Heroes to zeroes?
MPs risk having turned themselves from heroes to zeroes in the space of just one afternoon.
Having won themselves plaudits for turning down recommended pay increases, they have voted to keep their expenses system - so much criticized - just as it was. In other words, those payments for new kitchens for MPs' second homes go on, as does the notorious "John Lewis list" which sets out maximum payments to purchase a new plasma chest of drawers for that home in London or the constituency.
Now plenty of MPs will point out that the recommended reforms of the system wouldn't have saved the public any money and indeed might have cost more, given the burden of external auditors coming to snoop their way in to MPs' affairs. The controversy that is burning tonight though is whether Gordon Brown's government behaves like every other previous government has done, keeping a hard line on MPs' pay while turning a blind eye to their allowances.
The Tories are claiming that ministers went AWOL during the expenses vote and that if they turned up, the new expenses system would have been passed and not rejected as it was. I'm going to be checking the voting list.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~50~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I am simply amazed by this list of Ministers who voted to keep the present system. this is more important and significant than the jokey note by an order of magnitude (well, several orders of magnitude really). I simply do not understand how they can have so misread the public mind on this issue; and it really doesn't matter how many Tories voted with them.
There is an old saying about turkeys not voting for Christmas, but in this case I think that these people have done just that. I am almost lost for words.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Where do we see the full list?
However on balance I think they are entitled to substantial expenses - as long as they are published. Afterall company directors have their expenses published....
Complain about this comment
They know they only have two years to go.
They are determined to milk what remains to the maximum possible extent.
Labour claims to have had all their MPs expenses checked by 'external auditors' for several years now.
I would like to know who those auditors are, and exactly what they have been saying about the Labour MPs 'choice' of which property qualifies for state subsidy...
No one (not parliament nor HMRC) checks that MPs claimed expenses are incurred 'wholy, exclusively and necessarily' in connection with the execution of their parliamentry duties - this is taken on the word of the MPs themselves - and a number have already been proved unreliable.
Now we know why MP's cant submit their taxes using the HMRC's online system - there would be too much risk of the public finding out the truth.
Complain about this comment
This was a really bad decision.
They had a golden opportunity to, as it were, fool us all by accepting a new deal which would have left them no worse off - instead it they've given the public the message that they prefer to feather their nests - literally at our expense.
Don't get me wrong - I actually support MPs getting expenses for doing their jobs efficiently. Even the south-easterne MPs need somewhere local to stay when working (though london MPs with 2nd homes are probably taking the michael).
But continuing a totally discredited scheme was complete and utter folly.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Surely it is well known that MP's agreement to go along with Gordon Brown's wishes (as Chancellor) on pay restraint in the past was linked to a nudge and wink, tacit understanding that the expenses rules were there to be utilised ?
Hence the routine willingness to go well beyond the bounds of decency on expenses on the grounds that "It's within the rules."
In the longer term, they would have been better to go for the lesser of the two evils and gone for a hgher pay settlement with greatly reduced and tightly policed expenses.
Expenses have become a proxy for pay. All that has changed is that the covers have been pulled back on the expenses regime.
The problem now is that putting the thing on a proper footing would entail acknowledging the reality of the past.
To quote Sir Walter Scott :
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
Complain about this comment
Money is simply being transferred out of people's pockets straight into the pockets of MPs.
The British public will not be taken for fools much longer.
Complain about this comment
MPs aren't risking going from heroes to zeroes.
The public don't regard MPs as heroes in the first place.
So it's more like MPs going from zeroes to just about as beneath contempt as a human being can get.
The real heroes are the British soldiers fighting in Iraq without the right equipment.
The money to buy that equipment was spent on free £10,000 kitchens for fat cats in Westminster.
MPs are a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
They simply don't get it, do they? Lots of people have complaxe, demanding, jobs involving contact with thousands of others, long hours, the need to keep in touch with events, the need to travel hundreds of miles a year...and yet still they have a more onerous, less liberal. system of allowances than this!
These guys claim to represent the public. Clearly they are not listening to them...
Complain about this comment
I note that Jacqui Smith voted for keeping the current expenses system. My question is why should she and others who have homes in London provided for them by the taxpayer, also be entitled to an Additional Costs Allowance payment? Why was Gordon Brown paid over £17,000 in 2006-7 for the cost of staying away from home?
As for the "John Lewis List", surely rather than buying a plasma TV or an Aga for an MP who may only be in office for a couple more years, the government should retain ownership of such items, so that after the election they can be passed on to the new batch.
Finally, I notice that Shaun Woodward, who being married to a Sainsbury is so rich he doesn't claim his ministerial salary, still thinks the expenses are worth having. Does the taxpayer pay for his second butler?
Complain about this comment
Don`t get mad get even.
We have far more votes than them.
Since they have disregarded the will of their constituents we can sack them.
They can treat their vote to retain the current expenses format as severance pay.
Write/email to your MP`s central office putting them on notice that at the next election if the MP remains as a candidate you will vote for another party.
Don`t be put off by any sudden change of mind this bring to your MP to change their vote. They have ignored us and shown their true colours yesterday.Send them out into the real world.
Just get your neighbours to add their signatures to your letter, to show how widespread our view is.
Complain about this comment
The sooner you check the list the better and publish the names the better.
Whilst not disagreeing that expenses are needed, they have now proved to us they feel they are above the people they serve.
To hear some of the debate was like listing to 19th century Luddites about change, and to hear comments like "accountants chasing all over the country to check receipts " was proof that they are so out of touch its frighting. I thought their work place was parliament and they had offices in and around the green if not then what are they claiming for.
The time has come for us all from all parties when we select our MPs to lay down the parameters of expenditure. The fees office has proved it can't controll or they them selves belive they above this.
Complain about this comment
10 sidcupvoter
I totally agree, although my local Labour MP with a majority will be out next time round.
What the public doesn't seem to realise is that nothing matters more to an MP than leeping his/her job. And nothing matters more to a political party than keeping in power.
In the current government, I would suggest that this applies to GB in total.
The best way to get change is for voters to do exactly as you say. Write to the MPs and say you won't vote for them.
Chatting with my sister-in-law who is a nurse and was very involved in protests about hospital closures in Gloucecester, I suggested that rather than just protest they got everyone in the city who felt strongly to write to their MP (Labour) saying they would vote for his opponent. I also said that they should get people with similar views to say the same across the country. Of course this only works for the party ifore so that can't take any chances.n government. The beauty of it is that the MP doesn't know if you voted for them be
For labour this would have meant a double whammy and verys strong pressure to change their minds.
I think the same should happen for Post Offices.
Complain about this comment
A cynical man may think that
the absence of the Prime Minister and the cabinet in showing leadership and voting against this principle
the rumoured buying off of MPs with concessions over the 42 day terror limit
Could they be linked!
Complain about this comment
This is the list of government ministers who voted in favour of keeping the additional costs allowance for second homes included Shaun Woodward. Does he also receive an allowance for his butler?
These ministers are either blatantly arrogant or honestly don't appreciate how aggrieved most of their constituents are likely to be.
I'm not sure which is worse in a politician: greedy arrogance or ignorance of the people one represents...
Let's hope - and work towards the day - that these over-paid 'public servants' don't have much opportunity to avail themselves of this taxpayer-funded largess.
Liz Blackman
Bob Blizzard
Nick Brown -
Andy Burnham - needs more mascara
Alan Campbell
Tony Cunningham
Angela Eagle
Maria Eagle
Caroline Flint - to furnish her new Ego-Town house?
Michael Foster
Beverley Hughes
Tessa Jowell -
Thomas McAvoy
Steve McCabe
Siobhain McDonagh
Tony McNulty
Gillian Merron
Mike O'Brien
James Plaskitt
Bridget Prentice
Jacqui Smith
Gerry Sutcliffe
Mark Tami
Gareth Thomas
Derek Twigg
Kitty Ussher
Claire Ward
Dave Watts
Tom Watson
Dave Watts
Rosie Winterton
Shaun Woodward - He of the butler
Iain Wright
Complain about this comment
If MPs are "effectively" self-employed, as they claim, then let them follow the same expenses rules as the rest of us. That is, we can claim expenses that are wholly and necessary for the execution of our duties, including travel, accommodation and subsistence when working away from our home office. However, if that work away from home is expected to last for more than 24 months in a single location then travel and subsistence can no longer be claimed.
OK, so an MPs circumstances may be different and we can perhaps waive the 2-year rule but their expenses should still cover just that required to perform their duties which would not include buying and equipping a family home. This would not be considered a necessary expense by the Revenue if I tried to do it. Presumably, as the MP and their family have use of these second homes at any time and not just when they arein London or their constituency, wherever the second home is, they are declared on the MPs' P11D and taxed as a benefit in kind.
Complain about this comment
MPs who come from far away constituencies obviously need accommodation near to Westminster.
However, I am not aware of any other job that allows you to buy and furnish a second home on "expenses".
Other people have to pay their mortgages and household bills out of their heavily taxed income.
It also raises the question as to whether we need so many MPs. Scottish MPs can no longer vote on Scottish matters because those decisions are made at Holyrood by the MSPs. So what's the point of them?
Complain about this comment
I don't believe anyone begrudges MPs recovering espense incurred "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" in connection with their parliamentry duties.
The problem is that it is clear that MPs are claiming for things that are clearly not "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" related to their parliamentry duties.
No amount of receipt checking will identfy such abuses - they can only be identified by proper investigation.
If the parliamentry authorities don't investigate, and (for some unknown reason) HMRC don't investigate then who will?
This is from the MPs expenses Green Book
--
It is your responsibility to satisfy yourself when you submit a claim, or authorise payments from your staffing allowance, that any expenditure claimed from the allowances has been wholly, exclusively and
necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties.
--
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofCpsap.pdf
--
Complain about this comment
Jimbrant is simply amazed MPs voted to keep the present system.
Im not.
I liked the note at the end about Ministers being absent. Excellent.
Cant wait to see the list of these great Ministers of conscience.
Complain about this comment
Around 30 government ministers voted against the new proposals, some of them in the Cabinet.
Since when were these members of the New Labour elite "heroes"?
Complain about this comment
Everyone on that list ought to be in prison.
Complain about this comment
1 Jimbrant
I totally agree with you. I am at a loss to understand how the government have just scored an own goal on this one?
Are they resigned to losing the next general election and just want the last few pennies rolling in the door? Are they out of touch? Are they arrogant? Is their morale so low they can't think straight?
Gordon Brown could have used this vote as an opportunity to scope his vision for parliamentary reform. Instead the public get shown a Governmental-Two-fingers........
Complain about this comment
What a shock.
If people want a laugh (or just end up crying) - compare the number of MP's who were in the house to protect their new kitchens to the number of MP's who bothered to attend the debate on knife crime a few weeks ago at the same time.
Rather telling and shows Westmisters actual concerns.
Jacquie Smith: "Let them eat cake."
Complain about this comment
I told you, I told you!
Yesterday, on the "Expenses Dillema" thread, post #26, I said that the M.Ps. would vote for their own interests and not ours. And I have been proved right!
Sceptic Max, your list of government ministers is impressive. However, most of those voting for their pockets were Labour M.Ps. How strange?
Moreover, I understand from this mornings Times, that a labour M.P. shouted epithets ( a word that the moderator here, would not accept), at David Cameron. Thank goodness Cameron had the good sense to instruct his front bench to vote against the ammendment.
Still, a few backwoodsmen among the tories - and there are a few - also voted for their own comforts. These poeple must be eradicated from our political life.
