
In the grand scale of things, the £100k or so they've paid back isn't much but it's a symbol of everything that voters are fed up with.
Brown daren't act against the "totally unacceptable" behaviour of some Labour MPs because it means he will lose what friends he has left. Cameron can't act as "whiter than white" anymore as he's been shown to be manipulating the system as well.
The only thing the will re-engage people is knowing their votes count; under the first-past-the-post system this clearly doesn't happen. I live in a safe Labour seat; if I vote for anyone other than the conservative candidate, my vote will be "wasted".
What can I do to show Brown & Co how pissed-off I am? The only thing any of us can do, destroy them all in the Euro Elections!
Complain about this comment
Darling is the Chancellor of the Exhequer for heaveans sake. He's got to be above reproach. Any question-mark about the appropriateness or
otherwise of his use of Taxpayers money and he should satep aside. that job is too important with the state of economy the way it is to have a Chancellor who (rightly or wrongly) isn't trusted.
Complain about this comment
Amazed Nigel Farage compared UKIP to the Salvation Army.
I see his point, which is quite a good one actually, but is it really going to win any votes....?
Halleluah Sister. Buy a copy of the UKIP manifesto and we'll save you from the Demon EU. Come and join us! Come and join, us !.....
Er, no !
Complain about this comment
As for the Labour party leadership, Gordon Brown really should step aside. He's presided at or near the top for the 12 years that have created the economic disaster. His regular talk of Prudence and no more return to boom or bust has been shown to be complete rubbish. He's not really the right man to lead the country anywhere at the moment, except even further into the abyss...
The best solution would be to dissolve Parliament a.s.a.p now and call a general Election in September/October.
This draws a line under the current problems with MP's expenses. Parties will have time to get their house in order and confirm/reselect candidates. The country then get a fresh Parliament just after the Summer recess and it has a proper mandate to get on with the necessary reforms and sorting out the economy. Its unquestionably the right thing to do in the best interests of the Country...
But the Labour Government have never really thought like that. They've always been self-serving. It's time to change please Gordon...
Complain about this comment
Not only do the MPs not get it, their constituency parties dont either.
Just heard Julie Kirkbride's consituency party spokesman saying there was no need for her to go now, she has been a good MP, and how would they find another candidate in time ! In time for what may I ask ?
Would you want to be a prospective candidate there when they are still spouting in support of the discredited incumbent? The voters would think you were as daft as the party organisers.
Complain about this comment
re 5, TAG
Yes night of the long knives again.
Was it Thorpe or Grimmond who said at that time "greater love hath no man than to sacrifice the lives of his friends for that of his own". Talk about history repeating itself.
Complain about this comment
Re:3 I'd be quite happy to see Harriet as the new leader of the Labour party, there for the long-term not just a stop-gap. Labour have got to realise that chances of winning election aren't good so they've got to think long-term, do it now and keep their fingers crossed...
Of the three proposed front-runners, incl. Johnson, Millibland, Harriet's er, harmless...
Complain about this comment
#11
I seem to remember the last part of the quote being '...than to lay down his friends for his life'.
But Labour don't do it like that, apparently. Brown is obviously going to cling on to the bitter end, and there's no clear method of shifting him. He's banking on an upturn in the economy just at the right time, so that he can boast of having the right policies to save the country (and the world). And he's also banking on voters' memories being short enough to give himself and Labour a chance of winning in a year's time.
He might be lucky. If a week in politics is a long time, a year is virtually an eternity.
In any case, I think Harriet would turn out to be as bad as GB. Haven't we suffered enough?
Complain about this comment
Andrew
I will point out here you managed to mention Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, No2EU, UKIP, BNP on your show today. Gues what again NO mention of the English Democrats by the shoddy BBC. No doubt if it was the SNP you would soon be mentioning them.
On the subject of leadership of the Labour Party, they will be lucky if there is a Labour Party to lead. Lord Dsai was right in my opinion the Labour Party is facing what the old Liberals faced and may never gain power again. That will teach them to BETRAY their core voters over issues like the Lisbon Constitution. Spare me the sad "it is different from the constitution" it is as transparent and threadbare as MPs excuses over expenses.
As for Nigel Fagarge. Well you have now compared your Party to the Sally Army how long before you begin thinking you are God?
Complain about this comment
#14
Farage's comparison was quite valid, I thought. Just as the Salvation Army brave the evils of the pubs to get converts and change things, so UKIP have to brave entering the EU den for the same reasons.
It was a gamble, though, as it is clear that his words are going to be distorted for the purpose of ridicule.
