MPs expenses published

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has just published details of 576 MPs' expenses. It totals £3.2 million. It's all quite absurd. This new quango costs a fortune and MPs are still not happy. What they should do is just claim for personal expenses and the rest is seen as being part of the job. What other organisations get their work-related costs shoved down as expenses. The trouble is parliament is still seen as a gentlemen's club rather than a place for modern democratic debate. Just by publishing some figures IPSA isn't going to solve the problem.

Ex-MP Elliot Morley due in court over expenses

Yesterday's Man?

It's Elliot Morley's day in court this time. He is due to appear in his first hearing to face allegations of dishonestly claiming more than £30,000 in parliamentary expenses. Mr Morley, who quit Parliament at the last election, denies two counts of false accounting relating to mortgage claims between 2004 and 2007.

I remember him coming out of his house denying all the charges. He still is it seems. However, he runs the risk of the judge adding on several months extra jail time if the court finds otherwise. An MP who coughs up and says sorry is one thing. An ex-MP who digs in his heels is quite another. Time will tell. He's in court at 4pm.

UPDATE

He pleaded guilty after all. The Crown Prosecution Service said, "The Parliamentary expenses system exists to assist the public's representatives in carrying out their duties, but Mr Morley used it to line his own pockets with just over £30,000 - more than an average household's annual income. Such behaviour is blatantly dishonest and cannot be excused." Quite so. But there are plenty of others out there in the corporate world doing very similar things. A broader brush is required.

Eric Illsley to leave Commons within the month

Eric Illsley is going to do the decent thing. He's resigning as an MP. Barnsley Central constituents won't need to be prison visitors unless of course they want to be.

What Illsley should have done was to step aside at the General Election. He knew then what he knows now. He pushed the bounds of political decency beyond a certain point. It's been said he just followed the system. In fact, he's on record as saying it was all seen as a pay top-up. In some ways the House of Commons is very much like a public school. All MPs who cravenly accepted the "fees" basis for getting a bit extra on the side are guilty of trying to run a secret system. They got found out. Illsley just took it a bit too far for the others to accept. He's guilty as charged, but is he any more morally wrong than the others?

David Cameron said last week that politics isn't always fair. No its not. And the way the expenses scandal has been handled that statement is very true. Some MPs got away with it (just paid it back), others got thrown out by fellow members they had never got on with, and some, like Illsley, end up as convicts. In some ways I feel a bit sorry for Eric Illsley. He forged a few documents in order to gain some extra cash. Others just presented original documents for things they never really needed. In reality, it was all some fantastical forgery, a con on the public. Just as at school, the ones that let the side down big time get the stick.

If only they had had the guts to present a proper pay structure that all could see.

Labour MP admits expenses fraud

Labour MP Eric Illsley has admitted he fraudulently claimed more than £20,000 in parliamentary expenses. Appearing at Southwark Crown Court, he admitted three charges of false accounting. This after he strenuously denied any wrongdoing. I get the impression that for quite a few MPs, the culture of shoving things down as expenses was a completely OK thing because they felt aggrieved at their "low pay". They should get real. Let them have proper salaries and proper expenses. Even now the whole remuneration system is creaking alongside mutterings and moanings.

No doubt Illsley will do time. Will his constituents have to become prison visitors if they want to see him or will there be a by-election? We should all be told!

Tom DeLay in de dog house - 3 years jail time

Former US House Republican Leader Tom DeLay has been sentenced to three years in prison on conspiracy charges. The Texas politician was convicted of conspiring to funnel corporate campaign contributions to legislative races in Texas, in violation of state law. He says, "I can't be remorseful for something I don't think I did". He probably hasn't heard of Mandy Rice Davies, but I'll quote her. "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"

It's funny how some politicians delude themselves. In Britain, David Chaytor, former Labour MP, denied any wrongdoing until it was all put in front of him in big bold print. Now he got only 18 months. DeLay has got twice as much. That's the thing about America. Everything's just that bit bigger!

David Cameron and the wisteria bill!

So there I was, talking about David Cameron and his expense claim for wisteria removal and, lo and behold, he's still giving answers on the subject. Answers that don't quite assuage the public, if the London Evening Standard is anything to go by.

Cameron says, "I took the decision that because of some of the very bad things that had happened, I thought it was very important to show some leadership ... so I paid back one very important claim, which was a claim for household maintenance which included the famous wisteria on the house because, of course, the chimney didn't work so I couldn't actually heat the house." But does one fireplace heat a whole house? It's all a bit schoolboy-in-front-of-headmaster stuff. I'd have preferred him to say that he should not have claimed for the wisteria removal in the first place, that he was sorry, that he would pay the money back and that a line would be drawn in the sand. A new start.

Instead, he is still trying to prove a point. He claims leadership but has been quite brutal to others by suggesting they were that much more wrong. How is the duck house or the moat clearance any different. I'll tell you what I think. I think he thought it a good time to get rid of the likes of Douglas Hogg and Sir Peter Viggars. Make them look like stale bread in the Modern Conservative Party.

It really won't do. There is NOT ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE between Douglas Hogg's moat and David Cameron's chimney. Both got a thorough cleansing at taxpayer's expense. I just think it is all wrong to scapegoat those who can be thought of as dispendable politically.

Stuart Wheeler wheels out his Trust Party

So Stuart Wheeler is spreading his bets by hoping to be elected as Trust Party MP for Bexhill & Battle. Did he pick this seat because he wants a battle on his hands? Surely Greg Barker is not the best target to complain about politicians with a past. I would have thought he might have picked an opponent with a "bit of previous".

And why start a new party? He gave money to UKIP. He knows Nigel Farage is trying his level best to get rid of the Squeaker in Buckingham. This just divides the anti-sleaze brigade's forces. And if UKIP is now not to his fancy why not sidle up to the Jury Team boss, Sir Paul Judge? I get the impression that the minor parties like to think the forthcoming general election is a bit like the Grand National. A mad rush over the jumps and the possibility that the favourites will fall. It's wishful thinking.

I wish Stuart Wheeler well in his campaign. But that's as far as it goes. However, if he wins, then his own battle will enter the electoral history books.

Has Honour gone the same way as Prudence?

Gordon Brown once had a special flame called Prudence. She was mentioned in nearly every speech he made about the economy and in his erstwhile condemnation of greed. That was before he found his moral compass faced more directions than the planet Earth could cope with. Then Prudence was given the heave-ho. Honour is another trusty female who comes into regular contact with parliamentarians. She is there to make them behave themselves in a self-controlling way. However, she too has been violated recently, and not just by the men! Both Honour and Prudence are having a hard time.

Now we are to have candidates at this election being urged to declare details of other jobs they may have, property assets and their tax status. This is at the recommendation of a watchdog (without an electric collar I hear). So when it comes to wondering if we are electing honourable people the answer is propably not. Nobody trusts anybody these days and there is precious little doubt as to why that is. Corruption and seediness are all around us. What we will have before us are a collection of highly vetted, deeply scrutinised, morally flawless paragons of political trite and trivia. All will be "on message", none will have the slightest idea of how to respond to a question for which there is no cribbed answer. It will be ghastly.

I fear we are throwing the political baby out with the bathwater. Sending your old bathwater down the plughole is one thing, but being asked to sit in a bath full of disinfectant is quite another. I want my parliamentary representative to be a spirited advocate not a sterile apparatchik.

Ex-ministers push pigs away from trough!

Any surprise that Stephen Byers has been caught trying to get his snout back in the trough. And Geoff Hoon? These guys not only want to take the biscuit but the trough feed as well. Greedy pigs comes to mind, but as I'm a great fan of the porcine creatures it does a great disservice to pigs to equate them with the greedy creatures that have been spawned by New Labour!

All this adds grist to the mill that will grind this greed out of our political culture, hopefully! Roll on the general election.

First class fun on the trains

I've heard Nicholas Winterton speak up about travelling first class on the trains and I am probably a lone voice here but I think he has a point (even if he put it in a vigorous non-PC way!). Not only that, but most of the gainsayers are hypocrites. I can't for the life of me think that Rupert Murdoch would travel on a train in Britain in second class (or is it standard class?). It is quite right to say that first class offers the benefits of an office environment. The Radio 5 presenter was just trying to be provocative. I've travelled on a train down to London by standard fare. Stop at Coventry, Rubgy, etc and all sorts get on, piling up the numbers. Yes Radio 5, all sorts. People eat sandwiches from paper bags that stay on the tables, they listen to radios with earpieces sounding like a telephone on hold with an impatient caller trying to establish contact, children get tetchy, luggage is strewn in the gangway, and you get the trolley (if it is on board!). Most train companies have only one objective. Getting trains to the destination on time with as many passengers on board as possible. Having a seat is not necessarily a right. If you have to stand all the way to London, so be it. In that, nothing has changed since Doc Beeching's days.

When it comes to MPs expenses it seems we have passed the serious criticism stage and gone into the petty jealousy stage. Hypocrisy abounds. I hope never to see a Radio 5 presenter or a Daily Maily reporter in first class. In fact, why have first class. Apparently there is no need for it. Everyone is equal under Harriet Harperson's diktats. Let everyone go in one class of train. There is not a person in the land who is so important that he/she can't jolly themselves with the "ordinary people".

We need to get a grip in Britain. Either expenses are fair to have or not. If MPs are deemed unfit for first class travel, what about quango chiefs and any other government person? This story just reflects the base level certain sections of society are seeking to set their lovely equality theories at.

Bats in Quentin Davies' belfry!

Quentin Davies is an MP who left the Tories in a huff so he could dance to the New Labour tune. Having rubbished Gordon Brown's stewardship of the economy as Chancellor, he praises him as Prime Minister. I once canvassed for the man when he was describing himself as John Davies to the more humble voters of Birmingham. I introduced him to a particularly bewildered high-rise council flat dweller as John Quentin Davies (which was the name the agent was touting!) whereupon Davies had a go at me saying that he didn't want the man to think he was some kind of double-barrelled toff.

So it comes as no surprise that his bell tower needs attention. Too many political bats crapping in the thing. He has denied trying to claim on expenses the £20,700 cost of rebuilding the tower at his constituency home. As usual, it's all a misunderstanding. A bit like the whole of the New Labour regime's time in office. Blair was good at misunderstandings! "Well, yeah, look!" kind of stuff.

I haven't been proved wrong. This nonsense will rumble on and on until someone gives Brown a kick up the backside.

Parliamentary interns exploited?

The House of Commons has been doing everything on the cheap it seems. By that I mean it seems to want to get the maximum benefit out of a very small purse. We must be the only country in the world where foreigners get to have a good laugh at our expense. That's the British way - make do and mend. Currently, we're trying to mend a ridiculous system of expenses. Now another problem may have arisen.

MPs have been used to having young graduates work in their offices for nothing. Or virtually nothing. Pete Barden spent the past summer working as an intern for a Liberal Democrat MP, dealing with duties ranging from opening mail to campaign work and engaging with constituents. He says, "I was exploited but everyone's exploited. It's the way it works." Not all interns agree with the exploitation bit, but nearly all think they should be treated better financially. Maybe travel expenses would be a start, they think.

This is just another element of the crazy way MPs are scared of allowing a proper payments system to be implemented. It is also a real problem in that these interns are mainly apprenticed MPs, hoping to move onto the green benches in a dead men's shoes routine. We need proper researchers on proper pay.

I am still convinced that the next general election will be about the way MPs are paid as much as it is about their approach to the monumental debt crisis. Most voters will be so enraged come next June that votes will go all over the place. What was once a two-horse race will now be a political version of the Grand National. Pity there won't be a political version of Mrs Topham to oversee events!

Has Tony McNulty any honour?

It seems that MPs are split into two camps. Those that do an honourable job in an honourable way and are seemingly honourable people. Then there are the fiddlers, the backsliders and the muckrakers. Was it any different? Thankfully the honourable members are in the significant majority.

Tony McNulty has been huffing and puffing that he "played by the rules" but when it comes to the Fees Office and the House of Commons, for some this was no better organised than the tuck shop at Greyfriars School. "Crickey! It's old Quelch. Better hide these receipts jolly fast!" McNulty was investigated by the Parliamentary standards watchdog for claiming the second home allowance for a property in which his parents lived. This house was only nine miles from his own home! Any honourable person would have thought, wouldn't they, that a quick train or tube ride would have worked most evenings. But not Tony, oh no. He decided to pocket the maximum he could get his hands on.

It's because of his apparent greed that he has been given the parliamentary equivalent of six of the best. Plus the humiliation (well, maybe not in his case!) of handing back £13,837. And he has, along with others, given Parliament a bad name and allowed the public to think that every MP is just like him. No wonder Suzy Gale is upset by it all. She works hard for her husband and his constituents. But fellow MP Derek Conway abused the system. So his abuse is an assumed systemic cancer that every MP's spouse is capable of contracting, including Suzy? It's nonsense, of course. But it is the sad times we live in.

Common sense has left the minds of most people currently. Nobody takes responsibility. Blame the other guy. Don't admit to anything in case you get sued or arrested or whatever. It's fast becoming a polecats' paridise. Instead of allowing the dodgy characters to continue, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards John Lyon should have been allowed to recommend that certain MPs just left the House. So what if we had a load of by-elections. Far better that then letting the matter drift on.

Nick Clegg misses the point!

I'm getting a bit miffed with the party leaders and their approach to the expense scandal. They are, all three, excercising some kind of mammoth bolting procedure of a rickety stable door when the old nag itself is no longer chomping on the hay.

The truth is the Additional Costs Allowance was an unstainstable, unsupportable and totally mistaken idea in the first place. It rather vaguely said that second-home expenses may only be claimed for spending "necessarily incurred in staying overnight away from their main home for the purpose of performing their parliamentary duties". It seems all sorts were allowed, including gardening expenses. Nick Clegg and the other two leaders happily availed themselves of the system. They didn't squeak when they turned up at the Fees Office. "Gardening expenses, Mr.Clegg?" "Yeah, got a bigger mower and a smaller groundsman, er, I mean, gardener, er, or, handyman." "Right, OK, sign there then and the cash is yours. Not feeling a tad uncomfortable that you've got the most expensive gardener in Sheffield? I could always find a lad who'd do it for a quid? No, not interested? Oh, well!"

That conversation never took place. Neither did much else regarding the Allowance Scheme. However, it was what MPs were expected to be involved in. Now it's become a farce. It's one thing going after a person who has extorted cash or fiddled the system, but Nick Clegg is going after MPs who have "played by the rules". As with David Cameron, he is falling into a holier-than-thou position. This is not morally right. It is also totally undemocratic. It is not up to them to decide if a person who has not broken any rules should be de-selected. It is up to the voters to decide the merits of electing a candidate.

We are getting a kind of witch-hunt going on because the "authorities" feel uncomfortable. The truth is that legally and morally MPs who did not abuse the system should not pay anything back. The system was crazy, but then loads of businesses have crazy systems. Gordon Brown keeps telling us that continued bank bonuses are not illegal. However, it may be politically prudent for MPs to pay back unnecessary expenses.

Nick Clegg has paid back some of his gardening expenses but not all of them. Sir Thomas Legg thinks that a £1000 maximum for mowing your lawn and sweeping up the trash is OK. If he thinks that, then his time has been a waste. His first question should have been as to why an MP felt he needed to have his lawnmowing paid for in the first place.

The whole thing will not be sorted by Sir Thomas Legg and his pen-pushing exercise. No, it will be sorted at the Great Clearance Election next year!

I never promised you a rose garden!

I saw Ann Widdecombe on Sky News this morning. She's got a point. This review by Sir Thomas Legg is a kind of overlap with the Kelly review. Legg has changed the rules retrospectively. As she says, no employer who agreed an expenses formula and then changed it to suit the circumstances and demanded a proportion to be repaid would be allowed to get away with it. The employer would be up before an employment tribunal.

Added to this David Cameron is now saying that if his MPs do not pay back money at the end of the expenses review they will not be able to stand again for the Conservatives. Sorry David, this is MORAL BLACKMAIL!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. It is one thing to be found out abusing a system, but it is quite another to rebuke a member for conscientiously abiding by the rules and then, when a figure of authority makes up revised rules, force them to "repay".