Complain about this comment
What on earth are the MPs going to do when they lose their seats at the general election.
If they are so hard up then will they go on to the dole. Who in their right mind would employ an MP, the expenses bill will bankrupt any well run employer.
Why do they not choose a house, and then we, the taxpayer will buy it, but when they lose their seat, they can buy it at the current price, or the house is sold and any profit given to the exchequer.
Surely, that is a simple solution to a problem of second homes.
Complain about this comment
@#1
Jimbrant do you need to borrow my sense of humour ;-)
It is laughable how these turkeys have condemned themselves.
I presume they all know the game is up and they are going to take what they can while they can.
I believe the Turkeys in the USofA that escape slaughter at thanks giving go through much the same thought process and gobble up seed for all they are worth in the early weeks of December
Complain about this comment
nick,
are allowances taxed at the same rate as income?
when an m.p purchases an item for their second home (from the so called "john lewis list") who pays the v.a.t?
the people they represent are struggling to make ends meet, when will m.ps be debating that?
is this another failure of leadership?
Complain about this comment
If our son of the manse really wanted this bill to have come in he would have voted for the new system as he didn't vote he was happy to leave things as they are.If as I suspect he will now appear saying how disappointed he is by this result he could raise himself in the ratings by the simple act of sacking the 30+ ministers who voted to keep all the perks with no outside scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone think that Labour may be deliberately trying to damage the public's perception of politicians because they know a Tory government is going to get in next? They know the game is up alright and they're arming themselves for opposition.
Complain about this comment
Wow. Stunned. Cannot believe these guys have misread the public mood so badly. Is it a case of knowing the game's up and therefore milking as much as they can before 2010, or are they just putting two fingers up to the electorate generally?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the PM lost his way en route to the voting lobby.
Does the cost of a new moral compass qualify as a claimable expense ?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
RE: MP’s expenses vote
Of the 172 MP’s who voted to keep the ‘John Lewis list’; 84% [146] were Labour MP’s. I’d have thought that this fact was worth a mention in the BBC's coverage of this vote.
Now it could be argued that since this was a free vote, party affiliations were irrelevant. True – but the same rules didn't seem to apply to the abortion vote recently? If you remember, the BBC ran several stories both on-line and on-screen, talking about the high % of Tory MP’s who voted in favour of lowering the abortion limit and what this might mean if a future Conservative GVN was elected [sub-text: if you favour the status-quo on abortion you’d better vote Labour or Lib-Dem].
Now I have no problem with the above – a Conservative GVN probably would lower the abortion limit. But from last night’s vote is also equally clear that if the public want to see an end to the ‘John Lewis List’ and according to most pollsters and political commentators – they do - then they should abandon the Labour party and either vote for the Lib Dems or the Tories.
Complain about this comment
As well as putting money directly into their own deep pockets, this Nu-Labour government is now throwing more than £4 billion on two new giant aircraft carriers.
Aircraft Carriers! I ask you, can anything be more absurd, and for the following reasons:
1. By the time they are due to be completed(2014?), the Eurofighter planes for these carriers will not be ready for service. MOD are saying that obsolete Harriers will be used instead.
2. The day of the carrier is now coming to a close, (same as the 12/10 gun warships day ended), Modern rockets and other new systems comming on tap, make theses and other big ships, prime and easy targets.
The contracts for the carriers are really political. Providing jobs for 10,000 workers around the country. In other words, MAKE WORK, and totally useless for the economy.
Whats worse, they will probably be future graves for our brave sailors.
Complain about this comment
These charlatans are forever whining about how underpaid they are when compared to the private sector. Leaving aside the obvious question around performance measurements in this comparison, I cannot see how the refusal to accept an expense policy that is at least in line with the private sector squares with the idea that they should be paid more.
Oh hang on, that's just it. They want the pay of the private sector but without the scrutiny, performance measurement or responsibility. Any MP who thinks (s)he could be paid more in the private sector is of course welcome to try.
Disgusting - is there anyway we (the public) can force HMRC to apply their rules to MPs? It would be good to see a few of these loathsome creatures be prosecuted and (as stringing them up has unfortunately gone out of favour) jailed for what basically amounts to fraud.
Complain about this comment
This is turning into a very messy divorce between MPs and the electorate: a highly unedifying spectacle.
Do MPs not realise what a huge stick they are handing to lunatics from the fringe to beat them with at the next election?
The Tories will gain massively in the next election, but in areas like the North East and other traditional Labour heartlands I expect scum like the BNP will be the ones to profit from a huge protest vote. Many communities could be in for very troubling times because of the utter greed shown by a few.
Complain about this comment
John Lewis is my favourite store, whether for a sofa or a pair of socks. I do feel, however, that the label "John Lewis List" does this shop no favours. When one considers the wretched, tasteless,( to say the most harmless adjectives one can think of) characters, when referring to the MPs, it makes one cringe to think of having the same table, or heaven forbid bed, as say Teresa Jowell. John Lewis should issue a waiver denying all responsibility for this label.
Complain about this comment
No sure why so many people are so surprised. The unspoken quid pro quo in exchange for MPs - including and maybe especially ministers - going along with GB's imposition of pay restraint in the past was the "understanding" that the expense rules were there to be used.
The only element of surprise for me is that they didn't go for the other option - increase the pay above inflation and give up the expenses trough.
Either option would be condemned - might as well go for the least dishonest one and get the remuneration package onto a proper and transparent basis.
There is even a half respectable point to be made by pointing to what has happend to their pay levels over recent years by comparison to senior jobs in the public sector.
They are even not very good at being greedy. After all, pay is pensionable whilst expenses are
not and more than a few will be on pension after the next election.
Complain about this comment
Funny how much effort the government put in when they wanted 42 days to make Prudence Brown look like a strong leader.
Funny how little effort they put in when it comes of delivering value to the tax payer.
A common theme with this team.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I was delighted when the wage restraint was announced, I thought well that has set a good example to the rest of the country that we need to tighten our belts.
I was bitterly disapointed with the vote on expenses and particularly disappointed in the amount of Labour MPs and ministers voting to retain the present system.
I have always supported Gordon Brown and rightly so, but the utter stupidity of him not being in parliament and giving his ministers a dire warning about which way to vote yesterday was something I cant defend and I will not attempt too,I am afraid that this makes me believe that he needs a quick cabinet reshuffle and right to the top, this is more important than personalities this is whether he wants to protect the Labour movement as a whole. If heads must roll then so be it but the party is more important than any and I mean any single member.
This is not to say that this lets the Tories of the hook as many of them voted to maintain the Status Quo and more vociferously, but Cameron is a master of grabbing opportunities and he did here ,he kept his front bench in order while Gordon was busy scoring an own goal.
Parliament did itself no favours yesterday and we should all feel very disapointed.
Complain about this comment
REF 32
I could be sceptical but the announcement of the 4,000,000,000 aircraft carriers to be built on the clyde might just have something to do with a by-election that is coming up in glasgow.Added to the 2,700,000,000 that was spent trying to buy the crewe by-election it is not onlytheir expenses that need looking at,but how taxpayers money is being spent.
Complain about this comment
Flugart # 32:
The aircraft being contstructed for the new carriers is the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) not the Eurofighter (Typhoon) which is already in service. Perhaps you would do well to read up properly on defence requirements before commenting so disdainfully about them.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Hansard now has the full voting list up at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080703/debtext/80703-0019.htm
Could you please ask your webbies to put this up on the "voting list" link you refer to along with party, rank etc of these brave knights of the shires.
I suggest that the public, and certainly readers of this blog, would be interested in 3 separate lists of:
1. YES Voters (snouts in the trough)
2. NO Voters (some decency left)
3. ABSENT (McAvity and co)
I was saddened to see that Clegg is on the McAvity list while Cable was amongst the NO voters along with Cameron.
I do have to agree with most of UltraTron's #34 and to add that on the Celtic fringes it makes it all the more likely that the SNP and Plaid will have a field day at the next election, which at least will give the Tories some headaches over how to hold the Union together.
Unless Clegg listens to his party grass roots, I'm afraid the LibDems are in danger of coming nowhere next time for much the same reasons as NuLabour, albeit on a lesser scale.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2 #40
Right on, and I apologise for my mistake regarding the JSF.
This does not alter the fact that my premise is true, and that the carriers are a total waste of time and money.
Complain about this comment
Marvellous, these incompetent, sticky fingered egomaniacs, have thrown the last crumbs of their credibility into the bin. This morning I heard one MP (not a minister), defending, (again) the idea that somehow they should be able to furnish, their, and I repeat 'their' second homes on us. What a clown, what arrogance, what complete detatchement from the normal working world most of us inhabit. Not one Labour minister, in a government that supposedly believes in 'prudence', had the guts to go on the radio and defend their greed. MPs seem to have an inexhaustable supply of hypocracy that they dish out time and time again to Joe and Jane public.
Complain about this comment
38:
Good Lord Grandantidote, I hate to say it, but a measured and well argued post. I'll have to sit down and have a cup of tea.
Complain about this comment
there is dole scum, then there is MP scum below that.
leaches and pigs the lot of them.
Complain about this comment
#28 power_to_the_ppl
You ask "Does anyone think that Labour may be deliberately trying to damage the public's perception of politicians because they know a Tory government is going to get in next?"
I think it's more serious than that. Labour is now actively trying to wreck the economy by massive borrowing and reckless spending, designed to leave as much mess as possible for the next incoming government. They is no longer any pretence of doing what's right for the country.
It seems that as Labour know they are shortly to be booted out, their MPs want to grab as much as they can for themselves whilst pursuing a policy of 'scorched earth'.
Complain about this comment
I shall not castigate Gordon Brown any further for being absent from the vote (as usual with McCavity) when 33 of his ministers voted to maintain their ludicrous expenses system - as NuLabour supporters themselves seem to be doing a good job themselves.
I shall even try to restrain myself from saying "we told you so".
I shall also try not to gloat as the scales fall from their eyes and the disappointment wells up...
I do, however, think them blinkered and foolish for ever supporting such a spineless ditherer and his shambolic government.
Complain about this comment
The overarching reward system for MP's is fundamentally flawed.
Namely a system which effectively allows MP's to set their own salaries, allowances, expenses and pensions.
So I do not really see the point of even discussing the minutiae of what currently exist.
We need to elect people who intend to be genuine 'public servants'.
It is one of the few powers that are in our hands.
Complain about this comment
The more important point is what did they do regarding their other expenses?
The "additional costs" expenses are only about 10% of their total expenses; the rest haven't even been mentioned by the BBC.
The true value of expenses is well over £150,000 per year, not taking into account other perks such as free holidays/flights that a lot of them get from their job.
The actual financial annual gross income worth/equivalent of expenses per MP is more like £500,000; the £24,000 "additional expenses" aspect is a spurious smokescreen that the BBC is using to hide what really goes on.
Complain about this comment
mightyangela #35
A good point very well made.
Complain about this comment
#38 Grandantidote (maybe)
Come you now guys, who's stolen Grandantidote's log in details?!
It's not big and it's not clever! ;o)
All joking aside, I couldn't agree with you more. I truly don't know whether to laugh or cry.....
Complain about this comment
38. grandantidote
WOW.
Labours error must be off the Richter Scale if you feel very disapointed.
I fear that you may just be in for over a decade of disapointment though.
Complain about this comment
@#38
I will call an amnesty on going after your comments.
You have been badly let down by the side the you support.
I'm with #44 on this one.
Normal hostilities will recomence at a future date but for now you have my sympathy.
I look forward to some more reasoned debates in the future
Complain about this comment
47. ScepticMax
FANTASTIC
Ive been busy this morning so didnt realise Brown didnt vote.