Complain about this comment
13 m-j
Thanks for the "proper" version of the wicked quote. Wonder if Clegg can equal it?
Harriet Harman is not nicknamed Hormone for nothing. A bit
anti men I believe. Especially when it comes to sex arrangements.
Hence I found the Smith hubby porn videos hilarious. Bet that led to an
awkward conversation between Harriet and Jackie.
Complain about this comment
superAngry 14
Absolutely right the English democrats have not had a mention at all, and if they were one of the main parties that could give me a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and could get in Government I would definitely be voting for them.
Complain about this comment
Pity that its not a case of the Chancellor goes, the PM follows
Complain about this comment
worzel @ 12
you're underestimating Harriet Harman (as many people do), I think she'd be quite an effective Labour Leader - David Miliband is the one I particularly do NOT want to see in the frame, an overpromoted lightweight is what he is - also, I'd rather Darling stayed as Chancellor if the alternative is Ed Balls
Complain about this comment
#14 superAngry
No mention of the Jury Team either, all of their candidates have agreed that there should be referendums if 5% of the electorate call for it so there would certainly be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
#8 TGR_Worzel
The Salvation Army is staffed by well intentioned, hard working and above all honest members, not something I would associate with UKIP and Nigel Farage considering one of his former MEPs was convicted of money laundering.
Ali D says 'sorry' but no doubt he broke no rules, this from a man trusted with the accounts of the UK.
Complain about this comment
#9
Credit where credit is due. The Conservatives where much better at creating their won UK only "boom and bust". New Labour can only claim to be sharing in a World Wide boom and bust. It's just not the same. I can't hold my head up with pride and say "This is our recession" like I could under Maggie!
Now the idea of Conservative created "boom and bust" on top of a "World Wide" boom and bust would really be something to take pride in.
Complain about this comment
#14
"As for Nigel Fagarge. Well you have now compared your Party to the Sally Army how long before you begin thinking you are God?"
Tony Blair has already got that one sorted!
Complain about this comment
RE 17: 20
Given that MPs expenses have dominated the headlines during the Euro elections which was to be expected it has to be said the BBC's reporting of them has been the shabbiest I have ever seen.
The sooner the BBC is privatised the better it does not deserve taxpayers hard earned cash if it is incapable of impartiality in my view.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure it really matters who the Chancellor is or will be. The impression is that Brown never actually left the Treasury and still pulls all the strings.
I heard our unelected Prime Minister on the radio this morning saying he would not call an election now as he wanted to get on with the job and bring in reforms.
The very idea of this Labour Government rushing through some ill thought out constitutional changes should cause us all to shudder.
Labour simply cannot be trusted on the constitution. They made a total mess of one-sided devolution for Scotland (but nothing for England), made a dog's breakfast of the House of Lords, and finally broke their own election pledge on the Euro constitutional treaty.
We don't want Brown to 'sort it out'. We just want him to go!
Complain about this comment
I think we are never satisfied. As the whole expence issue has shown we have gone off "professional" politiciens who are all "spin" and "sweet talk", never making a mistake from their PR brief. Yet we make fun of "single issue" enthusatisic amatuers, like UKIP, for putting their foot in the old proverbial. We better get used to it if we really are going to vote for independents and smaller parties are the next General Election!
Complain about this comment
So now Darling is repaying money to himself at the Treasury - but not very much.
All of the main parties are making the same mistake in asking ministers and MPs to repay dishonest or dubious expenses. It's too late. The money's been taken by the cheats. They can't wipe the slate clean by paying it back.
Cameron is probably the one making the biggest mistake. He was the first and the most insistent on these repayments. It's created the impression that he believes paying back exonerates the criminal. He should have known better.
Much of the public fury has been generated by these actions aimed at getting some of the miscreants off the hook. Harsh justice would have been more kindly received and would have been of more benefit to the parties in the long run.
A vast protest vote this week for minor parties - any of them, regardless of their credentials - might help to shake the main parties out of their make-believe world. Then they might start again - properly this time.
Complain about this comment
People should have a long hard look at the "Blogosphere" before voting UKIP - Start checking it out
Complain about this comment
RE :26
I mean was it really necessary to take out a £350,000 mortgage and force the taxpayer to pay the maximum in interest? Just like the rest just because you can claim it it doesnt mean you should and I would say tht goes double for someone who is independently wealthy.
He thinks it is that bad he has had to refer himself to his own scrutiny committee. What does that say about his judgement? This is on top of his wisteria.
He still has not explained satisfactorily why this scrutiny committee should be allowed to judge his expenses. How can his own troops look at him objectively? Isnt this exactly what got MPs into this mess in the first place?
