One would be excused to believe that nothing is going on in politics over the past ten days apart from the voyeurs posing as democracy advocates picking their way through the private lives of MPs. Dauershard presents an A to Z of more pressing issues, while trying to ignore Aga and Zanussi:
A is for Afghanistan: General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, spoke at the think tank Chatham House today, and that said the UK’s military reputation and special relationship with America has suffered from Iraq. Furthermore, he indicated that economic downturn will be used as an excuse to further squeeze defence budgets amid misallocation of resources on the Eurofighter Typhoon and MOD ineptitude. The UK is in a bloody, bitter and violent war in Afghanistan that it can scarcely afford. Dannatt said:
“The threat posed by al Qaeda-inspired Islamist extremism operating from within failed and failing states is pervasive, global and potentially deadly. So this is probably the struggle of our generation, perhaps our 30 years war, and not one that we want to fight on our own soil.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
B is for Brown: The walls continue to crumble around Fortress Brown. The cracks in his leadership are becoming increasingly difficult to plaster over. The PM needs to guide the sinking Labour ship with direction on leadership and policy, and stop playing catch up with the opposition.
C is for Cameron: There is a line in The Shawshank Redemption said by the narrator, Red: “He’s the only man I know who crawled through half a mile of shit and came out clean the other side.” The Tory leader has dealt with the current scandal smoothly, and with matronly efficiency. He kindly sent Dauershard an email this morning telling the party faithful that all the Shadow Cabinet claims have been published. Catch up Gordon.
D is for Downturn: There’s a recession on, don’t you know? Embarrassing growth forecasts, paltry micro-incentives for new cars, and the banks still not lending money, despite profits being generated – more action needed.
E is for European elections: it is nearly voting time. Thanks to The Telegraph, proportional representation, and the low standard of voter education, UKIP and (possibly) the other unsightly types are in for a sizeable harvest of MEPs. (Although it seems strange that UKIP are so desperate to get out of Europe by representing Britain in Europe: “Our policy is that we don’t want to be here?”)
F is for Freedom of information: a deeply misunderstood concept. Did you know Heather Brooke is an anagram of “Berate + hook her”?
G is for Gurkhas: the nation waits…
H is for Hope, Phil. The Care and Services Minister, clearly quite a nice chap, but surely an unpopular character in Westminster after getting out the cheque book for a bumper £42,000 pay-back.
I is for ID cards: Overpriced, effectiveness uncertain, civil liberty implications dire, unnecessary. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwW_1rswyo for comic representation.
J is for John Graham: Another string ‘em up type whose letter to the Met Police Dauershard had the misfortune of reading today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/15/john-graham-mps-expenses-letter
K is for Khan, Sadiq: The Communities Minister is one of the more earnest and hard working members of the Labour Party. A critic of Blair, local government proponent and one of the few who talks sense about housing policy. Efficient too: additional costs allowance used? £0, total costs ranking 485th out of 645.
L is for Local elections: As local government gets more and more to do, Tories do it better – simple: “Of the 46 Conservative-controlled councils, 81 per cent are improving either “strongly” or “well”, as opposed to 71 per cent of Labour councils. Not one of the Liberal Democrats’ 14 councils is “improving strongly”, with 8 “improving well”, 5 “improving adequately” and 1 subject to review.” (Times, Thursday, from Audit Commission stats).
M is for Michael Martin MP: The police were on their way to Parliament, the Speaker didn’t get his way - even Sandy Toksvig made some mean (although comic) comments. He has done a solid job for nine years and calls for his resignation are hopelessly reactionary. Carswell, with his paltry 980 majority, ought to think about winning over his constituents rather than wasting time further shaking up the of the Commons. Mr Martin’s total expenses, incidentally, are 642nd out of 645 vs Carswell’s 209th (with maximum additional cost used).
N is for Nick ‘I’ve always said’ Clegg: A lot of fringe parties will be making substantial gains from the mainstream fallout on 4th June, but lets hope the Lib Dems are not one of them (see above). Nick Clegg has carved a smart niche in the past 12 months, but his style leers between shallow and transparent. On Monday it was announced that since 2007, classes with over 30 pupils have doubled. The Lib Dems would like to see classes at 15. Mad.
O is for Oliver Letwin: He had a plumbing bill, which happened to be under a tennis court. The inevitability of the follow up stories was depressing.
P is for Post Offices: The Post Office branch of Royal Mail announced a £40m profit, despite closing 1,500 outlets. Argument for need to close loss making rural Post Offices undermined.
Q is for Quangos: One of the most ludicrous claims by the Brown government is that increased funding can be financed by efficiency cuts. What ever was inefficient, should not have been so in the first place. £1 billion is spent on consultants from the private sector every year. NHS quangos alone absorb £2.5 billion – giving ‘costing an arm and a leg’ a new meaning.
R is for Referendum: are we getting one?
S is for Sieg Heil: This video is pretty old, but deserves many more views - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgwR1pA1k0
T is for Tamiflu: All has gone quiet on the pig flu front (and who can deny a slight sense of disappointment).
U is for UKIP: The one policy party have the most entertaining piece of election material for next month’s elections – their paphlet contains the infamous picture of Winston Churchill making the V for Victory sign. Perhaps not as good as Nasty Nick Griffin’s party which (genuinely) features an airbourne Spitfire. What is this war obsession?
V is for Vince Cable: Oracle of disaster and a true wit. Few could come up with a line so cutting and amusing, when he accused Brown in PMQs of a "remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean, creating chaos out of order rather than order out of chaos."
W is for Woolas, Phil: One of Labour’s least likeable poodle ministers. See (G).
X is for Xenophobia: No need for much discussion, but Simon Darby who is the BNP’s deputy leader suggested a couple of weeks ago that Ugandans still fight with spears…
Y is for YouTube: The best place to see all the party election broadcasts. Reading the comments under any politics related video is a true joy, and clearly shows the price of democracy.
Z is for ZZZZzzzz: (Read in Channel 4’s Geordie announcer voice) “Day 10 in the expenses investigation…”
Friday, 15 May 2009
Friday, 8 May 2009
Expenses non-scandal leak hits the fan
The Telegraph went to town on leaked details about a number of cabinet ministers’ expenses today, in one of the most sensationalist pieces of journalism in the paper’s recent history. The stories literally covered the pages with not a single ‘non-expenses’ story from pages one to nine: red ink, photocopied faxes and aggressive insinuation – it had the works. No fewer than twenty stories appeared on the front nine pages on the topic (see appendix).
This is a deeply irresponsible move by The Telegraph. The implication of wrongdoing is intense, where there have been no rule violations. MPs take advantage of their £24,222 additional costs allowance – no surprise. The hacks at The Telegraph are in no position to suggest mock Tudor boards or loo seats are an inappropriate expenditure: that is the job of the bodies in the House.
The investigation, if you can call it that, will do no benefit to the right and Conservative cause. It will be the case that David Cameron will have a significant majority in twelve months time, regardless of the Telegraph’s campaign. The piece will extend pressure on all MPs from all parties to bring forward details of their accounts. But the perception of secrecy is wrong: the public could have known that Hazel Blears claimed her full allowance, to the pound, for many years by simply typing her name into Google, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ lists all MPs expenses. It’s not that much of an exposure.
The media agenda – left or right – know that most of us are too short sighted to apply some reason and see beyond this storm in a tea cup. The self-satisfied and superior approach of those such as Heather Brooke is so backward: more transparency is not needed. Nick Clegg’s opportunism wasn’t much better – the ‘I’ve always argued’ approach is one thing that certainly is transparent.
Politics is being dragged through the mire at the most inappropriate time: recession, European and local elections, and a general election – all crucial – are fading to grey as a result of the fixation about 646 of our elected members earning an effective salary of £100,000. There are much greater injustices going on in the public sector.
Faith in Member’s of Parliament is at an all time low, along with voter turnout. The general elections of 2001 and 2005 saw 59 and 61 per cent of voters make their mark – terrible. Propaganda which detracts from an institution composed of mostly 100% honest and hard-working people is horribly unlikely to put low turnout into retreat.
The only redeeming feature of the twenty stories came in our learning that John Prescott spent the £4,800 maximum on his food allowance. But the most simple and fair solution for the flap is rather unpalatable but most sensible: increase MPs salaries, and cut the allowances. No ambiguity, no need for the gutter press to suck the life out of Parliament.