Perhaps he intends to go in tomorrow morning and do it on his own.
Complain about this comment
#38
Grandantidote
This vote did not go the way it went because GB was missing. GB was missing because he knew the way this vote would go.
In any event, to the extent that he regrets the outcome, he is reaping what he largely sowed. See #36.
This latest episode brings to mind Cherie's reference in her book to the Blairs having to re-do their household budget after GB had blocked their pay rise.
Interesting that, of the the 21 Tories who voted for the status, apparently only one was voted in after 1997.The longer at the trough, the harder to give it up ?
To the credit of the Lib Dems, it seems that not one voted for ongoing trough rights.
Complain about this comment
The John Lewis list makes quite interesting reading, given that expenses for the rest of us are paid for only those items that are wholly, exclusively, and necessarily incurred in the performance of our jobs. If any of the rest of us were lucky enough to receive most of those items on expenses, we would incur a huge tax liability by doing so. Why should it be different for MPs?
By voting for this ludicrously generous system, then have given proof, if proof were needed, that they really don't give a stuff about what the rest of us think of them.
Complain about this comment
@#54
ROFL
Complain about this comment
#42 flugart: if you don't know the difference between the JSF and Typhoon I don't think your credentials are what one would look for in a defence expert.
Complain about this comment
I'm ashamed to say that the 2 tory MPs either side of my constituency (ie mine, and the one next door) both voted to keep their expenses unaudited/large.
Very damaging to them is that once most other people here find out; people here will readily switch from tory to libdem.
Apparently all the libdems who did bother to vote, voted in favour of reform/transparency, so at the moment they've got my vote.
Mind you, that doesn't distract me from the shameful labour voting; look at the tory list against the labour list and you'll see that it was overwhelmingly voted for by labour MPs even when you take into account the proportion of labour/tory MPs in the commons.
I guess a previous posting was right; only 2 years to go until the labour MPs all lose their jobs/perks, so make hay while the sun shines.
Complain about this comment
Nick
It's bad enough that Broon ducked the vote, but looking at Hansard, there were 316 votes and 4 tellers. So what happened to the other 330 or so MPs including Broon? Maybe we should just assume that they were all in favour of keeping snouts firmly in the trough. I'll certainly be dropping my (Tory) MP a line to ask him why he felt he should skip an important debate. Mind you, having met him, he probably couldn't find his way to the chamber because he's already demonstrated that he doesn't know the boundaries of his constituency.
Complain about this comment
Grandantidote well put, and all we need now is Trudi-Victoria to agree, then we have cracked it.
Complain about this comment
14 ScepticMax:
A great compilation. The list of shame.
Complain about this comment
We need to move to direct democracy and can get rid of our overpaid, self-serving and unrepresentative MPs. We can use referendums to decide on Bills before parliment, private members bills can be replaced by Bills raised by petitions that get enough support.
We can vote directly for our PM, who'll chose thier cabinet from the whole electorate rather than just MPs, while monthly meetings between the Cabinet, Mayors and Council Leaders will maintain local representation to the Government.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and by the way Nick, when you do get the chance to collar any of those ministers on Sceptic's list of shame. Do us all a favour and pin them down on this issue. Don't mollycoddle them, if they won't do the decent thing and resign, at the very least you can get them to sweat a little on the box.
Complain about this comment
I suggest that anyone who's not happy with how their MP voted, regardless of their party, sends their MP an email demanding to know why they voted the way that they did, and cc a copy to their party leader.
The full list of who voted which way is available in various official places on the web.
Tell them you're not happy, and if you feel strongly then also tell them that you won't vote for them in 2010.
Complain about this comment
#54.
His moral compass was broken and he got lost.
On the question as to whether he was dithering on the question of expenses, he is not sure but he will come back with answer later....sometime.
Complain about this comment
@32
Wrong on number 2 as well.
You still need a platform for force projection, be it JSF, UAV or a helicopter launch platform.
Still we could have none, and then hey that'll work really well when we need to do something across the water.
Complain about this comment
Gordons Browns Legacy of Prudent economic management:
We are worse off now than we were 5 years ago
The report said that monthly discretionary income for a typical household was now £772.79 - compared with £909.84 in 2003/04.
And with higher interest rates and a growth in the amount people are borrowing to buy property - average monthly mortgage payments are just under £735 - 78% higher than in 2003/04.
Other findings included:
Fixed monthly household costs have risen by almost 45% since 2003/04
Petrol costs for a typical household are £193.61 per month - 29.4% higher than in 2003/04
Average monthly energy bills have risen by 110% since 2003/04 to £95.80.
Council tax is up almost 25% since 2003/04 to £114.50 per month for a band D property.
Defend this if you can.
Complain about this comment
And one more reason why their actions yesterday were dispicable:
Tax and spend
The RAC claimed that income from motorists was broadly equal to spending on the road network in 1975, but the government now brought in four times as much from the motorist than it spent on the roads.
It criticised the levy on road users being described as measures to protect the environment.
Lets be clear about this no one minds if we get value for money but there hasn't been a Labour government in history that has delivered that.
Their idealism is great their implementation stinks and does a diservice to those they claim to represent.
It seems that even their core supporters have rumbled the diference between Labours aspirations and their ability
Complain about this comment
Brown we know dithers but Cameeron should have made his party's position clear and had his MP's follow the party line.
MP's are not self employed they are paid public servants and as such have to toe the new line on transparency.
They are not CEO's as they try to assimilate but ordinary folk who have been sponsored by their party to represent their electorate and have made a great deal of money though press and TV and no doubt well paid consultancies.
This all reeks like the end of the Major government. Brown and Cameron should both be ashamed of their ineffective leadership but for singularly different reasons.
Complain about this comment
I can't help thinking that a fair number of those who voted for no change could well be finding out their true worth in the next couple of years, the Home Secretary included. That's if they don't all apply to be lobbyists.
Complain about this comment
#38, well said.
Aside from partisan biases, it is very sad for politics in the UK full stop.
Complain about this comment
Is this not an indicator that many Labour MP's are demob happy.
They know that many of them will be out of a job come the next election and that the publics' negative view of them won't change -so yee haa!
The Tories would do their image a lot of good if they decided to voluntarily reject the John Lewis list. The Lib Dems are actually already credible but they should reject the list.
I am surprised that the men in grey suits have not locked Gordon Brown in an office with a loaded gun. I assume they are waiting for the conference. Nobody, including senior Labour figures and donors, believes that he can win the next election.
World Bank?
Maybe even thats not a runner now.
Complain about this comment
It is probable that many of the MP's that are currently in the House of Commons will be out-of-a-job after the General Election.
However, sympathy will be in very short supply.
As ex-MP Martin Bell told me ... I only served one term (four years) and even I get a small pension!
Complain about this comment
The number of MPs who lacked the courage even to vote on this issue should not be forgotten.
If they are not prepared to vote and so represent their constituents wishes in Parliment then they should resign. Brown included.
Complain about this comment
68. Pot_Kettle
Gordons Browns Legacy of Prudent economic management came about because he followed Ken Clarks spending plans for the first 2 years.
He then introduced his own reforms, taxation got bolder and bolder, they spent way too much and saved zero.
They know that they are about to be shown the door by the electorate. Hence they want as much booty from John Lewis as their sticky little fingers can carry.
ENDEX
Complain about this comment
I watched the expenses debate on Parliament TV and saw my Windsor MP, Mr Adam Afriyie, sitting in the second row of the Opposition benches. But when I checked Hansard this morning he had not bothered to vote.
This raises the question of how many other MPs were present, but decided not to vote so that the existing disgraceful allowance system could continue unchecked ?
Gordon Brown claims he didn't bother to vote because he knew the majority of MPs opposed any change, but it looks to me like this was a put up job with MPs voting for pay restraint while simultaneously increasing their tax free allowances.
Snouts in the trough, AGAIN !
Complain about this comment
When were they heroes?
From corrupt and devious zeroes to blatantly corrupt and devious zeroes doesn't have the same ring, its true.
How long are we going to put up with our MPs?
We need a zero turnout campaign for the next election - noone to vote at all until they bring out some decent candidates rather than the incompetent and arrogant crew we've had for so long.
Complain about this comment
#70
You deflect attention away from the PM's no-show by suggesting that "Cameeron should have made his party's position clear and had his MP's follow the party line".
Check the voting lists and you'll find that on the whole, Cameron's MP's not only followed his advice but also his lead [NB: Cameron excericised leadership on the issue and actually voted for reforn himself].
As for his shadow cabinet, only one very minor member broke ranks and voted for the status-quo, compared with 33 members of Brown's cabinet (inc. the Home secretary). As a whole 84% of the MP's who voted for the 'John Lewis' list were LABOUR!
So Robert, how is this vote Cameron's fault?
Moreover, full marks to the Lib Dems. Not one of their MP's supported the status-quo.
Complain about this comment
Nick, any report that my support for labour is dead has been greatly exagerated,
Complain about this comment
I see the Wintertons voted to oppose the reform. Imagine being a Labour minister and going into the lobbies with them. I am still shell-shocked.
At least Brown has a decent excuse for not voting - the Whips knew they were going to lose, so he didn't waste his time when he had a lot to do before going off to the next G8. Not that that will satisfy the Brown Outers on here of course.
Complain about this comment
Well, i'm absolutely dismayed by yesterdays vote! How can the MP's responsible be so out of touch?
I have checked the voting record of my own MP (Sarah McCarthy-Fry of Portsmouth North), and am further dismayed to see she voted against the reform. I have just written to her to ask for an explanation, as without a good one, I shall actively work to encourage foks to remove her from office come the next chance at the polls.
I suggest all those that are equally appalled by their own MP's voting, should do the same.
Complain about this comment
Oink, Oink, snuffle, grunt, oink, more, gobble gobble,oink, oink, grunt, mmmm lots a money, sod the proletariat we're alright jack. What a disgrace.
No reasonable employer would begrudge paying reasonable out of pocket expenses or relocation cost to compensate an employee having to move or work from a satellite location. I believe most MP's do a good job and should be compensated for sensible/justified expediture. However, expenses should be subject to proper approval and have an audit trail.
I urge this lot to revisit this and put in place policies on expenses which are proper. God knows what the general public must think of them. Its a shameful situation, I know what I think but its best not to print it.
Complain about this comment
Lets face it, these people are politicians. Everyone one knows they aren't saints. and are never likely to be whoever is in power. Not even the Conservatives. This kind of thing is only to be expected.
They voted in their own self interest. I have Just had a quick look at the list of MPs who voted against the change of expenses and many of them are from the North of England, Scotland and Wales. Their expenses are greater than the most pf the Conservatives. who mainly live in the South of England. It was in many of the Conservatives best interest to have a pay increase. Quite a few conservatives on Nicks list though.
We hear about the people who abuse the expenses system because thats what news does. We don't hear about MPs who use their expenses responsibly. The scandals were exposed and damaged the people responsible. Which is a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Can we call in the yanks to invade us and force a change of leadership? They did it a few years ago remember.