Complain about this comment
#28
I agree in general, but there are MPs on all sides who might be classed as 'independently wealthy'. In fact, in the eyes of most ordinary people, MPs salarys, legitimate expenses, lifestyles, and extra part-time earnings make virtually all of them quite wealthy. Especially if they are husband-and-wife teams or the partner is also a big earner, such as Cherie Blair. It could be a bit unfair to focus on just one obvious one.
Complain about this comment
@ 28
yep, Cameron's claim is a bad case, one of the worst - played the system for maximum personal financial advantage - compounded the offence by rank hypocrisy in posing as a cleaner upper of said system - all further compounded by the fact that this bloke is, believe it or not, offering himself up as our next PM - he should resign
Complain about this comment
Good Evening Andrew,
what a beautiful day on the beach, absolutely fantastic.
Before I went out I was listening to Radio 5 who had an interview with Harriet Harman, rather than Brown, because all of the other party leaders had been part of a radio phone in. Why not Brown Harriet was asked. Some sort of non answer there came from her.
The trouble is that I was watching Coronation Street tonight, what with being slightly tired and sunburnt and even watched the mid programme adverts. Imagine my surprise when GMTV advertised the fact the Brown had been on the couch this morning with the winners of Britains Got Talent.
So what we now have is a man who thinks more of being on the couch with celebrity show winners, rather than on the BBC answering questions from members of the public. He also did not go on the couch last week with the early morning BBC breakfast programme. This is beginning to be a pattern, even though he did appear on the Andrew Marr Show, he was, I consider treated rather easily.
Has nobody else noticed the new agenda, I feel that the BBC is being threatened, divulge senior members pay and allowances if you keep asking the questions of MPs, then we can ask for all the details of all public employees to be published, in full. Better keep quiet boys, I think that we are being run by a bunch of nothing other than bullying thugs. Not nice I know but that is what I think, and even if I, or my son, can be stopped from speaking, nothing can stop us thinking.
The other funny thing I noticed was a BBC programme on Sunday night when the inetrviewer was referring to the problem of MPs expenses, then the interviewee started to refer to the wonderful Mrs Brwon, at which point there was a very abrupt end to the interview. Is there something we should know, just asking.
Finally, read a few pages of Locke on Two Treatises of Government, all I will say is that I was I was better educated, and read, earlier. So much to do, so little time to do it.
Complain about this comment
RE :29
The independently wealthy does indeed apply to all it just so happens in this case Cameron was the subject.
As to earnings for second third fourth and fifth jobs I want to know who is being paid what by whom. The people have a right to know whether these payments are buying influence and that goes for ex ministers who get jobs with companys too.
OUT with the lot of it. Nothing but total and utter transparency is good enough.
When we have finished with the MPs it will be time to start on the BBC. For instance why does Mark Thompson the Director General think he is worth approx 4 times more than a Prime Minister of this country?
Complain about this comment
mike @ 29
it's perfectly valid to focus more on Cameron than on the various other toffee apples because he is the only one of those toffee apples who's putting himself forward to be our next Prime Minister
Complain about this comment
RE :33
Yes if one is applying to be First Lord of the Treasury you would think that person could make a moral judgement about their own finances wouldnt you.
Complain about this comment
Oh Great
NO REWARDS FOR FAILURE
So the Financial Services Authority that FAILED to ensure the stability of the financial system incuding the Banks pays its staff
40% more in bonuses this year = £20 million
The lunatics have taken over the assylum in this country.
Brown get a grip or resign
Complain about this comment
#17 S-C
Oh! Come on Susan, on the last page you were claiming to be an English Democrat, you know those who want to go back to the county bounderies of a bye-gone age, long before democracy ruined things. South Saxon, East Saxon and Alfred ruled Wessex and our main concern was keeping the Danes out, or at least up north.
Alfred was a good bloke and his mantra was, (and I paraphrase) education, education, education. But we do need to look forwards.
Now though, you only want to know them if they were likely to be winners. Look to build a future don't go back into the past.
Complain about this comment
Saga, Super
I just don't get the whole "Rich people don't deserve the same perks of the job as poor people" thing. The rules make no mention of allowances for poor MPs only. This is the politics of envy. I'll grant you that it is only the seriously rich that can marshal their finances to buy a £1M asset here and sell one over there like they were tins of beans to maximise mortgage interest payments. Few ordinary folk would want to take out a £350K loan to get the interest free so that they can risk investing that amount capital elsewhere. That sort of financial freedom is not me, never will be and I don't envy those that have it. Besides, this is a red herring.
Why should any MP receive help to buy their constituency home? In my parochial little world, you have no business representing a constituency if you don't live there. If Cameron had only been able to claim for mortgage help on his London residence then it would have been on the £75K. Of course, someone with Cameron's financial confidence could have extended his mortgage in London to pay off more of his Oxford home so it's probably all a bit academic.
Labour made MPs' second homes a perk of the job (or at least maintained and extended the concept), the people voted them in 3 times, MPs of all shades have used the system to a greater or lesser degree. We'll just have to live with the consequences of our voting choices - that's democracy. Maybe Kelly will fix the future - it will be cleaner in my view if major assets like houses are not funded. £65K + subsistence is enough for anybody to be an MP so wealth really shouldn't be a worry after that. If Cameron had been flipping like his Labour opposite number then I think your calls for him to stand down (or at least shut up) would be justified. Expenses are and never were the main reason for the breakdown in trust in politics, hard though that is to remember sometimes with the endless press coverage.
On Darling, I can't believe the fuss about the "double claiming". All sorts of expenses have annual anniversaries, water bills, council tax, TV licence etc, even service charges. You pay and claim them at the date of issue. Overlapping arrangements are inescapable sometimes in life. It's slightly greyer since he started profiting from renting out his flat, but certainly a simple apology and repayment makes this one go away, no quibbles, no lasting damage to reputation.
However, flipping is a cynical activity and morally inexcusable except where properties have been sold and significant changes in living arrangements have occurred (thinking of Gove for example). Claiming for professional services to help with personal finances (tax advice) is equally bogus, doubly so for a finance minister. If the facts in either of these areas stack up then Darling should be gone already and maybe even helping police with their enquiries. Why is there no due process?
I don't mind public anger or even press indignation, but I do want it directed appropriately. Doing Darling for the overlapping expenses feels like getting Al Capone for tax evasion rather than his main crimes.
Complain about this comment
I think pushing Darling over into the Home Office is probably quite an astute move by Brown. Darling has sequentially messed up in every single department he's been involved in, but at least at the Home Office it won't be quite so easy to see what he messes up himself in amongst all the other cock ups from his predecessors.
But Balls to the treasury? ...oh dear, just when we thought it couldn't get any worse.
Complain about this comment
All are about to be toast but Gordon said one thing that I liked the other day... making the BBC accountable add The Arts Council to that please Gordon. There have already been a few deaths of *presenters* via drugs lets find out how many more *presenters* are hoovering up coke at our expense and how many more potty arts projects get justified by barmy thinking arts managers who seem to be untouchable.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
firstly I will attempt to not give vent to my anger as I write my latest stream of conscientous. What I have noticed is that I have lately let some speling mistakes enter into my comments. I must avoid this serious error. However, the moderators seem to allow spelling mistakes, so it must be within the rules.
I think that it is well known that I hold this parliament in complete contempt. In the late sixties there was a great film which included Jane Fonda, which greatly influenced my way of looking at life, and with the latest furore over some television programmmes, is very relevant today, the film 'They shoot horses don't they', well this is the painful but it is about time to put the horse which is parliament out of its misery. The film itself was about the Great Depression and dance competitions, which was about the last couple standing after interminable hours of, well dancing in the spotlight.
Every so often all the remaining dancers were given orders by the master to dance faster, in the heat, because it was getting boring. Well that is what is happening to our parliament, it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It is the horse parliament, please put it down, the pain is getting unbearable.
Complain about this comment
Ed Ball screws up at the Dep of Education with the PFI schools as the biggest blunder, Darling screws up at the Treasury, with SO many blunders,so our glourious leader just swaps them round, wonderful.Nice one Gordie??
I can't see Brown and co lasting until next weekend after the European Elections.
I am amazed that nobody appears to be making the connections between the resignation of the Law Society Chief last week and "other" things.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
not only do we the non referendum but when will Brown announce the inquiry into Iraq, when all the players have left the stage.
What I find disgraceful is not only Darling, it is Hoon, the man who was in charge of the Ministry of Defence during most of the war. If I think that for one moment he took his eye off the ball whilst he was meant to be in charge of soldiers who were short of supplies and who, in some cases, brought shame on our country by not ensuring that the officers kept the soldiers under proper control.
I hope that we can have complete access to the advice given by lawyers, who should have been completely independent, and whether there has been conflicts of interest, because remember, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
This is where I have most concerns over the 'expenses' problems in parliament. It is possible that MPs who wanted to vote against the government were effectively told unless you toe the party line, and follow orders then you can kiss goodbye to your parliamentary seat, or not go to the Lords, or not be put in charge of a Quango. He who pays the piper always calls the tune, only trouble is this is no tune of glory, it the tune of shame, of contempt, for my ruling class.
Complain about this comment
Andrew
Another fine day here in the shires.
So Gordon has been wanting to bring in constitutional reform for many years now but has been thwarted in his efforts. This would be one of the main protagonists in the New Labour machine that has:
1. Created a half-baked House of Lords, not fully elected but populated by the "chosen ones". Another half-baked Labour idea.
2. Created a parliamentary system whereby Scottish MPs preside and vote on some matters that do not affect the people that voted them in - the "West Lothian Question".
This is New Labours legacy of constitutional reform and what they think of democracy.
Remember, do not leave the fox in charge of the chickens. Good day.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown should remember he's the prime minister (the first minister of Great Britain in Her Majesty's government) and NOT the Head of State. He should not be representing the country at the D DAY commemorations that should be the Queen or a member of the Royal Family. His tone of voice and manner when he replied to Andrew Marr that the Canadian P.M. was going so he would be going sounded like a sulky schoolboy who saw his school trip place being given away to the head girl instead. Gordon Brown may want to appear impressive on the world stage like Tony Blair but at least he didn't attempt to do it at the expense of the Royals or try to pass himself off as the head of state. Its disgraceful that its left to the Americans to remind Gordon Brown about protocol and be the only ones attempting to sort out the mess that Gordon Brown has caused by accepting the invitation for himself instead of passing it on too the correct person. Does he not realise its an offence to interfere with the Queens mail especially when it is the Queens mail! He should take a leaf out of the Duke of Edinburgh's book and walk a few steps behind the monarch with grace and dignity and not push himself forward where he doesn't belong. He may be the monarch of all he surveys in the bunker but he's not monarch of the land and after the European elections quite possibly wont be the first minister in Her Majesty's loyal government!
Complain about this comment
RE :37
It is NOT the politics of envy. I am not envious of Cameron or anyone else because he is rich. I think it is a matter of moral judgement. If you are a wealthy person why would you want to claim money of the state when that money could be targeted at the poor?
To me it is indicative of the greed and selfishness that pervades our society. It is the polics of entitlement not the politics of envy it is the
"I didnt come into politics not to take what I am entitled to" The attitude of so many of our politicians in this scandal.
I am sorry I do not recognize the distinctions you make between flipping and anything else they have done. These people have abused the trust of the public and it doesnt matter whether that is £1 or £1 million.
Complain about this comment
#43
Actually whatever happened to the peoples peers. What a sham that was. Who was that guy who used to head up BP and who 'left', because of some reason or another.
I am awaiting a call from Brown to represent the people in this committee he wants to create. Funnily enough I would actually do it for absolutely no pay, nor expenses, nor a place in the House of Lords, I would do it because even though I do not agree with the concept of national borders, or countries at all, I am what can be called an idealist, I saw the first pictures from the moon, we are all human beings, different in so many ways, but we are all humanity, some people let the side down, but do they know it?
In the meantime I am off to Blackpool Sands down here in Devon, probably the best place to be on this glorious summer day.
I have to say though that I am most concerned about the loss of life in the French plane 'crash'. Do you remember with Mr de Menezes, 'a terrorist plot'. Well why the rush to say that the cause of the crash is an electrical storm, or air turbulance, or something, but no mention of any terrorism, nothing from the commentators asking the question which must be on everybodies lips. No signal, nothing. No doubt Brown will announce the loss of life on Wednesday, together with the long list of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, I hope the Speaker gives us a few extra minutes for some questions.
Angry, you bet I am, and I have been for such a long time, and I think with some justification. The Queen should have been at the D-Day celebrations. The soldiers have an opportunity to express what they think of Brown, the man who thinks he is the Head of State, the soldiers should turn their backs on him, they should boo or hiss their displeasure, the man is a disgrace, well that's what I think anyway. The soldiers would not be insulting their country, they may never get another taxpayer funded trip to the battle sites, but they would show that they cannot be bought off, unlike our MPs.
Complain about this comment
#33
There are only differences of degree between PM, Chancellor, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, etc - they are all in the Cabinet, all part of government.
Also, justice is supposed to be blind except as regards the criminal act.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew
General Election date announced NOW.
Moral Members to threaten to resign en-masse.
This whole debacle is one of moral paucity.
The solution too must be one of moral audacity!
Complain about this comment
I think all the main parties will suffer in this expenses crisis.
I also think however, that there is no one party at the moment that suits a particular electorate completely, because we have such complex issues now to deal with.
For instance me I have 3 parties to choose from, none of them meet my exact needs. The party that comes closest to meeting them is the English democrats the reason being they want England to be represented in the Union. They want to do something about immigration and so on. However that will not be the choice I am faced with at the ballot box.
Of the 3 remaining I am closest to the Conservative because they will give me a vote on the Lisbon Treaty they have alway run the economy well and they are anti Europe. However they will also continue with the war which I disagree with, they are Unionists and as yet have said nothing about what they will do about immigration. The Lib/Dems I cannot vote for because they are too pro EU and they are not tried and tested in Government as yet, and we need some experience to get us through this recession. Labour have just messed up and need a period in opposition to move back to their core values. Then there are green issues for some this may be important as well.
I think this is the problem the electorate faces to be honest because putting the expenses aside no one party actually meets each persons needs or beliefs as they used to be able to do. Now we have war, immigration, the economy, green issues, English Parliament and lots of other things to consider before we vote.
Complain about this comment
#49
Few of us have had any meaningful choice historically.
The votes of a hundred people or so nation wide result in large majorities.
Complain about this comment
btw.
The 'Tic-Tac-Toe' referendum.
To accompany the next FPTP election.
Each option would commit to a strict timetable of action.
Differ as to:-
Proportion elected/PR system for second chamber.
PR system for Commons.
Finer points of 'recall' committment.
Fixed term/fixed maximum term.
[open to suggestions]
Complain about this comment
45 Super
Ah yes, the rich have no business taking anything from the state, even for services rendered, not when there are poor people to be saved. Very noble but hopelessly idealistic. Where do you draw the line? If the rich should not claim expenses then why salary? I have often said "it is an honour to be chosen, a privilege to serve" - should this not be enough for these "Toffs". Heck, shouldn't they pay us for this privilege?
I am pragmatic in two ways.
First of all, is £65K + Living in London away from home expenses enough to enable a poor person with good aptitude for parliamentary service to become an MP? If you think not, then I will happily entertain arguments until we can agree an appropriate level. Beyond that, wealth is irrelevant. Whoever serves gets the going rate for the job. This is my clear, progressive thinking.
I don't know who invented the concept of second home allowance. I actually have no personal problem with it within reasonable limits. The current limits are unreasonable, the current rules absurd. Labour have had 12 years to fix this issues. They have not only continued the system they inherited but extended it, exaggerating the current unreasonable position. Then they wasted hundreds of thousands trying to defend it. I blame the government entirely and exclusively for the state of the rules.
Under the rules, both the spirit and the letter, mortgage interest is allowed up to a maximum of £20K+. Whether we like it or not, Labour have made it a perk of the job. Unbelievably the rules allow MPs to designate their constituency homes as their second home. Cameron is absolutely within the rules. I don't know why he repaid the Wisteria. I understood it was threatening the infrastructure of his home - essential maintenance. Ironically his repayment has fudged the boundaries. He's guilty of gesture politics. I would have been happier if he had defended a claim for essential maintenance and allowed others to do likewise.
The rules do not allow gardening, moats, duck houses, dog food, manure, tampons, sex films etc. These are morally suspect claims. Is cleaning, lighting etc essential maintenance? I don't know. The various scrutiny committees need to make some definitions and hope they judge the public mood. Given that I don't agree with the right to designate second homes (at worst it should be designated independently) then the practice of flipping to maximise ability to claim is morally and ethically inexcusable.
Before I state my second level of pragmatism, let me further explore the idealistic high ground. MPs who have not 'played' the system to the maximum are good, clean right? Presumably you have some middle point beyond which an MP becomes a pariah, and from your arguments this mid point is dependent on how rich they are. Anyway, let's assume that there is at least one MP you consider worthy. Let's try Frank Field as safe middle ground. Has he resigned as an MP in disgust at MPs in general? Has he resigned the Labour whip in protest at party corruption in particular? By staying to fight from within, he lends legitimacy to the corruption. Has he brought a motion of no confidence in this corrupt government? No, so even his fight lacks a certain zeal. Frank is quite clearly a man of immense integrity and 600 of him would serve us well, but the danger of getting on moral high horses is that they trample the worthy as well.
So, what is my second level of pragmatism? I have wanted constitutional reform for my entire adult life. We have been abused and ignored by the ruling elite for centuries. Reform involves the elite giving up that power over us and becoming subject to it. It was never going to happen until that is, "Socialists" (in name only I grant you) broke things so badly that the compliant British public woke from their slumber. It is only now, and even in the last few weeks (for which I thank the expenses debacle) that reform has not just entered but leads the political agenda. If the price of reform is letting Cameron and his like off the hook for their constituency homes then that is a price worth paying.
Being realistic, the quickest way to reform is to let some of the tainted live but under new rules drawn up by the likes of Kelly, operating a reformed democracy with transparency and and social justice at its core, that serves the people first, last and foremost.
The sun is shining, politicians will give us anything to let them out of the gutter, it's our job to extract the highest price in terms of what we want. This is the most exciting time for politics in my lifetime and possibly for centuries. Please don't let righteous anger lose sight of the real goal.
Complain about this comment
RE :51
The "recall" committment is being hijacked by Cameron to ensure power remains in the hands of the MPs.
This is exactly what he means when he says it needs a "proper trigger".
Not today Cameron the public will not stand Parliament accumulating more power to yourselves to keep the public out. THINK AGAIN
Complain about this comment
51 Oudeis
"Finer points of recall commitment" has no meaning under PR. Who is being recalled? Which part of the electorate is doing the recalling? PR involves party lists and vast voting populations. Recall has meaning under FPTP or AV where a constituency has elected a single candidate. FPTP might suffer under recall because often candidates are selected with less than a majority. I think an MP has to do something wrong to allow recall to be triggered. Just being a "Tory Toff" or a "Labour Trot" shouldn't be enough.
Complain about this comment
44
Yes let's get the protcols right.
Only 25 and 75 are state commeorative years beyond those ending with zero. Other years, including those ending with 5, are for Vet's alone. It was Obama who broke protocol and asked to come to the 65'th. Sarcozy felt he would have to come to host him. The whole thing then snow balled becuase the French Civil Service and not been expecting to have to organise such an event at such short notice. I bet they where in a quandary. Do you insult the Queen by not inviting her, or insult her by inviting her at short notice to an event not on an offically recognised commerative year?
Complain about this comment
49
No one is marrying themselves to a Party. Vote one party in Europe, another in a General election, and a third in the Local Elections.
Perhaps one day we will truly have European Parties to vote for. It's still far to jingoisitic with everyone voting to send representives of National Parties.
Complain about this comment
53
Just being in the wrong party at the wrong time could be a trigger as far as many in the electorate are concerned. Why not? It's Cameron back tracking already on his commitment to local power. He's no different from all rest. They promise something in reaction to Public Concern, and then they congradulate themsleves for making a change which actually goes no where near addressing what concernded the Public in the first place. I think that's why they take so long doing anything. They are hoping most of us will forget what all the fuss was about!
P.S. If by not voting a low poll gets you BNP MP you might well wish you could force a re-election!
Complain about this comment
Now we have it.
You can buy an MP's seat for £400 and a Cabinet Minster's place for £600.
Feudalism is alive and well in the UK 2009. Foe considerably less you can position your offspring to take over a parliamentary seat and begin your own political dynasty.
No MP with true political ambition will put themselves up to challenge Brown. Perhaps an elder statesman will offer to take over the reins (and the perks) if Brown appears to be going to destroy the party, but there's little long term benefit (to personal ambition) of leading a party to election defeat.
It's quite hideous to watch as MP's show that, for all their talk of pious morals, the bottom line to them - is the bottom line to their pay packets.
A politician telling you he'll clean up sleaze, can be translated as 'I want some of that' and one who promises to avoid 'boom and bust' is like an alcoholic trying to convince you that he's buying whiskey for investment purposes only.
Above all else, politicians have exposed themselves as being morally and financially corrupt, petty, greedy, liars, cheats, thieves and hypocrites, and that's ony the start of their faults. Vain, arrogant and self deluded to an extent we, the electorate, would have to be stupid to vote for them, let alone their offspring, benefitting from their tainted genes.
MP's have no moral high ground on which to make pronouncements on how the electorate should vote. I wish they had. Gordon clinging to the church when under attack. When Jesus spoke of his Father's house there was no need to ask if it was a grace and favour residence, or if he had need to flip it for tax purposes. When you have to bring God to your defence, you know the man's desperate.
Parliament is looking more and more like a cess pit. and a change of sludge is looking more and more preferred to the putrid contents currently stinking up the place. Yes - Mick Martin cut a sad and pathetic figure. He fell for the funny clothes and glittering prizes on offer - to be pitied and derided in equal measure. Of course his fall also makes those already bathing in the trough feel so much better.
I don't have a political agenda, but does anyone really think the slick millionaire Cameron, is the answer to the busted and dissolute Brown ? Cameron can suck his expenses in so much cleanly because he can marshal his wealth more effectively.
Punish them all how you will - but punish them indeed.
Complain about this comment
Re: Tic-Tac-Toe.
All but the strict timetable is open.
It is of paramount importance that the options do not carry any Party banner.
Whichever option is chosen by the electorate would be binding on the next parliament no matter the make up of the house.
Complain about this comment
The major problem is that Parliament serves political parties NOT the electorate.
No MP needs a HOME in London. That's what's at the centre of this problem.
Most workers could put up a justifiable case for requiring a car, but they aren't state provided, are they ?
If they want a home in London let them buy one out of their resources. Otherwise some simple government purchased hostel can provide simple accomodation for thos ewho need to sleep over or do some work in London.
There is no need whatsoever for the taxpayer to support political parties who 'parachute' in a non local MP to a constituency. Who started that insanity ? That's how MP's offspring have managed started to slither into the system. If constituents are mad keen to have an outsider as their MP, let them pay for his house, if they wish.
If a woman wants to see her children, then she should go home her own house. What on earth do they think real people do ? Why any person should think childbirth is a reason for financially supporting home improvements, is clearly insane no matter how good an MP they are.
Being an MP should never in any way shape or form be an excuse for government supported home provision.
That's the one reform that would make Parliament clean. Will it happen ? Will MP's stop breathing is more likely ?
Parliament should be renamed - Royal Bank of Parliament. Sir Fred Goodwin for PM. You get what you pay for.
Complain about this comment
The only expenses allowable for MP's should be
work related travel
Office support should be provided by a central bureau
Accomoodation can be provided in a basic form at approved hotels until some suitable accomodation block can be provided. No need for it to be plush as it's intended purely for short term work related occupancy.
If they don't like it, they should be reminded (constantly) that they cannot be trusted and are the authors of their misfortune. If they want to resign there'll be plenty of better people to take their place - more intelligent too. I'd be happy to take a salary of £65k and I own a sleeping bag.
Lastly - to those MP's who didn't abuse the system.
"Why did you associate with that bunch of sleazebags and say nothing ?"
I, and the majority of the electorate, don't care to listen to the MP's lies. Their sanctimonious lecturing on democracy, constitutional reform and integrity, with God thrown in for good measure, is the most wretch inducing drivel, that just sounds like conmen begging for mercy.
I don't want God as my MP - an honest man would be enough. One who isn't more interested in surround sound TV, how to avoid paying tax and home makeovers, than doing the job he claims to be so miserably rewarded for doing. From what has been revealed so far they appear to be overpaid for a job that makes few specific demands on them, which isn't how the real world works.
Complain about this comment
Sorry - I'm having a rant.
Why are the solutions put forward so far, stupid ? - apart from the fact that they all coming from MP's who are self-serving fools who aren't programmed to do anything other than what their party whips tell them.
If greed is the problem - a house makeover isn't the solution.
Take away the cause of the greed. Don't give them the expenses tab to misuse. It'll also mean that we don't get foisted with the progeny of failed MP's, who are a bunch of university drop outs and ex debs with, the added mishap of a genetic predisposition to sponge on society.
Don't put your valuables on show, so don't give MP's expense tabs, home purchase support or gift vouchers to redeem consumer electronics.
It was our mistake. We though MP's were honest. How foolish we were ?
The mistake now is
1) To listen to their solutions
2) To let them have a chance to go back to their tricky accounting now they know how to do better next time.
We need the till to be removed from their reach, and any solution that doesn't do that just evidences that MP's want a second chance - a second chance to do it again so we can't see it next time.
Let the Conservatives or Labour come up with that as a solution and I'll deliver my vote on a gold platter. What are the chances of that ?
The truth is that they'd rather have the latest wide screen TV. Constitutional reform sounds so lofty and high brow. The issue is actually much more grubby and venal. If MP's can give up their grasping ways, we may have some capable of trusting to initiate proper reform, otherwise we are trusting chimps to arrange the tea parties.
A more apt allusion I could barely improve on.
Rant over.
Complain about this comment
This is the official Nick Clegg response to my claims of a Gestapo Style Government Led by the Liberals at Devon County Council(DCC).
________________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your email to Nick Clegg MP. Nick has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.
I hope you will understand that, given Nick's role as leader of the UK-wide Liberal Democrats, it would be inappropriate for him to intervene directly in this case. Councillors are elected politicians in their own right with a mandate from local voters, independently of their UK political party. We have, however, made sure to pass your concerns on to Devon County Council.
Thank you once again for emailing us.
Best wishes
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS