Brown to Pay Back £12K

Brown is to repay £12,415 in expenses, I wonder what assets will he sell off to meet the bill?

MPs Expenses Are Back . . . . .

In a Parliament near you from Monday.

Brown World Statesman of the Year

You just couldn't make this up, Henry Kissinger - the political adviser to Bush on the invasion of Iraq and the guy who's been accused of war crimes, has awarded Brown Statesman of the Year. He praised Brown's:

compassionate leadership in dealing with the challenging issues facing humanity, his commitment to freedom, human dignity and the environment, and for the major role he has played in helping to stabilise the world's financial system

I hear it was a difficult decision between him and George W Bush. Kissinger will be also awarding Fred Goodwin banker of the year later this week, Katie Price AKA Jordan will be awarded for her dignity in dealing with her divorce and they're hoping Kim Jong Il will attend to accept the award for his commitment to democracy.

Damian McBride Says . . . .

Gordon Brown was so angry at the time he could hardly speak. (read story)

He must be in a perpetual state of anger then.

I truly don't understand the running life of this story, why is it so shocking that politicians use underhand methods. After years of spin from No 10, is anyone really surprised? Or do I just have a high level of cynicism.

Derek "Admiral" Conway

I knew it was only a matter of time before my already disgraced, whip withdraw MP was in the Telegraph, and there he is in the Sunday sleaze section. Derek Conway or Admiral Conway as he likes to be known after his martyr speech, in which he compared himself to Admiral John Byng. Honest comparison really, as Byng only served on the most comfortable stations, and avoided the more arduous work. Much like Conway who has happily cashed his cheque, while sitting in a safe seat and doing nothing for his constituency.

So as my local hospital closes down and I pray I don't end up having an accident, leaving me bleeding to death before I reach the next nearest. I realise now it must have been difficult finding time to fight to stop it's closure, in-between shopping on the taxpayers credit card and all that travelling back and forth to Northumberland, 330 miles away from the constituency he's meant to represent.

Some people of course would say he's a thieving, cheating, liar who used the fact he had a safe seat to subsidise his life style and line the family pocket, and I agree completely. I wouldn't mind betting that the Tories shouldn't count on it being such a safe seat now.

Senior Tories Expenses - Stephen Fry

More Tories in the spotlight. Their claims are certainly a better class of expense, swimming pools, a moat, country estates, garden renovations, third and fourth homes. I've nothing against people being or getting rich. Yet I do have a problem subsidising their life style choices, when they have more than enough money to pay for manure themselves. What really disappoints me though, is to see David Davies among the line up.

Amid this saga however, Stephen Fry raises a good point about perspective. Though I don't agree with all he says, this stood out:

let's not confuse it with what politicians get really wrong, things like wars, things were people die.

Can you imagine, the kind of Health Service we would have if they showed the motivation for reform they have over expenses?

Speaker Martin - Hypocrite, Amoral and Greedy

When the audacity of these expenses couldn't get worst Michael Martin comes along, to prove why MPs thought it was fine. The man meant to be in "charge" of the commons gave a statement on expenses. He said that MPs should consider 'the spirit of what is right' in their claims. He would know all about that, after all he's only claimed hundreds of thousands on his subsidised life style.

The speaker read his statement from a piece of paper in his emotionless weak voice, that was until Kate Hoey raised a point: doesn't the Metropolitan Police have better things to do than investigate leaks, isn't it an awful waste of money? Good point, why waste police time and more money when you can conduct your own inquiry? Not a legitimate point though for Martin, he became vocal for once about something he does care about, those who criticise him and someone releasing the expense claims before black markers were used on them.

He really does represent what's wrong with the whole system, MPs who are hypocritical, amoral and greedy.

Expenses, Expenses, Expenses

The Telegraph expense "name and shame" campaign doesn't make for pleasant reading. Particularly for a profession that you would be forgiven for thinking, some degree of moral judgement was needed. I could laugh it off if it wasn't for the fact that, what sort of people will want to be a MP, with this bad smell hanging over parliament? It's just self for filling.

There's something so depressing not only about the endless sleazy headlines, but MPs reaction. No one forced them to make the claims they did, they choose to. The official line being echoed by minsters that, claims were "entirely in accordance with the rules" is groundless. I fail to see cat food, nappies, loo seats, iced gem biscuits and tampons as an expense of doing their parliamentary duties. So instead of spinning like they always do, here's a shocking idea, stop blaming a system they created, be an adult and take some responsibility.

What really underlines this for me, what are they even doing for people or for the country? If they gave back more than they took, this wouldn't be so insulting.

Lady "Two Homes" Uddin

The audacity of this "lady" is incredible. Baroness Uddin claimed allowances intended for peers living outside London although she lives only four miles from the Lords. The flat in Maidstone she brought and claims is her main home, neighbours say has never been lived in. Until coincidentally "Lady" Uddin got a call from the Sunday Times challenging her on the claims.

The very next day her BMW zoomed along to Maidstone, lights were switched on, curtains put up and mat placed outside the front door, which is a homely touch indeed. Her claims and actions pocket her £30,000 a year. Yet it gets better, Lady Uddin's home in London is Housing Association owned. The association’s housing is for people needing affordable homes and the average rent for one is £500 a month. The baroness is claiming more than £2,000 a month for running and maintaining a house in London.

What's the different between a "lady" claiming false benefits and anyone else? The Lady won't be prosecuted.

Brown Gives MPs £5,000

Brown wants give an one-off payment of up to £5,000, for MPs to maintain their second homes this summer. Of course this has nothing to do with him facing a commons defeat on his "reform" of MPs expenses. It would be ironic indeed with the government stating that:

reform of the expenses system has to begin immediately in an attempt to restore public confidence in MPs.

Let's just hope he spares us a YouTube video explaining his reasons for this.

Brown's Expense Plan Rejected

Sir Christopher Kelly launched his inquiry into MPs expenses today with a bang:

"There must be reform and it must be done properly. This is not something that should be left to politicians to sort out for themselves. If public confidence is to be restored, there needs to be an independent inquiry by people with no political agenda of their own which can look hard at all the evidence and that is open to anyone who wants to contribute.”(read more)

This is the third strike to Brown's proposals, with Tories and Lib Dems saying they would not support them. If Brown looses the vote next week by rebelling backbench MPs, that will further damage his authority.

Though for a tax payer Sir Kelly's words are very heartening. He looks set to make a clear distinction between salary and expenses, I hope it isn't just hot air.

Browns Politicians In Need Appeal

Nice to see such big improvements from Brown on body language, I wasn't worried at all by the slight rocking motion nor the smiling, it really does wonders for perception.

His proposal of addressing MP's expenses does surprisingly have some potentially good points, the full statement can be read on the BBC:

• No second home allowance or claims for food, furniture and fittings, fuel, mortgage interest, rent or council tax.

• Flat rate expense payment based on attendance.
  

• No second home allowance for those that can commute or live in grace and favour homes.

• MPs' Staff being employed directly by the House of Commons.

• Full receipts for claims including under £25.

• Transparency of MPs' Second Incomes.

It does pose the question though of what's the catch? The main catch is they haven't waited for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to report back, which could move the goal posts. Whether these points do have value though, hinge around what the flat rate payment will be, how many days are included, what the small print is and who will over see these "improvements".

The most important aspect to this reform, is not having expenses made to be an extension of a salary. Both in pocketing money and purchasing things that should be brought by MPs themselves. Otherwise it defeats the point to begin with.

"SmearGate" Regret - Cost To Brown

Brown has written letters of "regret" to David Cameron and the other Conservative MPs involved in "SmearGate". He of course isn't capable of using the word sorry in any capacity. I don't even think if he tripped and fell onto 'the red button' killing millions he would use the word sorry - "It's regretful this happened" - will be the comment.

There's been much speculation with regard to what "SmearGate" will cost Brown. Looking around the main news sites this story has lost it's traction with the public, only on the Guardian site is it in the top3 most read. It is obviously still holding it's own with political sites and blogs.

For this story alone to have lasting damage it needs to strike a cord with the public at large, not just people who are interested in politics. The details surrounding this story are very political, more so than most people would be interested by. Combined with no tax payers money being lost yet, there isn't really anything to get the burning torches and pitch forks out for.

The Labour party supporters won't be happy with the Tory "nasty" Party parallels it creates. Will it be enough to stop them voting? I'm not so sure, there are still 30% willing to vote Labour after all that has happened so far.

In essence the damage from this will be political, not so much voter based. For the public, Brown burying his head in the sand just reinforced what people have come to expect, Labour voters stand to be the disappointed ones. The main problem it presents though is limiting Labours ability to attack the Tories. Brown can hardly point the finger and call them the "nasty party", while Cameron maintains the moral high ground.

Michael “Piggy“ Martin and 1 in 10

I have to admit that I really dislike the Commons Speaker Michael Martin, but in one of those irrational ways that everything he does irritates.

However it turns out my irritation wasn't so irrational, as he's been caught doing a "Hoon". While living in a grace-and-favour apartment, he claimed a second-home allowance for his constituency home and rented out his actual second home. He has continued to make annual claims of up to £17,166, though he doesn't have a mortgage claiming for basically living costs, bills, decoration and furniture. You would be forgiven for thinking a salary of £141,000 would cover living costs in Glasgow and a home that's allegedly hardly being used. Alas no not to Martins standards, and these standards don't just apply to his home, he's run up bill of £148,657 for just 11 trips aboard between May 2005 and September 2008.

He isn't alone though, 65 other MP's that's 1 in 10, have raised eyebrows by not living within their means and using tax payers money to subsidies buying homes and renting them out. Interestingly 65 is the amount the Conservatives plan to cut from the total number of MPs in Westminster.

Writing these kind of posts is getting really repetitive, to the point that reading them and writing them is becoming an effort. Yet the alternative is we turn a blind eye and I'm not prepared to accept that. There is something so fundamentally wrong, when MPs think it's fine to use tax payers money to subsidies their income and living standards. As every penny they take to line their pocket is robbed from people who actually need and deserve it, from our nurses, fire fighters, schools and hospitals. It's disgraceful, particularly for the Speaker of the House of Commons whose role is to keep order.

"SmearGate"

This "SmearGate" story all over the Blogosphere and news, has just left me perplexed. Is the story here that Labour no longer have morals and are delusional, they crossed a line into personal untrue attacks, they used taxpayers money for they own gain. Am I missing something here, as how is that different from what is continuously reported in the papers?

Granted I enjoyed the incredible irony of Derek Draper whining about "how wrong hacking into private email accounts is"- Labour would know all about that wouldn't they.

Perhaps I should be jumping on the bandwagon, anything that makes Brown uncomfortable and shows the Labour party for what it is, can't be bad. Yet I have the nagging thought of, why is this the "thing" to get Labour on when there are far worst stories. There's a party tribal feel to this and maybe that's where I fall short, I'm not party aligned. I'm left just finding it really difficult to relate to, particularly since the emails are posted among the tits, bums and gossip of the News of the World.

The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is?

There is an interesting video that interviews financial regulator William K. Black about banks - The financial industry brought the economy to its knees, but how did they get away with it? - It's focuses on America, but there are some very interesting parallels with the situation in Britain. To forewarn the intro is a bit long-winded but worth waiting out.

Sleaze Hoon & Smith Parliament Pigs

Jacqui Smith expenses claims are getting more incredible, the Mail are reporting - a barbecue, toothbrush holder, doormat, patio heater and a flatscreen TV. She says - “I've abided both by the letter of the law and by the spirit of the regulations”. Really? Regulations that state claims should only be for items needed to perform your parliamentary duties. You're having a laugh, kitting out your family home is what a salary is for Smithy.

Geoff Hoon is also in the spot light now, having lived rent free in a grace and favour flat when Defence Secretary, he rented out his main home and then claimed taxpayer's money for his “second home” in his constituency. Effectively he makes a choice to buy two homes and claims for the expense, yet again he's saying it's within the rules. These must be the unspoken rules of parliament, they who make laws can break laws.

Porn Expense Claim More Sleaze

Jacqui Smith's husband was caught with his pants down, after she "mistakenly" claimed for a pay-per-view TV package while billing for an internet connection. This doesn't work out to a lot of money, but does sum up the sleazy, money grabbing, double standards we're getting used to hearing about. (read more)

In light of these increasing “claims”, I thought I'll familiarise myself with the Green book, which provides guidelines about parliamentary salaries, allowances and pensions. The "principles" section drew my attention:

3.3.1. Principles
You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances.
3.3.2.
You must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political organisation.
3.3.3.
ACA must not be used to meet the costs of a mortgage or for leasing accommodation from:

• yourself;

• a close business associate or any organisation or company in which you - or a partner or family member - have an interest; or
  

• a partner or family member.

It appears Mrs Smith read it to, hence her doing the "right thing for her family". These MP's claims are only within the rules because they've been worked to their advantage. Brown's ability to turn his blind eye to anything that's greedy and solely self interested, is becoming unparalleled. Never mind how much it undermines any creditably MP's have, drowning us all in rising levels of hypocrisy and that's really what we need right now, the man's a born leader.

Tony McNulty Second Home Expenses

Yet another Labour MP has been claiming second home expenses for an additional income. This time Tony McNulty has claimed £60,000 in second home expenses, for a house he owns but his parents live in. McNulty says he regrets his actions and is calling for a review of MPs’ expenses. The Daily Mail has a very in depth view complete with graphs, photos and maps.

I'll give him:

• 6/10 for audacity – Compared to other MPs' in the news recently he wasn't caught with his hand, arm, upper body and face in the trough.

• 8/10 for artistic licence - I haven't heard the “the house I own and my parents live is my second home” one.

• 6/10 for regret/apology - At least he attempted something even if it was half arsed.

The results for this have been calculated and are presented below:

"Stupid and Sleazy enough not to vote for"

Your the kind of politician that thought modest amounts would go unnoticed. Little and often is your motto. You've realised all too late that as the Minister for Employment, to take anything at this time isn't such a bright idea.

The Court of Public Opinion - Harriet Harman

Harriet Harman's desperation to be the next prime minster is showing again. Every time I read anything she says though, I can't help but be overwhelmed, it's like opening an oven being blasted in the face with hot air and just hoping your eyebrows are still intact after. She's said about Sir Fred Goodwin's pension.

""The prime minister has said that it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in."

Bit of a slippery slope changing contract laws isn't it? And what is there really to contest here? If you sign a contact you agree to it, unless there's a clause to say that payment won't be made under the terms XYZ, then government approved it, Goodwin indeed for some.

New Labour increased peoples anger in order to distract and point the finger at someone else, yet there's three fingers pointing right back at them. The terms "terrible misjudgement", "money for nothing" and "doing the honourable thing", can easily applied to the people saying them.

Count adjourned.