(sniggers) I said "leadership", but I was thinking of Gordon Brown - oh the irony
Complain about this comment
Grandantidote I repeat your 38 post in full so there can be no mistake whatsoever and posters do not have to race back to the post I mention. I fully respect your statement and I quote "I was bitterly disapointed with the vote on expenses and particularly disappointed in the amount of Labour MPs and ministers voting to retain the present system" I thought that was a brave stement to say the very least.
then you say say and I quote " This is not to say that this lets the Tories of the hook as many of them voted to maintain the Status Quo"
Dis they , most? 26? I do believe (or the normal scoundrels as we have too but 'widdy' yes I am surprised but still you live and learn). Now let me see aginst how many labour MP's (besides ministers thet you did mention, accepted no argument on that one with you) . You know they went against us the voter who has to cover every single penny with a receipt (me inclued). Mu ccoker broke last year had to buy another one but could not really afford it. It was either that or a 20quid Bar-b-que. Anyway I digress I ask again what do these Nu labour idiots have to do to get your wrath. I suspect after my last nights post it is not drowing kittens so maybe its nuclear war.
With kind regards and respect
Your Full Post below
38. At 11:47am on 04 Jul 2008, grandantidote wrote:
Nick, I was delighted when the wage restraint was announced, I thought well that has set a good example to the rest of the country that we need to tighten our belts.
I was bitterly disapointed with the vote on expenses and particularly disappointed in the amount of Labour MPs and ministers voting to retain the present system.
I have always supported Gordon Brown and rightly so, but the utter stupidity of him not being in parliament and giving his ministers a dire warning about which way to vote yesterday was something I cant defend and I will not attempt too,I am afraid that this makes me believe that he needs a quick cabinet reshuffle and right to the top, this is more important than personalities this is whether he wants to protect the Labour movement as a whole. If heads must roll then so be it but the party is more important than any and I mean any single member.
This is not to say that this lets the Tories of the hook as many of them voted to maintain the Status Quo and more vociferously, but Cameron is a master of grabbing opportunities and he did here ,he kept his front bench in order while Gordon was busy scoring an own goal.
Parliament did itself no favours yesterday and we should all feel very disapointed.
Complain about this comment
Apologies about not quite completing post 86 its just that to type a keyboard after falling under the old park bench (tripped up over the plug into the lampost) but after reading Grandantidotes post (mentioned in my own post ..well ...say no more.)
like a previous poster mentioned "sympathy offered normal hostilties will be resumed" (funny never seen a statement as nice as that from a Nu lab apologist but still)
Kind regards
The Baron Von Ripwinkel (very slightly off the parkbench)
PS I was present during two ship builds in Govan(Ok not a lot) but the workers there are really great shipbuilders. However ,would it just be lovely that having got the signature on the "proverbial dotted " they voted SNP anyway just for the shear hell of it hey its only a by election lasting no more than 18 months. Expenses are not everything to having fun you know.
Complain about this comment
Risk implies that there was some chance that they would actually take some sort of reduction on the chin.
The only thing on their chins is more gravy!
Having read this blog and the comments over the second half of this week, I am astonished that anyone expected, or even seriously hoped for, anything different.
As for the comments regarding their pay v. other highly paid people in this country, again, the blog betrays a woeful optimism at best, and a lamentable inability to understand basic economics at worse.
The top directors do get paid a huge amount; it is sometimes difficult to understand how this is justified, yet these people, often by their own initiative, do create wealth for others, and they are, annually at least, subject to review by the shareholders unless they are risking their own money. Their pensions are paid for out of that current remuneration package.
MPs do only what someone else tells them to do, they create very little, are subject to external review only every five years, have a massive hidden cost via their allowances and pensions, pensions in particular are a cost we bear for years after these self serving parasites have finally been ejected from the House of Commons. [ Now there is an oxymoron. ]
In jobs in business or local government, the pressure from a large number of applicants drives down the remuneration package, yet at every election we see many people chasing one MP job, and yet the market is not allowed to operate to reduce the remunerations paid to the eventual postholder.
So let us hear no more bleating from these MP(arasite)s about how little they are paid. They operate using less freedom of choice in what they do than most lower ranked council workers, so that is what to pay them.
Complain about this comment
46. At 12:50pm on 04 Jul 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
..."Labour is now actively trying to wreck the economy by massive borrowing and reckless spending, designed to leave as much mess as possible for the next incoming government. They is no longer any pretence of doing what's right for the country."...
If you are being serious, you need help, sir! You haven't journeyed from Mars, have you?
Complain about this comment
It seems that the Committee on Standards in Public Life are said to be considering an enquiry into MPs expenses.
What's the point? So they come up with recommedtations ? And - - ?
What's needed here is for Brown, Cameron and Clegg to bite the bullet and act in concert in the public interest and for the good of politics to come up with a solution which they jointly promote and ruthlessly impose on their troops.
The best thing they can do is to bite the bullet and come clean by admitting that the restraint shown by MPs on pay since 1997 has been bogus, achieved only by turning a blind eye to members taking advantage of the wide open rules on expenses.
If that requires telling us that it will take an above inflation pay increase to put it right whether we like it or not, so be it - as long as the true increase is much less due to corresponding savings from the expenses regime being sorted.
If it means telling MPs the game is up on expenses, whether they like it or not - so be it.
This is a cross-party culture change issue and we couldn't half be doing with our so called leaders demonstrating a bit of leadership.
What is wrong with these people ?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Thanks for getting the voting list link updated with names and parties of the YES lobby.
I realise that there's quite a bit of work to do, but as requested in my #41, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate similar lists of the NO and McAvity lobbies.
Apologies for nagging if that's already in the pipeline.
Complain about this comment
Having just read post 86, these MPs did in fact take us to war.
They voted for it.
Because they were told to vote for it. But their job, as backbenchers is to scrutinise the work of the executive, the ministers.
OK, it is not a nuclear war, (yet,) but hundreds of us have died and the rest of us have had our basic liberties taken away.
If I have someone scrutinising the executive on my behalf, I would be happier to pay something closer to the huge cost of the remuneration package, if that job was properly done. We are not safer, ( their own research made that clear) we are still being killed, and the MPs, the checkers, allowed it all to happen because they are spineless and just do as they are told by the executive. By NOT doing their job, they should be sacked, rather than be allowed to pick up ANY salary.
It is, after all, what they would all insist upon for the rest of us, were we not to do our job.
Complain about this comment
Re #90 from Only jocking:
"This is a cross-party culture change issue and we couldn't half be doing with our so called leaders demonstrating a bit of leadership."
Cameron did by voting NO and ensuring his front bench did likewise.
Brown did his usual McAvity by not voting (or as #54 from ScepticMax so aptly puts it: "Perhaps he intends to go in tomorrow morning and do it on his own") while most of his ministers voted YES.
Sadly from my point of view Clegg had a leadership failure and also didn't vote while Cable and most of the LibDems did the right thing and voted NO. At least not one LibDem voted YES.
I'd say that overall it's pretty clear where the leadership stands (or dithers).
The new epithet for Labour MPs should be "The Brown envelope brigade".
Complain about this comment
Re #93 from Brownedov
By leadership I don't mean how, or if, the leaders vote. I mean them showing initiative and coming up with a solution which they jointly ask the House to accept
As soon as the chamber voted to restrict pay, there was a flying pay alert attached to any prospect of the vote to reform expenses.
Brown knew that, Cameron knew that and Clegg knew that. Those who abstained knew that, those who voted for restraint knew that.
The main onus is on Brown as PM and, yes, he has failed to rise to the challenge. However, Cameron and Clegg need to do better than sit back and criticise.
This is a damaging mess but one which requires only firmness of purpose to resolve - rocket scientists need not apply.
As I said before - what is wrong with these people ?
Complain about this comment
Yet again our elected representatives have shot themselves in the foot. They have treated the electorate with utter contempt by rejecting the reforms to their expences.
Members of this blog may like to consider a slightly different approach to this mess. Why not let them have these expences, the London flats paid for by the exchequer and fittings from the John Lewis list BUT, and it is a very big but, everything returns to the exchequer when they leave office. The flat returns, the flat screen tele returns in fact everything that has a value !!!!
In this way, they can live in the style to which they feel is appropriate, and we will benefit from the eventual appreciation of the property when the credit crunch is over.
Complain about this comment
Due to economic difficulties is it now time to reduce the number of MPs in line with what is happening in the real world, starting with all these greedy pigs!
Complain about this comment
Re #94 from Only jocking: "By leadership I don't mean how, or if, the leaders vote. I mean them showing initiative and coming up with a solution which they jointly ask the House to accept
.....
The main onus is on Brown as PM and, yes, he has failed to rise to the challenge. However, Cameron and Clegg need to do better than sit back and criticise."
OK, you have a point and we all seem to agree that Brown has failed to rise to this challenge.
The question is harder in the the case of Cameron. He did do the right thing and persuaded his "friends" to do the same, but he is inherently in favour of the adversarial system and so has nothing to gain and potentially something serious to lose by being seen to prop up Brown.
Regarding the LibDems, who want to change the whole system, it's more complex. Perhaps you're right and Clegg should at least have made a public offer of a joint approach. In the end, he seems to have dithered like Brown which doesn't look good to his party, especially when Cable, Harvey and many others did the right thing.
Complain about this comment
jimbrant @81 wrote:
"At least Brown has a decent excuse for not voting - the Whips knew they were going to lose, so he didn't waste his time when he had a lot to do before going off to the next G8. Not that that will satisfy the Brown Outers on here of course."
That's pathetic!!!
You say that Brown was going to lose so he didn't bother.... He should have shown Leadership: told his ministers to shape up and vote accordingly. If the 33 NuLabour minister had voted 'no' the motion would have been defeated.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
Hi again!
I've analysed the Scots MPs contribution by party and vote - from the Hansard list. Mind you the UK Parliament seems fairly incompetent (I used to trust Hansard) but their list identifies some MPs with surnames and first names transposed, misspelt others, and suggests that some UKIP nonentity (Bob Spink) voted Aye and No!
For what its worth the figures are -
Aye No Abs Tot
Con 1 1
Lab 17 5 14 36
Lib-Dem 4 7 11
SNP 2 4 6
Speaker 1 1
55
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
Hi again!
I've analysed the Scots MPs contribution by party and vote - from the Hansard list. Mind you the UK Parliament seems fairly incompetent (I used to trust Hansard) but their list identifies some MPs with surnames and first names transposed, misspelt others, and suggests that some UKIP nonentity (Bob Spink) voted Aye and No!
For what its worth the figures are -
Aye No Abs Tot
Con 1 1
Lab 17 5 14 36
Lib-Dem 4 7 11
SNP 2 4 6
Speaker 1 1
55
Complain about this comment
#81 Jumbrant
Whether or not Brown had a "decent excuse for not voting" is neither here nor there. Gordon Brown has now become such an irrelevant figure that he can just slip away into the shadows and be forgotten. Even Mugabe, that evil dictator mentioned his name with scorn saying Brown should remove all British business from Zimbabwa. Rather than tweaking the tail of the British Lion, the old tyrant was smashing him over the head with a heavy stick.
Complain about this comment
#89 Iwilltellyouthis
You ask me "You haven't journeyed from Mars, have you?"
Funny you should ask that! The TV series 'Life on Mars' was about a bloke who goes back in time to the 1970s.
After the pretence of prudence, it seems to me that Labour is reverting to form, just as in the final days of the doomed Callaghan government.
Brown knows he won't have to pick up the bill, so he thinks he can do what he likes! Trying to cover up his 10p tax blunder with money he hasn't got it just one example. (At a cost of nearly £3 billion)
This is why I say Labour is pursuing a 'scorched earth' policy.
Brown inherited a fairly healthy economy from the Tories. But as usual, the Tories will inherit a terrible mess from Labour.
Complain about this comment
Expenses vote:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080703/debtext/80703-0019.htm
Re #99 from oldnat
Hello again. Very interested by the numbers - I'm tempted to do a similar analysis for the whole House of Cards.
Trouble is that the numbers aren't readable as columns in this blog because HTML needs special characters to multispace and there doesn't seem to be a guide of allowable HTML for these blogs anywhere.
You could always try re-posting the table with 2 digit numbers (00 for empty) and the result would be readable if not pretty.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
I realised that the table didn't work, but the 2nd attempt got referred to the moderators for some reason.
Here's my next attempt at a table in this blog - if it works, I'll post the UK data which I've also calculated.
Party Aye No Abs Total
Con 0 0 1 1
Lab 17 5 14 36
Lib 0 4 7 11
SNP 0 2 4 6
Speaker 0 0 1 1
Total 17 11 27 55
Complain about this comment
#98 ScepticMax: "If the 33 NuLabour minister had voted 'no' the motion would have been defeated."
That's right. And if you care to look at #1 on here you will see what I think of that.
However, this was a free vote (as issues to do with the management of the House itself always are). Like Cameron, Brown advised his side to vote in favour of reform; but as I understand it he couldn't compel them to do so. It isn't necessarily good leadership to throw resources (in this instance his valuable time) into a lost cause, is it? He has a big job to do at the G8 as prime minister of the UK, and like Blair before him I think he will be arguing there for the good guys ( or at least the guys I think are good).
As it happens, from the point of view of politics in the UK I tend to think that he should have voted anyway; but I can see that there is a wider view that he was entitled to take into account.
Complain about this comment
oldnat your #104 is fine although adding commas as below makes it even easier to paste into a word processor or spreadsheet and parse into a table.
Party, Aye, No, Abs, Total
Con, 0, 0, 1, 1
Lab, 17, 5, 14, 36
Lib, 0, 4, 7, 11
SNP, 0, 2, 4, 6
Speaker, 0, 0, 1, 1
Total, 17, 11, 27, 55
The spaces after the commas aren't essential but make it more human readable.
The data itself makes very interesting - many thanks
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
I should have thought about adding commas to ease parsing!
UK figures are as follows - I have shoved the Independents and things like CWM which I don't recognise together as "others", also I have put the NI MPs (none of whom voted) together as one group - they'd probably hate that!
Party, Aye, Nay, Abs, Tot,
Con, 22, 55, 115, 192,
Lab, 148, 50, 151, 349,
Lib, 0, 36, 27, 63,
SNP, 0, 2, 4, 6,
PC, 0, 0, 3, 3,
N I, 0, 0, 18, 18,
Others, 3, 0, 9, 12,
Total, 173, 143, 327, 643,
Complain about this comment
Re my analysis in #107
The SNP. PC and many of the Irish MPs have no interest in improving the reputation of Westminster. It is not surprising to find absence from voting for them.
Among the UK Unionist parties, only 51% bothered to vote. One suspects that many of the absentees wanted the status quo, but preferred not to be identified as voting for it!
The Tories amongst you shouldn't be crowing - 60% didn't vote.
The Scottish Parliament rejected the Westminster system of financing second homes for MSPs. The UK remains a corrupt political system.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
Great stuff in your #107 & #108. Thank you.
Pity Nick wasn't given that info from the outset.
At least the 173 Ayes (27% of MPs) had the brass neck to admit their avarice in public.
The 51% who followed The Supreme Leader's example in cowardice also demonstrated their contempt for the public as well as a lack of foresight which alone should disqualify them from holding office.
It also goes to show that I should not have started praising Cameron without having all the facts.
Complain about this comment
"Pity Nick wasn't given that info from the outset."
Hey, I'm old fashioned - I always thought that the role of BBC political reporters was to give us accurate information, so that we could decide. Not that we had to make the detailed analysis for ourselves.
However, in Scotland, Brian Taylor does normally give us penetrating analysis of the issues - pity that neither Nick or Brian will actually read this!
At least Nick is less uninformed than David Dimbleby - judging by his partisan chairing of Question Time - or the Evening Standard's distorted view of the world. Mind you, that's hardly challenging.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
100% agree with your #110
QT is getting less and less balanced and D Dimbleby is now an order of magnitude worse than his brother, who is a good chairman of Any Questions only outshone when his holiday relief is Eddie Mair. Even the comic last night was both biased and unfunny.
In the next couple of weeks, Nick and Brian may be crossing paths and threads. The Herald now has the headline "Labour creates mystery as parties launch battle plans" in its Politics section with and says "Labour, which holds the seat, were faced with the embarrassment of having to postpone its selection when the favourite, local councillor George Ryan, appeared to pull out of the running at the last minute for family reasons".
That's certainly going to go UK-wide PDQ and the expenses issue will doubtless play a part in the hustings, with the SNP assured of a goodly few votes for that alone.
Anyway. Goodnight all.
Complain about this comment
Re: #107 - astonishing that even a high-profile vote like this one gets fewer than half the MPs voting. Are they cowards or just lazy?
I'd love to know the overall percentage of votes made for the whole house across all motions, and I fear it would be very low indeed. In some ways the fact that we pay them so generously (even with the relatively modest rise) for a job that they don't even have to attend for great chunks of the year and yet they still can't be bothered to turn up when the house IS sitting and perform their simplest and most basic function is even more galling than this expense row.
Complain about this comment
Family dinner last night. Ages 56, 51, 49, 47 and 18. Allpolitical persuasions.
All greed that Brown was a coward in not voting in the expenses debate.
Leadership lacking?
Complain about this comment
89
..."Labour is now actively trying to wreck the economy by massive borrowing and reckless spending, designed to leave as much mess as possible for the next incoming government. They is no longer any pretence of doing what's right for the country."...
If you are being serious, you need help, sir! You haven't journeyed from Mars, have you?
I don't think they are trying to do this, but the result will be the same. A total mess.
Complain about this comment
Looks like they also intend to shut the back door on the old/new system as well.
During the expenses debate Harriet Harperson said;
Having discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers, I can tell the House that the Government intend to introduce a statutory instrument under section 7(3) of the Freedom of Information Act, which will exclude Members' addresses or any material that could lead to the identification of Members' address.
We will bring it before Members on the Floor of the House before the House rises for the summer recess.
Says it all really - they make a law and lose to it, they then change it until it works for them.
FOI for everybody but them.
Transparent and open government anyone.
Complain about this comment
I support the MPs decision merely as a gesture of cussedness and contrariness. The media and the public have been so intemperate and hysterical in their attacks on MPs that it brings a crooked smile to my face to see them thwarted. There may be a case to be made for sensible, progressive reform of the arrangements for determining MPs salaries and expenses, but it’s hard to see how such reforms could be made in the McCarthyite atmosphere that prevails at the moment.
The public and the media will hopefully learn a salutary lesson about how to conduct themselves towards their leaders. Just think: if we continue with this perverse hostility, who is going to want to become an MP? I heard one MP on the radio yesterday saying that they were concerned that people from poorer backgrounds would be unable to enter the Commons if an MPs salary failed to keep pace with comparable jobs. Perhaps. But surely the greater danger is that conscientious and intelligent people will not want to be MPs because MPs are the objects of an almost automatic revulsion.
To read more of my views search my blog, Just who the hell are we?, on wordpress.com.
Complain about this comment
111 Browndov
The comic, David Mitchell is aknowledged by the real world as being very funny. He is not a journalist so can be biased as he wants. I found it a great contrast after listening to dull politicians who I found to be outrageously biased to hear someone talking sense and puncturing politicians like Andrew Lansleys pomposity. More please! that is what the show needs desperately. Less blah, blah blah which is mostly rubbish and someone who can challenge politicians properly. without getting claims of bias from the usual suspects.
Complain about this comment
Re #117 from dhwilkinson:
"The comic, David Mitchell is aknowledged by the real world as being very funny. He is not a journalist so can be biased as he wants."
We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.
Had he been funny, he could have been as biased as he liked, but his few contributions were so feeble that they could have come from the lips of Hazel Blears or one of the younger NuLabour suits whose names all blur into nothingness when they're "on message".
Perhaps he's better at other gigs.
Complain about this comment
Re #116 from adammcnestrie:
"But surely the greater danger is that conscientious and intelligent people will not want to be MPs because MPs are the objects of an almost automatic revulsion."
You make a some interesting points, but surely a very big part of the problem is that our non-constitution has meant that so far such crumbs of democracy as we've been thrown have all been from the top down.
This worked so long as the majority of us proles were reasonably content with our lords and masters, but the curtain has now been lifted just enough for us to see plainly how rotten the system is and we are not happy with it.
I agree with you that the media have largely been "intemperate" but any intemperance from the public is 100% understandable if not 100% justified. This will not change until and unless the MPs recognise that it's they who should be the servants of their electorate.
Complain about this comment
116:
Go back to your blog mate. You support the 'contrariness' of MPs because of the hysterics in the media and public opinion? You are an apologist for a weak underegulated house of commons. We may learn a lesson about how to conduct ourselves towards our 'leaders?' Come on, pal, we need no lessons from them, they need lessons from us. You don't by any chance doff your cap everytime someone you consider 'superior' to yourself walks by, do you? What utter sychophantic drivel. People from poorer backgrounds would be put off going into the commons: rubbish. I heard that speech too and I can tell you it was pathetic self delusion, think about it, that someone who is poor would be put off a job, which would make them rich beyond their wildest dreams. Conscientious and intelligent people: one big big assumption, especially the conscientious bit. My advice to you mate: start to think for yourself.
Complain about this comment
#118 Brownedov
I have to agree with you.
IMO he would do better by sticking to panel shows like Have I got news for you or The Peep Show, at least its scripted!
Complain about this comment
Re #120 from doctor-gloom
Well said.
The only sentence I would dispute is the: "Conscientious and intelligent people: one big big assumption, especially the conscientious bit"
First I would question their intelligence for acting so contrary to public opinion on an issue that will play and play at least to the general election.
Secondly, I think you have to admit that they have, by and large, been conscientious in feathering their own nests.
Complain about this comment
#116 adammcnestrie: I agree with almost all of what you say. I have been arguing for some time that if we go on as we are (especially the media) nobody in their right mind will want to stand as an MP unless they see it as an opportunity either to make money (which the very low level of salary will not provide), or because they have an unhealthy desire for power.
Some on here (I can probably predict who!) will say that we are already in that position, but I don't agree. Almost all MPs are there because they want to serve their country, whatever their politics. My own MP is a Tory with whom I have had a number of arguments over the years, but I have never doubted that he is a fundamentally decent bloke who has the interests of the country at heart.
However, in this case, the Ministers who voted against reform were in my view acting in an amazingly crass fashion. There might be a logical argument against the reform proposals, though I can't see what it might be. But in any event politics is about more than logic; the effect on popular perceptions of the decision they took will I think be disasterous, and as politicians they should be ashamed of themselves.
Complain about this comment
Re #121 from Roll_On_2010:
Thanks for your support.
His deadpan approach does work on that sort of show, with the odd clown to offset it. I've seen him on QI and thought him quite witty.
Complain about this comment
101 Mighty Angela, I dont think It's wise to use mugabwe in any sense regarding his attitude to GB or any other leader of any country . The man is a despot and should be treated as such.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov 122:
You've hit the nail on the head there. Good points.
Complain about this comment
113 mikepko. family got it wrong again mike, what on earth would he have to be afraid of. As I have said 38 that I think he made a error of judgement particularly when there has been so much personal bad publicity about him in the media, it would have only have taken an hour of his time and I think for him personally that hour would have been well spent .
Cowardice is far to strong a word and has no part in this at all and I think is a word used to often on these blogs.
Complain about this comment
124Brownedov and 121 Roll_on_2010
You think we should not allow people who have views that forum stereotypes disapprove of on television political shows. Every week they have a non politician on the panel they may be biased but mostly speak sense in non political terms which I find breaks up the tedium of politicians droning on about How Labour/Conservative has done this and that We shout at the television. We need someone on the panel that represents the people. Not political enthusiasts on here. Who only think they represent the public through reassurance of numbers.
Mitchell and Webb did an excellent send up of these Have your Say type forums on their sketch show. Armstrong and Miller did the same. Still plenty of material for them here.
No wonder you lot have started to ally yourselves with Mugabe to help your case mightyangela@101 He's on your side now you know. He also wants Brown out of Number 10. I wonder if he posts on here? That would be funny.
Sorry for being outrageously biased. Tell me what you want me to say and I'll think about it.
Complain about this comment
Society is split into strata or classes. Previously, the lowest level was the underclass or 'chav'. Worthless individuals with little or no social responsibilty.
The underclass however, have proved not to be the lowest of the low. That privilage has been wrested from them by the genuins lowest of the low, the real scum of society, a group of individuals that make granny-muggers look amateurs. I refer of course to the scum that inhabit Westminster.
A four letter word to them - Oink
Complain about this comment
117 D H Wilkinson , your absolutely right what a pleasure to have some one on there who gave us humour [not overdone] and common sense. Andrew lansley looked and behaved as if he was in complete discomfort, not surprising considering the hostility shown to any mention of conservative policies by the audience
What I found particularly rewarding was the audience reaction to separation from the union, contrary to what the Tories keep telling us there, doesn't seem to be much support for it there the SNP looked distinctly umcomfortable on occasion, it was a nice change from the presence of people like Peter Hitchens and Piers Morgan and the other poison dwarf whose name wont come to mind Rod something or other.
If David Mitchell had been taking the Mick out of GB or the labour party the Tories on here today would be telling us what a great guy he was.
Complain about this comment
128: dhwilkinson:
If you really believe what you've just written what are you doing on this blog? I suppose you just 'feel' you're somehow different to the rest of us? By default, if we accept your views, everyone on here has no real connection with public opinion as we're just amateur political pundits?
Complain about this comment
123 Jimbrant, I could not agree more with the last two paragraphs in this post, it was a foolish result from people that we need to respect for their integrity.
As for the conservative vote I think they had been well drilled by the party whips even though it was suposed to be a free vote,I have a feeling that many Tory MPs had weighed up that there were many Labour MPs that were against the reform that many of them didn't bother to vote knowing that their expenses were safe anyway, quite a clever ploy if you like to be underhanded, this could apply to many of the liberals they just sat still and let the rest take the flak.
Complain about this comment
Re #128 from dhwilkinson:
"You think we should not allow people who have views that forum stereotypes disapprove of on television political shows."
Not at all. The non-politicians often add more to the discussions than the party hacks peddling the party line. Mostly they do bring something extra to the discussion. The comics usually add some levity.
All I said, and stick to, in my post #111 is that: "Even the comic last night was both biased and unfunny". I even tried to clarify in my #118, that humour would have excused much.
I simpy found that two QT panelists preaching from the NuLabour gospel with all the charm and charisma of The Supreme Leader in full tractor production statistics mode a little soporific.
Complain about this comment
Re #132 from grandantidote:
Your other posts demonstrate the tint of the NuLabour spectacles through which you view the world, but I must congratulate you on your describing the LibDems as "underhanded" when they were the only party with a majority voting against the status quo.
A comment truly worthy of Alistair Campbell himself.
Complain about this comment
#125 Grandantidote
Good day Grandantidote!
In theory I concur you are correct. BUT, as history shows, one man's despot is another's saviour! Personally, I hate the whole bloody lot, from most of the Roman emperors to Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Sadam et al.
Complain about this comment
116. adammcnestrie
What utter utter utter utter tosh.
A typical public sector response. You manage to skew the whole issue and look at it from totally the wrong perspective.
Your point is essentially:
That the people deserve this because they have been so overly critical about the hypocrisy of their elected leaders feathering their own nests. You say it is hard to see how such reforms could be made.
When you say:
The public and the media will hopefully learn a salutary lesson about how to conduct themselves towards their leaders. Do you think that if we are more measured in our calls for honesty and transparency they would reform faster?
Sir you definitely are born for management within the public sector if you are not already deeply entrenched within its walls.
The British will always be perversely hostile towards hypocrisy and those who seek to feather their own nests while calling for restraint from others.
They have seen time and time again that MPs (from all parties) are far from honourable, dishonest and even criminal with their claims.
They know that if this was prevalent in any other walk of life that revenue and customs would be crawling all over it.
MPs have been given opportunity time and time again to vote for transparency and fairness and have failed miserably.
The blame for the low regard with which they are held lies solely with them.
Complain about this comment
116. adammcnestrie
This is what I want from MPs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7487478.stm
Transparency
Complain about this comment
Re #136 from CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
Well put. Rather stronger than "tosh", I think.
Complain about this comment
Ref 116
Just for those who dont know what goes on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7462432.stm
Well I for one have learnt "a salutary lesson about how to conduct myself towards my ELECTED leaders"
You missed that very important word out by the way.
Complain about this comment
I agree that our elected representatives need to be well paid ("you pay peanuts.... etc.") - and that their legitimate expenses should be fully reimbursed
Expenses, however, should not be a cash cow in lieu of a reasonable salary.
Accordingly, the system of providing these payments needs to be reformed and made both equitable and transparent.
It cannot be the case that our law-makers make one set of laws for us, and a different set for themselves.
Furthermore, in view of the exceptional nature of their work and the unique level of trust vested in them by the public, MPs need to be demonstrably 'whiter than white' - hence the need for full publication of individual salaries and all expenses.
Complain about this comment
Ref 116
What is amazing about the Wintertons
This practice was actually allowed upto July 2006.
They have been given until September this year to stop making the false claims.
How about stop claiming now and repaying the money
Even when you get caught. there is no punishment just-- Would you mind stopping the dodgey claims by Autumn old chap. Dont get caught again. Wink wink, say no more,
Complain about this comment
140. ScepticMax
Bang on
Complain about this comment
Re #137 from CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
Yes - watched it yesterday.
A surprisingly good and open pitch from a Tory MP Ben Wallace.
Pity he didn't follow through by voting with the LibDems and his leader, though but rather joined the McAvity tendency. Unless Hansard got it wrong. his name is AWOL from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080703/debtext/80703-0019.htm
Complain about this comment
Doctor_Gloom@131
I am different to the rest of you because everybody's different. We are a diverse country of different cultures with many different points of view that we should all respect. If we all did that the world might be a better place. ;o)
If everyone agreed with me on this site I wouldn't bother. I don't need that kind of reassurance.
As you can see above. I'm bored. Gordon Brown has made it rain again with his weather machine in vengeance for you all hating him. Thanks a lot!
Complain about this comment
I think it's just find it amazing that we still accept that MPs are best placed to decide whether to accept their own pay rise or make changes to their own expenses mechanism. These decisions should be made independently.
What is wrong with itemising expenses and providing receipts, after all that’s what we all do in the real world of business.
Complain about this comment
grandantidote@132
I have to disagree with you for a change. I think the lib dems have said they will audit their own expenses. Which seems sensible, as they don't want a scandal. Maybe this sort of thing could be a way out for all parties if only temporary solution.
The labour voters who said no to change appear to live quite far out of London. I think we should remember that these people need accommodation and need to furnish it and most may be using the expenses sensibly. Maybe fund essentials to a basic level including a TV which is part of the job for them in a way and allow them to top up the items themselves.
I agree some Conservatives may have voted for reforms knowing that it wouldn't get through. Giving them the moral high ground while keeping their expenses as they are at the same time. obviously that can't be proved. What i'm saying is the situation may not be as black and white as it appears in these comments.
Complain about this comment
134 brownedov, tThe only specticales I wear are the ones that help me to see clearly what the Tories are up too. I didn't say all the liberals what I said was
"this could apply to many of the liberals they just sat still and let the rest take the flak." your reporting of what I said is worthy of the Daily Mail.
Complain about this comment
Nick I can't help mentioning in passing.
Isn't Boris Johnson doing well? Do you think that Cameron might be having nightmares or do you think thats yet to come?
Complain about this comment
148. grandantidote
Well it was never going to go well was it.
But at leats the staff are resigning and not hanging on in there by their finger nails.
Plus: not even sure anyone has noticed given the state of Browns woes.
Complain about this comment
146 D H Wilkinson, we on this side of the fence dont mind a bit of disagreement thats the difference between us and the Tories.
You may well be right regarding the liberals but it stretches the imagination a little to think that all those tories were'nt doing what they were told,close ranks and all that.
I also agree that expenses to cover the things you mention should be allowed but with much more accountability.
Complain about this comment
I see labour are having trouble finding someone to stand in Glasgow East..
Says it all
Complain about this comment
149 carrotsneeda quango2, the thing is carrot that people dont like to take the Mick out of the afflicted, whereas I couldn't resist the temptation, Its my wicked side!
Complain about this comment
Re #151 from CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
Your masterly wit would be welcome on http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/
The knives are sharpening as I write.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov re #153
You have a cruel streak - knew there was something about you that I liked!
The timeline makes everything clear -
Holyrood votes to end the Westminster system of second home allowances.
Westminster votes to keep the gravy train running.
Margaret Curran (MSP for the non-Scottish bloggers) stands for the Glasgow East Westminster seat.
Don't you love conspiracy theories?
Complain about this comment
Re #154 from oldnat:
Naw - I just know a fellow-traveller when I see one.
Complain about this comment
143. Brownedov wrote
Yes true
Perhaps he had more pressing business Eh!
Complain about this comment
152. grandantidote
Release that wicked side at them all. Afflicted or not.
It keeps them under manners.
Complain about this comment
Re #156 from CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
Let's be charitable. He and his 326 fellow honourable friends/members of the McAvity tendency were probably all stuck in the queue at John Lewis.
Complain about this comment
Looks like this isnt over yet boys and girls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7490348.stm
More fun to come.
Wonder what this row is costing.
Can help but think it would be better spent on some gear for our troops.
Complain about this comment
The sad thing for Brown is that this whole affair was such a missed opportunity for him. He just doesn’t see them coming.
He should have stood up in the house and said something along the lines of:
(you have to read this in the PMs voice or it doesn’t work)
These are tough times for the people of Great Britain, there are many issues that divide them, but on one matter they are united, they want their MPs to be open and honest about the way their money is spent. They want us to be transparent in our affairs and to operate under the same rules that they do. I hope honorable members will vote to introduce the new rules, however, if they do not, then I shall use my powers as PM to ensure that we debate this matter again and gain until we get it right.
I would also have made it clear that every minister that did not vote for the new rules, would be living on their basic pay as of this Monday.
In addition I would have been standing with the whips in the lobby, with a thundering scowl helping MPs to make the right decision.
Forget the etiquette, just think how his popularity would have soared.
Thats my kind of leadership.
Instead he misses the vote and the says "I was not happy with what happened. I am very disappointed about the vote,"
Thats not my kind of leadership.
Complain about this comment
#160
I agree with this section of your post -
"it doesn?t work".
What on earth does Gordon Brown's speaking voice got to do with anything?
Complain about this comment
Re #160 from CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
"The sad thing for Brown is that this whole affair was such a missed opportunity for him. He just doesn?t see them coming."
Don't quite spot the humour there, but I do agree he's the Yasser Arafat of UK politics.
As Henry Kissinger (or was it Abba Eban?) said of the late Mr. A, "He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity"
Complain about this comment
These people don't realise what they are doing. Being part of the forces when we are away on detachment [Not Iraq or Afgan] any where in GB we have to pay for food and our daily subsistance is £5. We have homes to run too.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov @162 wrote:
[Brown is...] "The Yasser Arafat of UK Politics"
Brilliant!
(BTW - it was Abba Eban).
Complain about this comment
Actually I dont mind what MPs have done.
Its not that I dont agree with most comments
The vast majority MPS are indeed engaging in what amounts to theft. I note that the ACA has gone from 22000 to 24000 in a year and at a time when property prices are about to collapse theyve just voted to double their office allowances from2.8 - 6 million pounds-- no receipts of course
Its just that I believe that we need radical constitutional reform to change the utterly rotten political system
MPs make the case for this very well--even though they argue against it with every word they say
Complain about this comment
Re #165 from all_english:
"Its just that I believe that we need radical constitutional reform to change the utterly rotten political system
MPs make the case for this very well--even though they argue against it with every word they say"
Very well said, and I believe that the Scottish and Welsh voters are waking up to this and will give the two "big" parties the kicking they deserve at the next election, largely in favour of the nationalists.
In England I fear that although nice Mr Cameron is a real improvement on his predecessors he, like them, would resist real constitutional reform in office. If the English voters put Mr Cameron in No.10 with an overall majority, not only will this shameful expenses issue drag on but also the West Lothian issue will fade in English memories.
If that happens, the break-up of the UK will be almost certain as Scotland and Wales will both move towards independence within the EU as is their right under the UN charter.
Cameron will thus be faced with the choice of being:
1. The last Prime Minister of the UK and the first PM of England
or
2. The first Prime Minister of a new Federal UK and the first First Minister of England
Personally, I hope he chooses the latter, but it's for the English voters to decide whether to put him in that position.
Should NuLabour manage to emulate Lazarus and arise from the dead to retain power through English votes, the new PM will almost certainly only have choice 1.
Complain about this comment
Brown keeps going on about restoring trust in politics (let's face it, he means politicians). He also loves quick-fix solutions so how about this:
Replace the John Lewis list with the Argos list.
Better yet, buy in bulk like hotels do and have a department for issuing furniture to MPs. The cost of maintenance and storage has got to be less than allowing every MP to get a load of expensive furniture for free.
Complain about this comment
160 carrots needquangoes, I dont know whether your male of female, I tend to think male.
I dont really know your politics but I tend to think there Tory I dont usually find too much in common with people I suspect are Tories not because they are Tories but because our ideas of right and wrong are generally worlds apart.
Taking all that into consideration, I am in complete agreement with your post other than that in brackets, he had the opportunity to gain some esteem and hit back at his critics and he failed to do that, I am afraid that Gordon who I think is a brilliant man has not got, unlike Tony Blair, the ability to sell himself and at this moment in time he needs to find that quality or he will be in dire trouble, I hope he wakes up to that soon or it will be to late.
Complain about this comment
Nick I mention above that GB is missing oportunities and yet here we have a golden oportunity of having a go at Boris Johnson and David Cameron and there's not a word from all the labour stallwarts, I dont know where they all are but we shouldn't let these events pass without a mention.
The Tories would have had a hayday if it had been Ken Livingston.
Complain about this comment
Re #168 from grandantidote:
Some reasonable stuff there.
The big problem is that nobody knows whether The Supreme Leader wants to end the NuLabour project or continue it - see my #162.
I can't agree he's "brilliant". If he was, he might have needed to bring in the 10%/20% tax con in order to get Bliar to go out on a high, but he would have fixed it the moment he took over.
As long as he continues with these and anti-libertarian Bliarite policies he is simply missing the plot.
PS: I'm a male wrinkly who's always voted Liberal/LibDem but wondering where to go after the LibDems sold out honesty and democracy in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, for which I might have voted given the chance.
Complain about this comment
GA@169
Maybe we let the events speak for themselves. and we are not on some kind of marketing campaign to get our leader into No.10 like the Conservatives. Cameron isn't as easy to come up with lame childish jokes for as Brown. And I don't think Vince Cable has written a comedy routine about Cameron for us to Plagiarise. I personally like to try to say things that are original thoughts only once. With my one name.
I think Johnson is a bit of a personality front man Like George W Bush.I doubt He actually runs anything even though he speaks latin and knows his classics. Which I'm sure will come in handy at some point. His legendary tact is also a problem that will give the conservatives a headache.
Complain about this comment
Re #169from grandantidote:
Well, the NuLab spin machine can't be doing too badly when the headline
"Tories in 'disarray' over Lewis" gets splashed on many BBC summary news pages (and other media, too).
When you actually arrive at the page it starts ""Labour has said ..." and as you read on it's nothing more than one of Ms Blears' feeble diatribes, with much less substance than was often directed against Red Ken.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7491167.stm
Don't get me wrong, though, I'm in no way sorry for the Tories but do believe that Boris was a less awful choice than Ken.
Complain about this comment
170 brownedov, Cant agree with much that you say, I think we have had enough posts about the Lisbon treaty, my opinion on that is obviously diametrically apposed to yours.
I would only ask you one question if you had of voted would you have read the document yourself, perhaps two questions do you honestly believe that everyone that would have voted would have read it.
Complain about this comment
169:
The Blears and Livingstone brief foray against Boris Johnson and David Cameron which claimed that they were in disarray regarding The Ray Lewis Affair has proved to be yet another damp squib to match the 'Divisive Davis' thread which has now disappeared from these blogs. I see little mention of The Lewis Affair anywhere but rather a concerted Labour meltdown reference with regard to their candidate in Glasgow East. If I had any respect for either Hazel Blears or Ken Livingstone I might be a little more concerned.
Complain about this comment
#170 Brownedov
Here is what some people across Europe said about the constitution/treaty;
The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor
A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties.
Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister
The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters the core is left.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister
They haven’t changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there.
Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach
It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.
Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner
Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.
Vaclav Klaus, Czech President
There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.
Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister
This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.
Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution
Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.
Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution
They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not
constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Should you succeed in understanding it
at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that
there is something new.
Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister
The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to
be unreadable. The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear.
It is a success.
Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister
Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?
Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg
The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.
Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister
The manifesto is what we put to the public. We’ve got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.
Gordon Brown, 24 June 2007
The Constitutional Treaty has been abandoned.”
David Miliband, Foreign Secretary
Complain about this comment
#169 grandantidote
A number of commenters have been banging on about media bias so to restore this balance I have inserted the following link;
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032385/Labour-MP-spent-500-000-taxpayers-money-running-office-home-staffed-wife.html
A Labour MP used almost £500,000 of taxpayers' money over six years to help run an office from his home which was staffed by his wife.
David Marshall, 67, who has quit to spark the Glasgow East by-election on July 24, used the expenses to pay for a constituency office and staff.
But Mr Marshall's office was in his semi-detached Glasgow home and he employed his wife Tina as his secretary. It is also believed he paid his daughter Christina to work from his home from the same pool of money.
A Commons spokesman said MPs can use their home as an office but only claim for additional costs like 'extra phone lines, heating and lighting'.
Complain about this comment
175 2010 Well there you are then as I said , Nuff said!
Complain about this comment
Re #173 from grandantidote:
Please note that I only put the bio stuff in #170 because of all your assumptions in #168.
"I think we have had enough posts about the Lisbon treaty, my opinion on that is obviously diametrically apposed to yours."
So you're a Brownite opposed to Lisbon then. Interesting - 1st I've come across.
Your Q1 doesn't arise because of course I read the Treaty as well as the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe as signed in Rome on 29 October 2004" and the "Draft Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community" of 23 July 2007 long before the referendum promise was even put to the House of Cards let alone ratted on by them.
Despite the democratic defecit in Europe, I don't think it's quite so bad as that in the UK, and so would almost certainly voted to accept it in the hope of future improvement from within.
The answer to your Q1 is NO.
Of course, I do not believe that even a small fraction of those who voted would have read it. That's entirely beside the point. A promise is a promise, full stop.
Once you rat on your promises nobody can ever believe you again, as The Supreme Leader is rapidly discovering.
Complain about this comment
174 Waldorf, I've got a feeling its yet to come, cant imagine Trudie or eaton rifle are going to let it slip by, but we'll see.
Complain about this comment
Re #175 from Roll_On_2010:
I agree with every word you say and please note that my #170 ends by castigating the LibDems for ratting on their promise in the same way that NuLabour did.
Please read my #178 if the mods approve it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Boris Johnson is a test case of how the conservatives are ready to run the country. They chose Boris Johnson as their candidate for the reason that he is the only Conservative that anyone likes or even heard of and that is because of his 'upper class twit'(from Monty Python) style bungling reputation. Was it wise to put forward this person as the most powerful Conservative in the country? We will find out when this Ray Lewis affair is settled.
But is he up to the job. Is he actually doing the job or just a front man? If so are the conservatives helping him out up to the job.
As for divisive Davis. Who will be leading the conservatives at the next election Cameron or David Davis? The future leadership challenger if his publicity stunt is anything to go by. Habious corpus(28 days is OK though), civil liberties or Bring back hanging?. I doubt that is a damp squib either. We are just outnumbered on this site that's all. For whatever reason.
Complain about this comment
#180 Brownedov
I agree with every word you say and please note that my #170 ends by castigating the LibDems for ratting on their promise in the same way that NuLabour did.
Yes I noted that and totally agree. It did look for a short time that they had gained some backbone and supported the call for a referendum. Then they did the funny U turn of all or nothing!
I also read your #178 and agree with it.
Complain about this comment
Re #182 from dhwilkinson:
"We are just outnumbered on this site that's all. For whatever reason."
Poor you. The fact you're unsure of the reason why speaks volumes.
Could it just be that the proles no longer believe NuLabour spin and your Supreme Leader's broken promises? Or perhaps it's all the blethering about listening instead of actually doing it?
Fooling all of the people all of the time almost proved possible for Bliar, but it was catching up with him when he handed over to the new Supreme Leader.
With Brown a zero on the salesmanship scale compared to Bliar's 10, it's no wonder that the solid waste is rapidly approaching the air movement device.
Not dithering (see my #162) and honouring promises (see my #178) might have saved him, but it's probably already too late.
I do recognise that we're not a representative lot - there are always more moaners than praisers, but just look and listen for a while and you'll find there's precious few agreeing with you just now.
Complain about this comment
182:
If Ray Lewis is found guilty of wrongdoing so be it. He won't be reinstated and Boris Johnson will carry on regardless! Hazel Blears is so unpopular on here it beggars belief! Who on earth apart from a committed few are going to agree with her.
Complain about this comment
173 brownedov, What assumptions they were opinions not assumptions. I am a socialist not a Brownite or a Blairite or any other ite, its not wise to try to be to clever by thinking that your smarter than the guy your posting too, many have come unstuck with that ridiculous attitude. You are quite aware that when I said that my opinion was diametrically opposed to yours, you knew that I was obviously opposed to having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Your answer to question 1, You say of course I've read it as if it was a given, I have asked many times on these blogs if anybody had read even one of these treaties no one has ever said yes and then you say of course I have. well let me tell you that you are one of a very small minority that have read either of them and that includes MPs from all parties.
I am glad that after reading these treaties that you would have voted in favour so in spite of the fact that there was no referendum on the Lisbon Treaty you had a good result although perhaps not in the way you would have wanted it.You know and I know that had it of gone to a referendum the answer would have been no.
The Tory anti european machinery would have sprung into action with the full backing of the tory press. The people as they did in ireland would have voted the way they were told by those that could spend the most cash.
I am not going to argue about the why's and wherefores of not having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as you and I are never going to agree on that, and it has been debated to death on these blogs.
If I may ask you one more question, no catches, do you agree with me that matters of this kind should never be decided by referendum
Complain about this comment
186 Waldorf the only people on here that thinks Hazel Blears is unpopular are tories [and the I'm not a Tory brigade] why just her, last week it was Jackie Smith and Wendy and every week its Gordon Brown, next week it will be someone else you dont really think that we take all your Tory spiteful bile to heart do you, we have come to expect that behaviour from Tories since the labour party was formed, you know the old sticks and stones mantra dont you, well now its time to go out with your chalk and write on the wall "I hate Hazel"and then watch and see what a response you get,
Come on waldorf you can do better than this..
Complain about this comment
I'm rooting for Federer but I have a nasty feeling that Nadal will just nick it. Won't be too unhappy about that as I was a big supporter of Borg and would rather his 5 in a row wasn't beaten. Night all!
Complain about this comment
Brownedov@184
"Re #182 from dhwilkinson:
"We are just outnumbered on this site that's all. For whatever reason."
Poor you. The fact you're unsure of the reason why speaks volumes.
Could it just be that the proles no longer believe NuLabour spin and your Supreme Leader's broken promises?"
_______________
"Supreme leader" thats Andrew Neils line isn't it. Not very funny when he uses it either. He's a bit of a Conservative isn't he?
Are you sure you aren't one? We get quite a few obvious Conservative who aren't Conservatives on here.
I also recall you didn't like David Mitchell being biased in favour of Labour on Question time.
Proles, thats from George Orwells 1984 short for proletariate I believe. Also a term of abuse. Is your intention to teach us proles the error of our ways?
By "We are out numbered" I meant not one of the usual suspects Conservatives/ukip/bnp. There are few People who would speak against Cameron and Boris Johnson on this site. That was what the comment was about.
Complain about this comment
Re #186 from grandantidote:
I apologise for having deduced your Brownite-ness on the clearly mistaken assumption that only NuLabour acolytes would say "Gordon who I think is a brilliant man". I should have done some homework by reading your profile.
"What assumptions they were opinions not assumptions."
See your #168 re CarrotsneedaQUANGO2's sex and politics.
"You are quite aware that when I said that my opinion was diametrically opposed to yours, you knew that I was obviously opposed to having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."
Not at all. Your #168 gave a clue to your support for NuLabour but my #170 ends "the Lisbon Treaty, for which I might have voted given the chance". I simply made the obviously mistaken assumption that you had read my post before commenting upon it.
"Your answer to question 1, You say of course I've read it as if it was a given..."
Sorry again. I was brought up never to sign anything without understanding it. I rather assumed it was a given in fora like this but clearly I'm wrong. I do know that many have not understood it, but that's very different from not reading it.
"I am glad that after reading these treaties that you would have voted in favour so in spite of the fact that there was no referendum on the Lisbon Treaty you had a good result although perhaps not in the way you would have wanted it."
There you go assuming again. I am a democrat first and foremost. Without democratic validity the Treaty is waste paper, and there's a long way to go before it's implemented. But I will grudgingly admit that if it's implemented there will be a little consolation that it will improve our rights against an increasingly authoritarian UK government.
"You know and I know that had it of gone to a referendum the answer would have been no."
Yes, but that's called democracy.
"If I may ask you one more question, no catches, do you agree with me that matters of this kind should never be decided by referendum"
I couldn't disagree with you more. If you'd done your homework by reading some of my recent BBC blog postings you'd know that I spend a lot of my time in Switzerland and very much admire their Direct Democracy and Federal Constitution.
Enough of this - back to snouts in the trough, eh?
Complain about this comment
190 brownedo, Yes I think that maybe some where we found some common ground.
Democracy only works if its based on a level playing field, Mugabwe would say that he is a democrat, and that he held a democratic election.
The last question I merely asked the question nothing more.
There is no point in going over these posts point by point I think that we both now understand the others point of view.
As you say back to the troughs.
Complain about this comment
Re #189 from dhwilkinson:
""Supreme leader" thats Andrew Neils line isn't it....."
No. Private Eye's from their PM Decree column. I used to work with Andrew before he became (in?)famous and we have a similar sense of humour, so he happens to have borrowed it, too. Don't know his politics, though. Mine are there for you to see in my #170 and #172 or click on my pseudonym to see all my postings.
"I also recall you didn't like David Mitchell being biased in favour of Labour on Question time."
Guilty as charged, but if you read my postings you'll see it was because he wasn't funny instead. I'd have felt the same if he'd been biased for the Tories, LibDems, UKIP, Sinn Fein or whoever.
"Proles, thats from George Orwells 1984 short for proletariate I believe. Also a term of abuse."
My OED dates it from 1938 and 1984 wasn't published until 1948, but I do seem to recall Orwell using the term. My OED just says "Colloq. abbrev. of Proletarian". Not exactly abuse but hardly flattering.
"Is your intention to teach us proles the error of our ways?"
Certainly not, and I apologise for a silly typo. I meant to write "Could it just be that us proles no longer believe NuLabour ....". I regard myself as a prole within NuLabour's empire.
"By "We are out numbered" I meant not one of the usual suspects Conservatives / ukip / bnp."
Understood, but many won't. I suppose all 3 are unionists, but then so are NuLabour and many LibDems. It would be more interesting to know why you want to group them together.
"There are few People who would speak against Cameron and Boris Johnson on this site. That was what the comment was about. "
As I said in my #172, "Don't get me wrong, though, I'm in no way sorry for the Tories but do believe that Boris was a less awful choice than Ken". See also my #166 re Cameron.
Complain about this comment
Re #191 grandantidote:
OK. Just one final thought on democracy:
If you can't trust the people how can they trust you?
Complain about this comment
193 brownedov, iI have just wrote my popinion of trusting the people but it has,nt even reached the moderaters its jus disapeared.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone in this so called 'debate' (or moaning show) know about what is typical week for an MP? I mean how many hours do they dedicate to their constituents and the parliamentary duties in a week? Are they working merely 40 hours, 5 days a week? I don't think so. The MP surgeries are held mainly in the weekends, for instance. And they have party meetings even in the evenings.
Wasn't this tight schedule the reason why Maggie Thatcher couldn't get her party's support during her early political career, with the questions like: "How are you going to take care of your young children whilst having to commit yourself to the duties as an MP?"
And even before getting the chance to become an MP, one has to raise funds for his/her electoral campaigns; and they have to be paid back. So naturally, you won't see MPs pay the same as yours (median income of c.£25,000).
Put that into perspective, and you will realise that being an MP is far away from happy-go-lucky kind of lifestyle. I think they work harder than those prefer to live on benefits instead of taking £7/hour jobs (leaving them to the immigrants), and still moaning about difficulties in putting food on the table and the immigrants stealing their jobs.
Complain about this comment
Re #195 royalfulhambroadway:
People have been queuing up to stand as MPs and been pelted with rotten fruit at the hustings for their trouble since before the Act of Union.
They weren't paid at all until 1911, when the Liberal government acknowledged it was a bar to the working class standing for the House of Cards.
If MPs were paid the national minimum wage and provided with accomodation in Nissen huts in Green Park instead of their allowances there would still be queues wanting to stand.
I don't say that we should go quite that far but your concern for the poor darlings is misdirected.
Complain about this comment
Well Bromedov #196:
I don't think in this day and age people would consider standing up as an MP with national wage pay. That doesn't make any sense. And that would mean the MPs will work 'part-time', doing other jobs besides parliamentary duties. Is that better? Having part-time MPs?
The Tories, in particular, most of them are Eton and Oxbridge educated, could find far better paying jobs (with power/lobby in political sense as well) with less commitment in terms of working hours. Why bother?
Anyway my point was, this country becomes a country of moaners. How much really people in this forum pay tax, to consider themselves a significant 'stakeholder' of MPs pay?
Why not think about ourselves, how should we live our lives getting through this difficult economic situation, instead of begging/demanding for assistance from the state? MPs are humans, you can't expect them to childmind your needs; they have their own too.
And about tax, nobody in the world doesn't pay tax. Live with it. You were born British, with its advantages and disadvantages. Can't bear with the latter? Emigrate
Complain about this comment
Re #197 royalfulhambroadway
I suspect we'll have to agree to differ on this as we're clearly on different wavelengths, but I'll have one try at responding.
"Is that better? Having part-time MPs?"
So nothing would change then. Right now some are, some aren't - at their choice. All the ministers (who've always been paid) always have been part-time, as their voting records confirm. So are many others, especially many of the lawyers and journalists from all parties.
For a specific, current example, last Thursday's votes were all in the afternoon yet 326 of them weren't there to vote. I quipped in my #158 that they were probably all stuck in the queue at John Lewis, but the reality is that a lot of them were working at their "day jobs", a few of them may have been sick and the rest were simply playing truant.
It's not as though we're talking about all-night sittings here but a debate and the related votes taking place in ordinary business hours on an ordinary working day.
In any event, most outside NuLabour seem to be agreed that we have had too much legislation over the past decade. Official part time working would cut down this creeping erosion of our common law.
"I don't think in this day and age people would consider standing up as an MP with national wage pay."
If you re-read my #196 you'll see that I said "I don't say that we should go quite that far...", but it's not been tried since 1911, so neither of us can say for sure.
Perhaps an alternative would be to pay them more like maintenance services. Say a small retainer for the constituency work and a high hourly rate for every complete hour spent in the HoC chamber or committee rooms (checked automatically from the electronic tags issued as a badge of office) and a piece-work rate for every vote cast in one of the lobbies. You wouldn't often see the chamber empty as you do now on BBC Parliament.
Alternatively, charities get lots of experienced wrinklies working for little or nothing because (like me) they've semi- or early retired and want to contribute something. You'd see many such standing and they would not only bring real world experience but would be much less subject to the whips because they would listen to the debates and not care about promises or threats concerning ministerial office or even deselection for that matter. The party leaderships would all hate it because the days of MPs going into the lobbies without having attended the debate would end, but at least the MPs would understand the laws before they voted on them.
If MPs' constituents thought they were not doing a good job, they would throw them out exactly as they do now. I only ever needed an MPs help once in the days of the Major government involving freezing of assets during the 1st Gulf War. My Labour MP was of no help in putting my case and merely forwarded my letter to the Tory minister who of course did nothing. If others have experiences of MPs helping their constituents I'm surprised they haven't recorded them on this thread.
It is instructive to note that none of the main parties have ever had much trouble in getting a shortlist of candidates to select from until NuLabour's current problems in Glasgow East. Even there, you've had a couple of stalwarts announced from the beginning in case Curran doesn't stand. Turkeys voting for Christmas, if you ask me, but that's the allure I referred to in my original post.
We really will have to disagree on your remaining point. I'm not prepared to argue in detail on absolute taxation. Overall I think it's too high but that inefficiency is the reason for most of the excess. I'd argue more about how tax is raised:
VAT is an evil necessity because it's the only way to collect tax easily from foreign tourists - I'd be unhappy to see it go above 20%.
Excise duties are primarily taxes on the poor (fuel, tobacco and alcohol) and manifestations of the 'nanny' state (tobacco and alcohol) and should be abolished or the substances themselves made available only on NHS prescription to addicts.
Income tax should be much more progressive with realistic bands ranging from 10% to 50% with the starting point above the minimum wage.
Corporation and other taxes are too complex to categorise in this way so I'll leave them be.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS