Politics update

Parliament is in recess this week so no PMQs update. However it is a good time, now the dust is settling a bit, to take stock of the fallout of the last few weeks.

The speaker has forced from office by weight of opinion in the commons (although frankly this was just a scapegoat attempt by MPs). The precedent here, breaking the last 300 years of tradition, is potentially alarming for the power of parliament but of limited significance to the wider public who are largely unaffected by the speakers authority.

The re-selection of MPs as candidates for the next election is looking more unlikely in many constituencies. Some of the back benchers taking the worst heat from the Telegraph have already declared they will not be standing. This morning a Tory mp on radio 5 attempted a bleeding heart defence of her claims saying that she was only trying to balance her parliamentary duties with caring for her son. This argument produced a sum total of no sympathy among listeners responding in the phone in programme (there are millions of working mothers who don't get state help, why should she? being the usual response) and by lunchtime the announcement of her readiness to step down was made. No front bencher from either side has yet made a similar announcement but on the whole the spot light has generally turned away from them.

David Cameron has been busy. In an interview on Sunday he said he was opening the conservative candidate list to anyone, whether previous party member or not. This is an idea I feel positively about and also is not a "say anything do nothing" announcement which I am pleased about. On Tuesday he announced his clean up politics strategy. And it is interesting. In a nut shell he plans to

1. "seriously consider" the possibility of fixed term parliaments.
2. enlarge constituencies to make a smaller house of commons
3. publish expense details of high paid officials and expensive projects online
4. allow free votes to MPs on all bills at committee stage
5. limit the use of royal prerogative
6. give backbenchers power over timetabling of bills and electing members and chairmen of select committees

This all sounds good but I have a few reservations. Fixed term parliaments are only good if there is a way to dissolve hung parliaments that are achieving nothing. (This was the problem the US had in the last term where the house and senate were democrat and the president republican). Enlarging constituencies would limit the contact MPs would have with constituents. Otherwise these proposals are good if he sticks to them. The free vote idea has the problem that he would have to enforce it on all parties to make it work. I'm not sure he could achieve that.

PMQs 20/5/2009 - You arrogant %&*@>

I really do try to be fair in my posts here. So i will start with the good bit about PMQs. I actually missed the first half live and had to rewatch it. And in the second half there were good questions which were actually getting proper answers. I was startled but pleased. It seemed that the attempt to improve politics involved using PMQs for what it should be for.

Then I saw the first half and found out why Brown was being so open. Because he had managed to drop a vast nuclear bomb on his head.

The arrogance of the man is beyond believe. Cameron admitedly was playing a bit of sound bite politics, since I'm not certain he'd really want an election now. It would just be too uncertain with the possibility of a ragbag of smaller parties piling into the gulf left by the expenses scandal. (parlimentary scaremongers keep raising the issue of votes for the BNP). But for Brown to stand up and say that he will not allow the British people their voice simply because he might not like what they say is the most undemocratic and downright ridiculous thing he has ever said. And thats up against some stiff competion (saving the world etc).

But this wasn't a slip of the tongue. This was terrifying candidness. Brown has admitted to the house and the country that he is too scared to fight an election. Which translates as he's too determined to hang on to power to realise that he does not have the support of the public. Were this a monarchy and Brown the king and revolution would be imminent with a statement like that!

He could have got out of it. He really could. There are valid reasons not to hold an election. Firstly there's the question of precedent. If a decision by a future government is unpopular, if a few mps get involved in scandels does that trigger an election? This arguement does have something of the "What next?" label about it and it wouldn't have sounded great, but it beats the answer he did give. The problem is, he has basically said he doesn't have faith in the system the elected him to the commons (if not as PM: he still has never had to win a vote on that!) and this represents a basic lack of faith in Britain. Brown is looking less and less likely to have any chance in an election when one happens.

Cameron's tactical manouvre of leaving a question unasked was quite astute. Brown was probably hoping for one last big hit but Cameron stopped him. Well done.

Nick Clegg did well again. He has risen well in the past few weeks to the point that Labour MPs were trying to drown him out, something they almost never do. The banter between him and the speaker was fun, and the dignified recovery from not being initally given his second question showed him in a good light. Brown tried to get in on the act but failed. And then said that reforming the british democracy was vital

You have to wonder how many people he's got trying to find a way to change it so the least popular man wins

Brown comes good

There is a title I didn't expect to write.

Brown made an apology for the whole of parliment in a speech to a nursing union conference today. Watching the speech (which you the reader can here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8043499.stm) I have to say I'm impressed.