I get the sense that David Cameron is desperately trying to set himself up on the moral high ground so that nothing will impede his pursuit of power. I'd rather have a Conservative party in government that got there by fair means rather than by foul ones.

Legg has changed the rules to suit the perceived circumstances. It's rather like a football referee disallowing a goal because he's reading the latest tips from Wisden. Sir Thomas is on about gardening expenses. I don't know the cost of lawn mowing as I do it myself, but if it was in the rules, how come £1,000 is now the arbitrary limit?

He might have ended his letter with "I never promised you a rose garden" because what we have here is a situation which now stinks like it has had a truckload of manure dumped on it.

MPs' expensive expenses

Today sees the publication of Sir Thomas Legg's investigation into the rights and wrongs of MPs expenses. Or rather the letters he's sending to every MP.

This sorry saga has been a mess from the start. It started with limp-wristed government (both parties are to blame!) whereby the pay of MPs was camouflaged by an interesting expenses system and a convuluted pensions arrangement. Actual salaries looked rather meagre compared with other jobs and careers. This Alice in Wonderland approach to financial settlements was aided and abetted by the chief whips and the Speaker. A form of cahoots and cover-up all mixed up with the old school tuck shop way of dishing out the goodies.

Two things come to mind. First, the MPs were clowns indeed if they thought that the system was sustainable. It never was going to be. It was open to blackmail, exposure or criticism. Possibly all three at once. Second, it was a formal arrangement, so any MP exploiting this system was only doing so because he/she was encouraged to do so. It may be morally reprehensible to claim for duck islands and wisteria cleaning, but it was not illegal. It was up to the Fees Office to say yeah or nay. The only alleged illegality is outright mortgage fraud, and that about covers every citizen.

The problem MPs find themselves in is that immorality cannot be dealt with by due legal process in this case. It is absolutely right what Sir Stuart Bell says. "I think many MPs, if they read the newspapers, may feel (Sir Thomas) is not staying within that remit, he's not respecting the decisions that were made by the fees office in accordance with the rules at the time." Absolutely. The only reason we are seing money being paid back is because MPs feel bad about it.

Gordon Brown felt bad about his Sky Sports subscription being funded from expenses. David Cameron felt bad about his wisteria being removed as a constituency expense. Both have effected a mixture of memory loss, accounting failure and "I was too busy to know" in an effort to explain themselves. If they'd both said they thought they could get away with it, I'd be more than satisfied. But we've had a show of ridiculous hand-wringing and the imposition of kangaroo courts. Hardly a moral approach.

Now it has come to some MPs wondering why they should pay back when they did nothing legally wrong. Good question. They may feel aggrieved. They may be under consituency pressure to pay back, but they don't have a legal requirement to do so. Only if it fell outside the agreement and outside the law.

Gordon Brown is begging them to "get it sorted out and let's get it back to a system that people have confidence in" but his moral compass is so in need of repair that he is the last person to be preaching.

What they should have done is drawn a line in the sand, got a simplified pay and expenses system (one side of A4 stuff!) and moved on. Now all they've got is a canker that they can't stop scratching!

Senior Tory wants MP pay doubled

Sir Patrick Cormack has fanned the flames again over MPs expenses and pay. The South Staffordshire MP, who entered Parliament in 1970, says, "I've submitted a detailed series of proposals to Sir Christopher Kelly (the standards commissioner) and I am perfectly happy that they should be published. I made it plain in my submission that I had reluctantly come to the conclusion that the simplest and fairest way forward would be an abolition of the allowances and a commensurate increase in salary. This is not a propitious time for such a change and so I made a number of detailed proposals on the allowance front which would I believe go a long way to restoring public confidence. Foremost among these was that the second home should always be rented and generally in London." What does he get for his pains. A diatribe from Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat MP from his hairshirt lair. "It's outrageous and offensive for such a senior Conservative to propose doubling MPs' pay." Why? Davey never said it was outrageous and offensive to be taking the allowances all those years. So why the humbug now?

MPs have no doubt been very silly in pretending that pay is some kind of vulgar topic, always likely to send the electorate into shock spasms. They cobbled together the Allowance Scheme. Now that allowances are to be curtailed it seems only right and proper to get a correct payment process in place. The labourer is definitely worthy of his/her hire. Let's not be mealy-mouthed about it.

There are plenty of people skimming from the top and bottom over business expenses, plenty who want fat salaries, and they are not necessarily bankers. We need to grow up about this and stop the childish prattle, petty jealousies and rather stupid remarks about MPs. It was a bad system, but let's get a new and better one in, without trying to make MPs feel bad about themselves every day.

MP Jeffrey Donaldson in saucy video viewing scandal!

Jeffrey Donaldson has got his come-uppance. He was always parroting the virtues of decent Ulster living. Now he has been caught renting so-called adult movies in a London hotel room. Peter Robinson, the dour jokeless leader of the DUP, says, "Mr Donaldson has been asked to pay back any expenses which have not been properly incurred and I understand that he intends to do so. In the light of his categorical denials, Mr Donaldson is clearly entitled to a presumption of innocence. If any evidence to substantiate the allegations can be provided we would of course wish to consider it." That is absolutely correct.

However, Donaldson's denials seem a bit hollow in light of the Daily Telegraph's account of the matter. I don't really mind if he wants to watch such movies in his spare time. What does bother me is that he saw fit to shove all the rental costs down as legitimate expenses.

The DUP is committed to Christian values, says the Telegraph. Possibly. But forgiveness is not high on their agenda. Jeffrey Donaldson spent a lot of time railing against other for immorality and not living a good life. His best bet now is to think about the beams in his own eyes before deciding on what to about the motes in others!

Flippin' 'eck, it's Bercow!

Yes, John Bercow has come through to be the voice of the Commons, the Speaker, the choice of the "reformers". This must be the first election for Speaker where the candidates were utterly eager to do the job. No more so than in Bercow's case. It is said that the bulk of the Conservative benches can't stand him. If Nadine Dorries is anything to go by, then that is true. He has a lot going against him. First, he isn't very tall. Tories are rather suspicious of diminutive men. Second, he has changed his views from Monday Club stalwart to New Labour admirer (it is alleged!). But one thing that Tories detect and fear most is political greasing. They don't mind a bit of honest armtwisting. They tolerate outright dissent on occasions. However, sucking up to gain advancement is very much frowned upon. Bercow has been accused of this.

He has also been accused of flipping his homes. I doubt though that the papers accusing him of this will have much of it stick. He appears above all this now. However, come the general election things may be a bit different. He may have a whopping majority in Buckingham, but that was Tory voters then. Would they be so keen to vote for a flipping independent next time? It could be interesting.

Buckingham has enjoyed a mixed bag of MPs. They had the delights of Robert Maxwell. John Radcliffe, who has the famous Oxford hospital named after him, was elected for Buckingham in 1713, but died the next year. Given than John Bercow will be standing for election under the banner of "The Speaker" and that both Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates will stand aside, it is open to others to mount a challenge. Horace King found he had a challenge in 1970 from the then little known National Democratic Party.

Opportunity arises for anti-sleaze candidates. Also, those out to peel away the Conservative vote, such as UKIP. It could be an interesting election. John Bercow may well need to don his reformer's habit in case the electors of Buckingham get the habit of reforming their constituency representation.

Tony Blair's cash injections

By the time Tony Blair leaves this earth to meet his Maker we will know two things. That he did a secret deal with George Bush about the War on Terror and then stitched up the House of Commons. That his property empire has been funded almost exclusively by the taxpayer whilst he was in Parliament. The Additional Costs Allowance and Tony Blair were made for each other! He even had the brass neck to claim two days before he scarpered as PM.

He has earned about £16 million since leaving office, through public speaking, directorships and a book deal. Now a lot of this money has probably gone to repay loans, but isn't it a bit rich that he used the "system" to get a leg up. Normal mortals have no such luck. Blair was an opportunist from Day One.

The Daily Telegraph asks a pertinent question - "The question of how Mr Blair was able to obtain a £3,467,500 mortgage on Connaught Square, which was more than 18 times his salary at the time, has always been surrounded in mystery." Precisely!