Concerns with Cameron's clean-up campaign

I'm getting restless about David Cameron's political energy. He has always come across as a decent chap, quite straight and honest, and there is a backbone of steel when required. The trouble with steel is that it can get hot and cold.

With this expenses row I'm feeling he is pushing the right buttons but isn't being 100% correct about it. This morning he was "doing the rounds" of the radio stations. John Humphrys asked him about the wisteria. "I paid the money back!" he retorted, quickly. Then tried to move on in a hurry. A lot of this is seemingly like a juggernaut shifting gears on the M1. Cameron talks a good case, but will it deliver fairly? I have my doubts. It's all a bit of a political curate's egg for me.

Why is it OK for him to skate over his wisteria payments but cast a shadowy comment over the moats and beams? He says he is being "robust" and suggests that associations can deselect MPs they fall out of favour with. I rather feel it's a bit unfair on Douglas Hogg that his moat cleaning is seen as being "wrong" but Cameron's wisteria clearance is seen as "right".

David Cameron is leading his party into the new promised land. I don't disagree with that. But he should be more clear about the fairness of that new land and he should be more in tune with the electorate's outrage. It is not so much about the expenses themselves, rather the attitude behind the taking of them. With some MPs there has been a flagrant determination to garner as much as possible whichever way seemed best. It is the cynical abuse of a reasoned and fair system that grates. It is the rank hypocrisy that grates. It would have been better if Cameron had admitted clearly that his own expenses were just as erroneous as others. If he is suggesting that associations can call a meeting for reappraising an MP's candidature then that applies across the parliamentary party.

I think a better solution is for political parties to hold primaries for their candidate selection. Open politics should allow for debate and discussion. If a member doesn't retain the confidence of the party then he/she will not win the ballot for nomination. Proposing a new system is better than vaguely threatening the use of an existing one. A new broom for a new room!