Nadine - misjudged comments, from the wrong person

The story has shifted a little in the past 48 hours, led by Nadine Dorries whose public remarks resulted first in a reprimand from David Cameron and, overnight, to action by Withers on behalf of the Telegraph in respect of allegations made by her.

I will admit to liking Nadine Dorries, and I have every sympathy with her on a personal level. However - irrespective of whether there is any truth in what she says, she is saying it badly. She is also the wrong person to say it. Long on self-justification, short on humility. For Nadine, discretion would definitely be the better part of valour.

Her initial blogpost refuting the allegations on the evening they were to be published was garbled. Even to those like Cassius who would want to see the best of her, it raised more questions than it answered, and left the distinct impression that she didn't have a main home (and therefore could hardly be paying additional costs) - or (in the alternative) if she did have a main home it was somehow special and secret.

Nadine has now turned to attacking the way the Telegraph have handled the story. She should ask herself how else could they have done it? They have so far published about 200 cases. If they included them in one single edition, the highet profile would have suffered disproportionately and many lesser but important offenders would have escaped attention. The Telegraph is not an unpaid auditor for the fees office, which has itself been sitting on the information and could have published it. Every MP is privy to their own claims (they, after all, submitted them) - and each is free to publish their own in order and pre-empt the "unfair treatment" which she is complaining of. It's not as if there is a shortage of spinners and media managers at Westminster.

But worse still she is pushing the "allowance" line - which I have written about here before. She thinks she is being clever by pointing to the fact that divorce courts have taken the allowance into account (I think she might be wrong, of which more later), but ignores the perfectly obvious point that allowances are not taxed. This is the definitive measure of whether expenses are "out of pocket" or not, and these most definitely are. The rules are clear.

Whether MP's are paid enough or not is neither here nor there. What matters is that those elected to positions of public trust have used and abused a system, and gained at the public expense. I don't care if the fees office told them to do it, or the whips, or whoever else - the Electorate are entitled to expect better.

Our MP's are the lawmakers. We elect them to do what is right on our behalf, and in doing so we place them in a position of trust. They have breached that trust, collectively and (in hundreds of cases) individually. The only solution now is that they publish their claims immediately, and come back to the country in a General Election to ask us to trust them again. Many of them might be pleasantly surprised.

Nadine Dorries, like Gordon Brown, appears to believe that the people are in some way unqualified to be the arbiters of all this, and that the cleansing should be subject to some rules or process. This betrays a total misunderstanding of the role of an elected politician. An MP is not an employee, but a trustee - holding power upon a trust settled by every individual Elector in his constituency, qualified or not, rich or poor, academic or illiterate, Tory, Labour or noshow. The Voters right to choose the people in whom they trust is absolute and unassailable. Not only should they be allowed to decide, unhindered by investigation and spin from Westminster, but they are the only people who can decide.

Nadine should accept that sometimes it is better to say nothing, and turn to face her constituents. It is their personal support, and not her public protestations, which will determine her future.

Gordons greed could make Labour the third party

Carrying a torch and a pitchfork appears to have become the new qualification for entry to the Question Time audience - and last night the show was mysteriously brought forward to 9pm - perhaps, Cassius wondered, some of the audience had police curfews obliging them to be home? Or perhaps it was the MP's on the panel. So difficult to tell nowadays.

The most telling thing about the debate, apart from the obvious disgust with anybody representing the Government (in this case the hapless Ben Bradshaw) was the clamour from the audience to call an election now. More telling still was the fact that Vince Cable was forthright in his support for this - repeating time and time again that an election must be held now, and that this Parliament has lost the moral authority to Govern. For what it's worth I think apart from Bradshaw toeing the bunker line the panel was unanmimous on this point.

We have Her Majesty's Loyal opposition, together with the third party and certainly the majority of the british people calling for an election NOW. Yesterday the country suffered material economic damage as S&P placed it on credit-watch negative - explictly referring to political uncertainty and stating that a General Election would be needed before the decision could be meaningfully reviewed. It doesn't matter what you think of ratings agencies, the downgrade and the delay are making the economic slump worse.

So why is Gordon Brown blocking an election which even 30% of his own voters want today? Because he feels a moral obligation to clean up and leave a better system for his successors? No such obligation bothered him when he tried to block expense publication in January. Because he feels that the miscreants in Parliament would be better punished if a year was allowed to go by and Parliament had been subject to scrutiny of more Quangos, more commissions? These are barefaced political lies. That he dares to utter them is proof enough, as if it were needed, of the moral bankruptcy of this administration.

Brown's justification for blocking an election is the same one which has allowed so many members of his cabinet and his party to profit personally at the expense of the taxpayer. To do so is "within the rules". A Politician with an ounce of sense of right or wrong would admit, as Vince Cable did last night, that moral authority was lost - but not our Gordon. This parody of a statesman can and will hang on to the office he never earned, so long as his jumped up ministers and unemployable lobby-fodder can continue sucking on the public teat for a year to come.

Gordon Brown and Labour are in power to the detriment of the country - not because they have a mandate, not because they are the best for the job - but because they, personally, want to be, and because they CAN. And, like his lies over the election that never was, this is something the public will not easily forget. If - as well may happen - a divided and discredited Labour become the third party behind the Liberal Democracts in a future Parliament, those charged with salvaging it will be able to look back at this week as the period which sealed their fate.

UK placed on negative credit watch, look to election

Standard & Poors have placed the UK economy on Credit Watch negative.
This means that, if things continue as they are, we are likely to lose our Sovereign AAA rating.
They confirm the problem is compounded by "historically high" debt levels.

They state: "the parties intentions will likely remain unclear until the next administration is formed after the general election, due by mid-2010",

that we will lose the rating:

"if we conclude that, following the election, the next government's fiscal consolidation plans are unlikely to put the U.K. debt burden on a secure downward trajectory" but that "Conversely, the outlook could be revised back to stable if comprehensive measures are implemented to place the public finances on a sustainable footing"

The Worlds markets are adding their voice to the voice of the majority of the British people. If our credit rating drops, interest rates will be forced up and a recovery may be well nigh impossible. Only by cutting public debt, and setting out clear plans immediately can we convince the markets that we are fit for their trust.

Gordon Brown is not just abusing the trust of the Electorate, he is abusing the trust of the World's markets at our expense.

Nick Brown lets election date slip, BREAKING

Guido and Tory Bear have the scoop... Nick Brown (Gordon Brown's closest confidant and chief whip) has decided to use Twitter. He's not very good at it and he has just let slip that the new speaker will have "only a few weeks" to settle in before the election is called...

He must have fat fingers. Perhaps it is the £18,000 worth of food that he has consumed at our expense?

It’s not the club, Gordon, it’s the Gentlemen

When oh when will Gordon Brown understand the problem before claiming he has solved it?

He has just given a particularly tortuous news conference in which he repeatedly claimed credit for "solving" the problems with the system which according to him have led to the devastating collapse in confidence in our democracy. Full of spin and bluster, of course – and (perplexingly) constant references to Gentlemen's clubs. He repeated that Labour MP's who had broken the rules would be cast out into the darkness. He has, he tells us, been thinking about expenses for a long time and had hoped to make reforms "before any revelations were published". Telling phrase, that.

When asked about the behaviour of his cabinet – in particular Hazel Blears – he said her behaviour was "totally unacceptable". So what is she still doing sitting in Government, Mr Brown? And what about Jackboots Smith and the other Ministers who have gamed the system and played the rules for their own benefit? Are they to continue in Government with him? At least Cameron has the decency to recognise that behaviour can be wrong even while falling "within the rules"

But the fatal error in Brown's thinking is to believe that the public care two hoots about the system. When the receptionist steals the petty cash, we don't expect her to stay on to fix the lock on the petty cash box. It is the honesty of the users of the system which the country wish to deal at the ballot box, rapidly and effectively. The Prime Minister told us two things today – first that, provided they have not actually broken the ridiculous rules, Labour Ministers and MP's will be allowed to continue drawing salaries and occupying positions of trust, and second – that once again his personal judgement is to be preferred over that of the Electorate.

He knows what's best for us, he's Gordon Brown. Trust him.

A simple challenge for political bloggers

The Electorate are angry. The individual MP's they have elected have in many cases acted dishonestly, and in many more cases acted greedily. Whilst the system may have significant shortcomings - it is the users of the system who are to blame in the first instance.

The obvious answer to restoring trust in Parliament is to elect a new one, now. No matter how much that hurts our party leaders and their followers on all sides. Punishment by the electorate will be all the more effective for being immediate.

Listen to any phone-in and you will see that to many of the public this is so so obvious it barely requires discussion. For a party leader to deny the people their democratic right to sanction those they have placed in a position of trust seems, to me, sinister. A delay - even of a few weeks - implies that they "they know better", that the honesty of politicians takes second place to political ambition. To greed and shamelessness, they are adding unforgivabale arrogance.

So why - when the political blogosphere is finally gaining traction - do we not hear a universal call to go at once to the country? Is the blogosphere really the voice of the people, or is it the voice of a few political wannabe's who - like the politicians they write about - think themslves a better judge of what is good for the electorate than the people themselves. Is the will of the public relevant to these commentators only when it fits their party lines, or are they truly democractic.

So far - with a few notable exceptions - we have seen few blogs take up the campaign for an immediate election. They need not have waited for Cameron, but having done so, his intervention is no excuse for them to keep their counsel.

Bloggers - should Parliament be dissolved, immediately? And - if not - in God's name why?

A Question of Honour

And now we see the dreadful reality of it, from top to tail. A discredited Speaker turns to the Clerks for help, even as he desperately clings to the chair. He has been a straw man for Labour so long that he barely recalls the nuances of Parliamentary procedure – if he ever understood them. And why should he? The traditions of the place are ancient, evolved over centuries to ensure a level playing field – to allow men of honour, elected by the people, to hold the Government to account.

Where are these men of honour now? Not on the Government benches, that much is certain. Our Ministers are appointed by a Prime Minister whose similarities to speaker Martin go far beyond the shared roots of Scottish Labour. Unelected, the Prime Minister treats the electorate with contempt. He is a laughing stock, domestically and internationally. He talks unceasingly of his moral compass, of his childhood – and yet he has no shame. If this son of the manse retains anything from his upbringing it is hard to see it. Over 50,000 of the electorate are calling openly for his resignation and what are we told? "Complaints" – he says– "Will be dealt with in the usual fashion". This is not honour. This is Yeats "brazen throat", who:

"Were it proved he lies
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in his neighbours eyes"

Little wonder, with a shameless Prime Minister, that so many of those continuing today in Government with Brown - writing the laws which we are to live by - have been caught with their metaphorical hands in the till, helping themselves to public money by misrepresentation or even fraud. Little wonder, perhaps, that such behaviour has been widespread across a Parliament which has lost its way in the face of an overbearing executive.

For the point which is clear to everybody except the Parliamentarians themselves is this – the expenses scandal is not about the system, not about the second homes allowance or the fees office that pays it – nor yet about the level of MP's salaries. These are topics for another time. The public are angry and disappointed by the dishonesty of our Parliamentarians as individuals. We expect parties to organise along political lines – that is what "party interest" is about – but when push comes to shove we expect our MP's to put the public interest before their own, and to face the consequences when they fall short. If we do not have honour in Parliament, we have nothing. It is an empty place, devoid of authority, and – for as long as it continues – it brings shame and dishonour upon the country it exists to serve.

Sir Patrick Cormack referred yesterday to the Norway debate, and the parallels are striking. In 1940 the discredited Chamberlain – like Brown – tried to turn his own mistakes into a justification for clinging on to power. Having allowed the country to face a grave military emergency unprepared, he told them that this was "no time for a change". Relying upon his "friends in the house", in the Norway debate, he found that he had fewer than he thought. Parliament acted with honour, and Chamberlain was shown the door. If such honour existed in Parliament today, the Cabinet would already be half empty, and we would not have been treated to the unedifying spectacle we saw yesterday afternoon.

And in this – so far as it goes – Cameron is showing honesty where the other leaders dare not follow. By backing the popular wish for an immediate General Election, he is ensuring that all MP's (and many of his own will hate this) face their Electors with their sins fresh in the popular mind. He will lose some of his own friends in Parliament, but unlike Brown, Martin or Clegg he is publicly recognising that we need to address the individual honour of Parliamentarians, before we proceed to fix their bookkeeping system. He is willing to hand back power to the people when it really counts. It may, on balance, serve him politically to do so, but it is no less a service to democracy for all that.