Brown looks vary awkward, he kept walking around and not really keeping eye contact. Strangly I found this more reassuring. Afterall the expenses row is not something they can be proud of and if he'd given a polished confident speech I'd have not been convinced by him at all. As it was he seemed genuinly shamed and awkward which was quite appropriate.

He also did better than Cameron. Cameron wanted MPs to apologise for the system. Brown apologised for the loss of trust and the fact that MPs had upset the public. This is the attitude that politicians should be taking. Well done Gordon

MPs expenses - a hoot and a half

The leaked documents published this morning in the telegraph (and since reprinted in every news outlet) are, frankly hilarious. However the Evening Standard's coverage has had me in stiches as this included responses from all the government ministers. I counted. Expressions to the effect of "entirely within the rules" appeared in 9 ministers statements out of 12. And in not a single case was it a convincing justification.

I do feel a bit sorry for Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary. He claimed for the costing of kitting out a new home while his own house was being repaired from a devasting fire. His statement talks of consulting the authorities at the commons (who come out this really badly) about what would be appropriate to claim in the circumstances. I don't see this as particulaly irresponsible or scandalous.

Some of the other claims begger belief though. I particulaly like the MALE tory mp (no longer in the house) who claimed for two packs of tampax. I would really like to hear him justify why he needed them to carry out his parlimentary duties!

The thing is, none of the mps quoted today (I've no doubt the weekend will bring a fresh load of fun since the editor of the telegraph said on radio 5 last night that he had more to come over the next few days. The Tory front bench next maybe? That should make for good reading!), seem able to see that their being "within the rules" does not make it alright. One of the big things to come out of the G20 was the aim to shut down offshore tax havens. People evading taxes in this way were acting "within the rules" but have been vilified by the government. Frankly I see absolutly no difference between legal tax evasion techniques and these expense claims. Both are robbing the tax payers of large sums of money by legal means. Its that simple.

Particulaly hilarious though was Andy Burnham. The culture secretary is reported to have resubmitted the same bill for renovations three times. The first two times he was turned away but the third time he got the money. Nothing is noted as having changed (though it is not explicitly stated that nothing did) before the successful resubmission. He also said in one submission that his wife might divorce him if the commons didn't pay up. His defense? He didn't have one. He simply tried to bluster his way through it all by saying that he underclaimed by £40,000 over the last five years. Though it is unclear whether he meant by this that he claimed £40k less than the maximum he otherwise could have or whether he'd not claimed for £40,000 of personal expenses that were covered by "the rules". Either way it's not a defence for taking money for something the house of commons fees office twice said was inappropriate.

By the way just a couple of these rules for you to mull over. "MPs must ensure claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial gain to themselves or or anyone else" and "MPs should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagent or luxurious". And the guidance at the end where the rules acknowledge that there will be "areas of uncertainty" it says "MPs might consider how comfortable they would feel with [the expense] being made public under Freedom of Information". Or even through a leak.

I'll bet a lot of MPs are rethinking how comfortable they really are about their claims now.

And the best quote of the whole lot? Education secretary Ed balls. Quote: People don't want to hear politicians saying "it's within the rules" unquote.

PMQs-6/5/2009 Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear...

Looking back at this PMQs Brown will feel he did well. At first glance (and without reading between the lines, something that we, the public, don't do afterall) he landed a series of beat downs on Cameron and finished the exchange with a neat decapitation of the tory party. I'm sure he feels good about it.

Except thats not what happened. What happened was that Cameron handed over his sword weakly to watch with glee as Brown stabbed himself with it!

Cameron did waste his questions. Unfortunatly Brown also wasted his answers.

He pointed out that noone agrees with tory policy, conveniently forgetting people answering the opinion polls. If the french, germans etc could keep Brown in office he'd be laughing. Oh dear. They can't.

He accused Cameron of reducing everything to personality (which Cameron was) but then said that Cameron was "out of his depth", that Cameron is "simply not up to the task". So thats looking at the big picture is it Gordon?

This post is being rather one sided thus far so let me restate that frankly Cameron and almost the entire conservative party were apalling in the way they wasted all the questions they asked, coming across as overconfident and arrogant, not something I want from any politician right now. The sad fact is though that they showed how right they are about Brown due to party pleasing but kamikase responses.

The ultimate irony was his response to the last of Cameron's questions. He responded that the tory leader had not asked about any serious issue. My response, echoed by conservative peer Lord Strathclyde was that Brown never answers these questions when asked so what was the point? My opinion was partially confirmed when Iain Duncan-Smith asked about the Gurkhas and had to wait till the last sentence of a long "this is what we did before which them overthere wouldn't/didn't do" speech to get his answer. Point proven.

Gordon Brown may have killed himself in parliment. But parliment as a whole has killed itself before the general public.

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.