Miliband jumps to Brown's defence again

Its always heart warming to see how David Miliband responds to the PM's travails with such heartwarming and unequivocal support:

Did he say something along the lines of "these allegations are a pathetic attempt to undermine the credibility of our wonderful PM"?

No. He said: "There is so much uncertainty about the allegations and whether they were made."

Sure Gordon is delighted to have you on his side, once again...

BBC bias over David Wright's tweet?

What is with the last two paragraphs of this BBC report on the David Wright twitter affair?

"Two recent graduates admitted last July that they had created a fake Twitter account for Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

They broke cover after several newspapers incorrectly reported that Mr Miliband posted a heartfelt tribute to Michael Jackson on his Twitter account following the pop star's death."

These statements are not put in any context, and so the implication is that this sort of online imitiation is what may well have happened in this instance. But that runs contrary to the facts, as the tweet was send from David Wright's genuine twitter account.

The fact is that his excuse - I was hacked and it wasn't me, guv - is extremely questionable. I don't think anyone with the barest knowledge of the facts and of how twitter works believes him. In light of which the BBC report seems sloppy at best and politically motivated at worst.

This Speaker is nothing less than they deserve

It is often said that a people get the government they deserve (perhaps originally from de Tocqueville, but who knows). Well, this Parliament has the Speaker it deserves. The MPs themselves have twice voted Mr Martin to office, and in the words of Ming Campbell on Martin’s re-election in 2005, "We are delighted to join in the unanimous endorsement of your continuing responsibility to preside over our proceedings." Wonder how unanimous that endorsement is now?

More to the point, he perfectly represents a House which still seems to have difficulty in grasping the public mood over the issue – by which I primarily mean the continuing stream of excuses and “it was within the rules” pleas trotted out with each new day of revelations. There’s a very interesting piece in the Times yesterday by Martin’s former PR adviser detailing an extraordinary reaction to being warned of possible problems with his second home allowance.

Unlike others I reckon the speaker should stay as long as this Parliament remains; he embodies its practices and ethos entirely. In the words of his eminent 17th Century predecessor Speaker Lenthall “I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.” Very apt.

Hat tip re. Times article: Hattie Garlick, Comment Central - Times Online

Nothing British about the BNP

Following up my previous post, I see that Tim Montgomerie and James Bethell have started an important new website. I think it needs as much publicity as it can get, so share it around:

http://www.nothingbritish.com

In the interests of democracy, please lets not have a snap election!

A poll by the BBC’s Daily Politics show has reported that some 65% of respondents want a General Election now, in the wake of the expenses row. While I appreciate the attraction of allowing the electorate to throw out as many of the current incumbents as possible – clearing out the House and ushering in a new era of responsible representatives less interested in feathering their own nests – I believe it would in fact have profoundly undemocratic ramifications.

The BNP may well be the biggest beneficiaries of any poll held in the wake of the current scandal. It’s not impossible they would return a couple of MPs, and certainly they could legitimately begin to claim a public mandate for their policies on the back of a sizeable popular vote.

Better by far to let the dust settle, and allow the electorate to make their choice in a more sombre fashion at the beginning of next year (presuming Gordo will hang on as long as he can). The main parties will still likely bear the brunt of a protest vote, and many individual MPs could lose their seats irrespective of their parties share of the national vote due to the particulars of their own conduct re. expenses. Nevertheless, such a poll would result in a fairer reflection of the populace’s political intentions, whereas now, whipped up by media frenzy and MPs seemingly incapable of appreciating the level of disgust in the country, marginal and dangerous interests are the only likely beneficiaries (just witness the Euros in June if you want proof).

How much extra food does one need to be an effective MP?

So, as the dust finally starts to settle following the Telegraph’s expose-a-thon, there’s one unanswered point arising from the expenses scandal which really stands out for me. Why was it ever considered reasonable to give MPs a food allowance?

There are clearly myriad questions arising over the content of the Green Book, many stemming from the fact that the allowance/expense system was a product of MP’s own creation. But, however poorly policed and adhered to, there was clearly some element of consistency in that the system’s main aim is to allow MPs to do the job they’ve been elected to do – namely represent their constituents both in the constituency and in London. Enabling them to claim the consequent expenses for the cost of securing secondary accommodation seems fair.

But how could anyone have decided that a food allowance should form part of the system. On what premise could it be argued that MPs need to eat more as a result of their positions. If they were to leave Parliament, would they suddenly find their food bills dropping by £400 a month. To me, this is indicative of the lax attitude and thoughtlessness at the core of the whole system, and frankly shows why they deserve all the flack they get. Unless, of course, one’s appetite mysteriously increases on being returned to Parliament. The John Bull-esque physique of some of our representatives suggests this may be more than a flight of fancy.

Phil Woolas – a snivelling little sh*t

Why has more not been made of Phil Woolas’ conduct over the whole expenses affair. Personally I believe that the public’s furore should be directed at those MP’s who have sought to gain significant benefit from the system, primarily those who have flipped their second home designation for no other reason than to claim public funds for expenditure the rest of us would have to stump up ourselves (n.b. I do believe some instances were genuine).

The instances of MPs making claims for small amounts on absurd items, I think, are far less concerning. The might make some look a bit silly, but do we really believe that they were anything more than that – considered and comprehensive campaigns to diddle the tax payer £3.50 a time? No, rather they are evidence of the gung-ho attitude to public money some have, and nothing more.

I initially would have placed Woolas’ misdemeanours in this category – mildly embarrassing but ultimately trivial. But he has reacted appallingly. Firstly, he threatened to sue the Telegraph for insinuating he had claimed for a couple of small items (nail varnish and tampons, presumably for his wife) which, while ineligible for a claim, amounted to very little. He said the Telegraph was wrong, “disgusting” and threatened legal action, sounding appropriately indignant. The Telegraph, however, showed that there was extremely strong (albeit circumstantial) evidence that their story was correct. Namely that the receipt on which the said items were contained came to exactly the same amount as one of the sums he received - £210.31. Hence it seems pretty likely he was reimbursed in full for that claim, tampons and all. His response? “The claim is one document and the receipts are another. The fact that they both add up to the same amount doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean that the fees office paid for the non-food items on the receipt.”

I don’t really like being so brazenly taken for an idiot by a Government Minister. Mr Woolas, you’ve been remarkably silent since your initial outburst. I await the proceedings against the Telegraph with interest…