Today’s Telegraph
Page 1: “The truth about the Cabinet’s expenses”
Page 2: “Tricks of the trade, from shifting ‘second homes’ to profiting after taxpayer-funded renovations,” “Rules state that claims must be ‘value for money,’” “Civil servants rarely query the integrity of members”
Page 3: “Brown’s house swap that let him claim thousands,” “Brother has never been far from Prime Minister’s side,” “Bolt-hole a mile from No10”
Page 4: “Public paid the Chancellor’s stamp duty,” “The £1.7 million property built on the back of the MPs’ expenses system,” “Gardener queried necessity of the work he was asked to carry out”
Page 5: “Sorry but accountancy is not my strong suit, said Straw”
Page 6: “Claims for three properties in a year,” “Mandelson put in £3,000 bill as he was quitting as MP,” “Pergolas, planters and garden pots,” “£3,400 bill for new plumbing system after the water came out too hot”
Page 7: “Grant my expenses, or I may be facing divorce, minister pleads”
Page 8: “£30,000 improvements to group to go up in flames,” “No queries on $14,000 claim for stamp duty and fees,” “Millionaire minister received £100,000 to help pay mortgage,”
Page 9: “Two loo seats in two years, cost of life with Prezza”
This is a deeply irresponsible move by The Telegraph. The implication of wrongdoing is intense, where there have been no rule violations. MPs take advantage of their £24,222 additional costs allowance – no surprise. The hacks at The Telegraph are in no position to suggest mock Tudor boards or loo seats are an inappropriate expenditure: that is the job of the bodies in the House.
The investigation, if you can call it that, will do no benefit to the right and Conservative cause. It will be the case that David Cameron will have a significant majority in twelve months time, regardless of the Telegraph’s campaign. The piece will extend pressure on all MPs from all parties to bring forward details of their accounts. But the perception of secrecy is wrong: the public could have known that Hazel Blears claimed her full allowance, to the pound, for many years by simply typing her name into Google, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ lists all MPs expenses. It’s not that much of an exposure.
The media agenda – left or right – know that most of us are too short sighted to apply some reason and see beyond this storm in a tea cup. The self-satisfied and superior approach of those such as Heather Brooke is so backward: more transparency is not needed. Nick Clegg’s opportunism wasn’t much better – the ‘I’ve always argued’ approach is one thing that certainly is transparent.
Politics is being dragged through the mire at the most inappropriate time: recession, European and local elections, and a general election – all crucial – are fading to grey as a result of the fixation about 646 of our elected members earning an effective salary of £100,000. There are much greater injustices going on in the public sector.
Faith in Member’s of Parliament is at an all time low, along with voter turnout. The general elections of 2001 and 2005 saw 59 and 61 per cent of voters make their mark – terrible. Propaganda which detracts from an institution composed of mostly 100% honest and hard-working people is horribly unlikely to put low turnout into retreat.
The only redeeming feature of the twenty stories came in our learning that John Prescott spent the £4,800 maximum on his food allowance. But the most simple and fair solution for the flap is rather unpalatable but most sensible: increase MPs salaries, and cut the allowances. No ambiguity, no need for the gutter press to suck the life out of Parliament.
Today’s Telegraph
Page 1: “The truth about the Cabinet’s expenses”
Page 2: “Tricks of the trade, from shifting ‘second homes’ to profiting after taxpayer-funded renovations,” “Rules state that claims must be ‘value for money,’” “Civil servants rarely query the integrity of members”
Page 3: “Brown’s house swap that let him claim thousands,” “Brother has never been far from Prime Minister’s side,” “Bolt-hole a mile from No10”
Page 4: “Public paid the Chancellor’s stamp duty,” “The £1.7 million property built on the back of the MPs’ expenses system,” “Gardener queried necessity of the work he was asked to carry out”
Page 5: “Sorry but accountancy is not my strong suit, said Straw”
Page 6: “Claims for three properties in a year,” “Mandelson put in £3,000 bill as he was quitting as MP,” “Pergolas, planters and garden pots,” “£3,400 bill for new plumbing system after the water came out too hot”
Page 7: “Grant my expenses, or I may be facing divorce, minister pleads”
Page 8: “£30,000 improvements to group to go up in flames,” “No queries on $14,000 claim for stamp duty and fees,” “Millionaire minister received £100,000 to help pay mortgage,”
Page 9: “Two loo seats in two years, cost of life with Prezza”
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Vacuous PMQs was frustrating
A pretty poor show in the Commons today: Brown clumsily evasive, Cameron unable to cash in fully on blunders, most Labour questions even more obsequious than usual, while the Tory backbench clowned around and also missed an opportunity. All expected an absolute humiliation for Brown – but it never happened. Cameron would offer a damning report of the government, and Brown would tell his opponent, as he has many times: the Conservatives don’t want to talk policy, and only care about gossip. Repeat ad infinitum.
In this tit for tat PMQs you might just about call it for Cameron, but the PM's repeated ‘listing’ of Labour’s triumphs and Cameron’s sniping was rather nondescript, and only revealed a few humorous moments. Nick Clegg was the only one to try and drum up some debate - about education. Brown’s response: another list.
See todays PMQs until Tuesday 12th May at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k8wz9/Prime_Ministers_Questions_06_05_2009/
In this tit for tat PMQs you might just about call it for Cameron, but the PM's repeated ‘listing’ of Labour’s triumphs and Cameron’s sniping was rather nondescript, and only revealed a few humorous moments. Nick Clegg was the only one to try and drum up some debate - about education. Brown’s response: another list.
See todays PMQs until Tuesday 12th May at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k8wz9/Prime_Ministers_Questions_06_05_2009/
Monday, 4 May 2009
Labour are paving the way for their own demise (part I)
What a terrible week for Labour. The list of errors and embarrassments for Gordon Brown is sizeable: A defeat in the Commons over the Gurkhas, a 180 degree U-turn on MPs expenses (see the PM’s comedy turn at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBXj5l6ShpA), David Blunkett warned of a “catastrophic” collapse in trust in the government, Charles Clarke announced he is “ashamed to be a Labour MP,” and Hazel Blears wrote of Labour’s “lamentable failure to get our message across.” And this is not even the whole lot: other backbench Labour MPs have let their disgruntlement be known. Phew.
Poor Gordon must have thought it couldn’t get much worse after Damien McBride’s misdemeanours a few weeks ago, but this only marked the beginning of this string of hand-in-face moments. Harriet Harman’s valiant effort on BBC News this morning in defending the PM and declaring herself out of any leadership contest (which is probably a good thing, because she is not exactly the most popular cabinet member), didn’t fool anyone into believing that there was no trouble at the top in the Labour ranks.
Alan Johnson also offered his support to Leader Brown, but said “I’m not saying there are no circumstances” in which he would contest for the leadership. The weekend and today’s editorials followed a similar theme: “Brown is in his bunker, with a final, inevitable crisis to come” (Independent), “Blarite backlash in the battle for Labour’s soul” (Times) and, “Labour’s dilemmas: denial gets you nowhere” (Guardian). All rather gloomy.
This is a crucial month for politics: if Labour suffer miserably in the European and local elections in June, the cracks in the veneer of togetherness will deepen and become increasingly hard to conceal. Talk of a leadership contest should be the last thing Labour is concerned with. Even the fact there is talk of talk of a leadership contest is dreadful news. We can all remember the Tories’ crisis of identity not so many years ago: it cost the party dearly.
Poor Gordon must have thought it couldn’t get much worse after Damien McBride’s misdemeanours a few weeks ago, but this only marked the beginning of this string of hand-in-face moments. Harriet Harman’s valiant effort on BBC News this morning in defending the PM and declaring herself out of any leadership contest (which is probably a good thing, because she is not exactly the most popular cabinet member), didn’t fool anyone into believing that there was no trouble at the top in the Labour ranks.
Alan Johnson also offered his support to Leader Brown, but said “I’m not saying there are no circumstances” in which he would contest for the leadership. The weekend and today’s editorials followed a similar theme: “Brown is in his bunker, with a final, inevitable crisis to come” (Independent), “Blarite backlash in the battle for Labour’s soul” (Times) and, “Labour’s dilemmas: denial gets you nowhere” (Guardian). All rather gloomy.
This is a crucial month for politics: if Labour suffer miserably in the European and local elections in June, the cracks in the veneer of togetherness will deepen and become increasingly hard to conceal. Talk of a leadership contest should be the last thing Labour is concerned with. Even the fact there is talk of talk of a leadership contest is dreadful news. We can all remember the Tories’ crisis of identity not so many years ago: it cost the party dearly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
