British MPs continue to writhe, duck and dive as the expenses scandal reaches the Telegraph's Day 21 -- with many more days to come. For some backbenchers it has become a cruel and unusual punishment, a sort of Westminster water-boarding.
The political establishment on the Left, Right and Centre has tried to broaden the expenses issue into the wider one of constitutional reform; but the voters and much of the media still prefer the specific and their bloodlust is far from being assuaged.
In the spotlight two days running, , which is at least one day too many for survival. And spotlight is the right metaphor: as a ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporter said on the radio this morning, she's like an escaping prisoner caught in the guards' spotlights -- as she tries to flee into the darkness from one, she's caught in the glare of another, and another, and another ....
First it was claiming for a mortgage on a second home that didn't really exist, then herself doing the same, then a job on the taxpayer for her sister, who lives many miles from Westminster and the Kirkbride constituency, then a new spare room for her brother, paid for by us (natch). As the catalogue of claims unfolds, it becomes painful to watch. I'm not sure she can survive the day; if she does, David Cameron will be accused of dithering.
The Tories are currently taking more hits than Labour, but Labour still has huge questions to answer, biggest of all: if what did in flipping homes to avoid capital gains tax was "totally unacceptable" (Gordon Brown's words) why is that not also true of fellow cabinet ministers Alistair Darling and Geoff Hoon? The Chancellor is especially in the frame.
This morning's Daily Mail has a devastating rundown of the Mr Darling's tax avoiding property activities. Of course, being the Mail, it is designed to put the worst light on him flipping his homes four times in four years. But there's enough ammunition in the piece for interviewers like me to be slavering at the prospect of an interview with the Chancellor -- though I fear we might not get the chance very soon.
Indeed one of the problems for broadcasters when Parliament comes back from the Whitsun recess on Monday is likely to be the paucity of big political names prepared to venture near a studio. Those who used to queue up outside the Green Room might suddenly be in short supply.
The wider ramifications of the expenses fallout remains to be seen. Westminster's mind is already mulling over Gordon Brown's prospects post-June 4th election day, which everybody assumes will be a car crash for the government. Editorials in are influential and powerful once more and this morning's is particularly well-informed about frustrations with the Prime Minister inside the Cabinet. It argues that the real issue after June 4th is not Mr Brown's much-touted Cabinet reshuffle but a "big decision" by the Cabinet itself -- "whether or now to act" to get rid of the PM.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw, often mentioned as a potential key figure in an palace coup, says that getting rid of Mr Brown is "a solution to nothing". But the very fact he feels the need to say this is not exactly helpful since it implies it is being talked about in Labour circles. And it is. One Labour grandee told me recently is was all senior Labour figures talked about! That's an exaggeration but not by much. The mood among Labour ministers I talk to is that Mr Brown will still probably survive a drubbing on June 4th -- but they're by no means as sure as they were a month ago. That's my view too.
Speaker Martin is already history, even though he and Westminster is rife with More important,
The measures announced last night by the Speaker are only interim and do not amount to fundamental reform (which will have to wait the publication of the Kelly report) but they are a start.
Some of the most egregious misuse of expenses -- from buying everything from flat-screen TVs to Jaffa cakes at our expense to benefiting from the now notorious practice of "flipping" to avoid capital gains tax on property sales -- are outlawed as of now.
The Kelly Commission now has some breathing space to come with a cheaper, more honest, independently-scrutinised expenses regime to replaced the current discredited one.
Party leaders are agreed on an independent commission to oversee MPs affairs, even if the details are still vague. But there is talk of radical reform well beyond the matter of expenses and the months ahead will tell us if the Great Expenses Scandal of 2009 is an 1832 moment, heralding great change.
There is talk of US-style primaries to chose candidates, giving voters the power to "recall" errant MPs and make them stand again and a whole raft of other measures to reinvigorate the ability of Parliament to hold the executive to account.
Of course it could be business as usual once a new expenses regime is in place; or we could be in for a whole new politics. The outcome will largely depend on how long and strong remains the people's clamour for change.
Disgrace, national embarrassment, farce -- just some of the more repeatable words ricocheting around Westminster after the , where he seemed so unacquainted with that he stumbled over its most important parts.
Most astonishing of all, he failed to give any indication of when he was prepared to depart. Most commentators and MPs -- including this Blog -- had expected him to indicate he would stand down at the next election. His failure to do so -- or give any indication of when he might move on -- means he will probably go sooner rather than later -- because he will be pushed.
After yesterday more and more MPs are rallying to the "Martin must Go" standard and the . The Speaker said a motion to force him out was a matter for the government and so the spotlight now falls on Gordon Brown: ?
The PM said yesterday that the was a matter for the Commons, which is not quite the full story. No Speaker can be unseated if a government with a clear majority (as Mr Brown has) decides to protect him. So the ball is very much in the PM's court. His most recent utterances have not been completely supportive -- but we still don't know if he'll allow the Speaker's enemies to gather and do their worst.
The main defence of the Speaker is that he should not be made a scapegoat for the expenses morass. Of course he shouldn't -- and his departure on its own would not restore trust and integrity to this Parliament. But a growing number of MPs -- growing faster after yesterday -- are concluding that there can be no fresh start under the current Speaker: after all, he tried to stop public exposure of expenses, he has been a roadblock to reform and his own expense claims have raised many eyebrows.
As my old philosophy professor would have put it, the Speaker's departure is a necessary if not sufficient step in the cleaning up of the Commons.
An historic day of high parliamentary drama is about to unfold as the first serious effort to of the House of Commons in 300 years unfolds. This is uncharted territory so nobody knows what will happen.
Speaker Martin will try today to pre-empt his sacking by making a statement which will be a mixture of apology (for past brutal treatment of MPs and, perhaps, for failing grasp the need for radical reform of expenses) and makeover (he will now become the voice of reform).
His statement will be worth watching. Apologies don't come naturally to the gruff Glaswegian and many MPs will think it too late for them anyway. Nor is it just his unprecedented rudeness that has annoyed MPs: he has been a roadblock to the and personally done incredibly well out of the current expenses regime. Many MPs will see him as an unlikely champion of reform.
To sweeten his words, the Speaker will announce that he intends to stand down at the next election. He has no alternative: if he was to indicate that he intends to preside over the next Parliament there would be an . Even having to put up with him until, probably, June next year will seem a year too long for many. But the mechanics of ousting a Speaker are difficult.
MPs will quickly have to decide if a promise and timetable for reform couple with retirement in a year is enough. Some say that, with further revelations about the mess in the Fees Office (over which the Speaker ultimately presides), that it is not -- but will they push their luck?
We will find out in their attitude to Douglas Carswell's motion of no confidence in the Speaker. Will it even be allowed to be tabled. Mr Carswell has done an impressive job in recruiting a string of well-known cross-party Parliamentarians for his bill. Whether it can attract enough support to bring an end to Speaker Martin's controversial reign depends on how the Speaker conducts himself during his own statement -- and in questions afterwards from MPs he clearly loathes. Probably best if he avoids giving anybody a verbal "Glasgow handshake".
P.S. today carries a powerful leader calling for an immediate election. It wants one because it thinks the people are fed up with the current Parliament over the expenses scandals, it thinks the Brown government has run its course and it wants one now so that there is still time for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
Though the editorial is not quite explicit, the clear implication is that there should be a . The Sun has back Labour at election time since 1997. As I've hinted before I'm now in no doubt it will be backing the Tories in the election of 2010. The Sun's political clout is not what it was; but the Tories will be happy to have its support nevertheless, especially since they've had to make no concessions to get.
Now you could be forgiven for thinking they're just taking the p***: £16,000 of our money for a mortgage that did not exist (); today we've learned about a new practice, called "double-dipping", where by a married Parliamentary couple, each claims the other's second residence as their main home (); Tony Blair's expenses claims, covering his lucrative housing deals, "accidentally" shredded.
No wonder the air is now thick with cries of fraudulence, theft and malfeasance, as opposed to old-fashioned fiddling. There is a growing demand that Knacker of the Yard be called in and the handcuffs slapped on the worst miscreants. It make take that to assuage public anger -- and even that might not be enough.
In America, they're pretty good at throwing public figures in the slammer for wrongdoing, whether on Wall Street or Capitol Hill. In Britain, our more cosy establishment is understandably not so keen on that remedy.
But some of the fiddles are so egregious and the public so outraged that it is fast becoming an option.
In another regard, however, we might be about to go in the opposite direction. It has long been a feature of American politics that it is hard to defeat an incumbent, whether a senator or congressman. Incumbents tend to win over 90% of elections because they have the resources and the name recognition, both vital for winning in expensive TV campaigns. Britain's next general election, however, might be an anti-incumbent whirlwind.
Of course many MPs with embarrassing expense claims to explain might simply throw the towel in and not run again. Those that do stand for re-election could face the wrath of the electorate. "Throw the bastards out!" has always been a powerful populist rallying call and MPs on both sides of the House could feel its full force come the next general election hustings. The most outraged voters might already be stocking up on Kit Kats and Jaffa Cakes to hurl at those seeking election. The upshot could be the biggest clear out of the Commons in modern times.
More information is coming out in Westminster, by the way, about the scale of the Telegraph's amazing scoop. Seems like the paper has more than just a few discs but has the complete hard drive of all MPs expenses, consisting of over 2m PDFs of their claims, complete with their comments and sticky notes saying why they should be paid.
All this data was stored in a hard drive in the Commons Fees' Office which processes MPs claims. Word is that somebody with access to the Fees office downloaded the hard drive on to another hard drive then touted it around Fleet Street (the is nominally in charge of the Fees office, which explains why he's so grumpy about the whole mess). I understand it involved up to a terabyte of data, which would take some time to download. Must have been like a scene from 24, though we might never know who was in the .
There's much hurrumphing in parts of Fleet Street about the having bought stolen goods.
To that, of course, it has a public interest defence and I doubt any jury would think otherwise.
And every other Fleet Street editor who turned this data down must now be hanging their heads in shame and despair.
Perhaps it's because we're now inured to MPs' excesses with our money but this morning's list of doesn't quite shock the way previous revelations have done. Yes, Ming Campbell claimed £10,000 to pay for hiring a mate to renovate his London pad -- but by now we think this just par for the course.
The newspapers agree. For the first time, instead of ripping off the Telegraph's revelations about the Lib Dems, they concentrate on to yesterday's expose of the expenses of his party's country-squire living grandees.
The Tory leader gets good marks, even in the left-leaning press, but of course it is all damage limitation: the revelations of what millionaire Tories think they can charge to the public purse has clearly damaged Mr Cameron's efforts to re-brand the Tories as modern, progressive and in touch with ordinary folks' concerns.
But his response is favourably compared with Gordon Brown's, who is attacked for making his bizarre YouTube intervention then retreating to "business-as-usual" mode.
The Prime Minister is under pressure to get rid of, who is currently in guerrilla war with many backbenchers over his handling of the expenses' crisis. But the Speaker is unlikely to go without the Brown push and it remains to be seen if the PM will help to oust his old Scottish Labour colleague.
Meanwhile real life goes on: by a record quarter of a million to 2.2m and the by a mere 7p. Not much solace there for ministers. Perhaps it's just as well all our eyes are on expenses. Or maybe not: if you think the expenses row has past its peak, think again. I understand some of the biggest revelations involving ministers have yet to come -- but they will come very soon, perhaps tomorrow?
Greetings from Cardiff, where the Daily Politics will this morning mark the 10th anniversary of , live from the Welsh assembly. But even over 100 miles down the M4 from Westminster, the sound of can clearly be heard.
Yesterday it was the Tories' turn to be embarrassed. Today they got both barrels and David Cameron's embarrassment has turned to anger. Class, never far below the surface in British politics, has now taken centre-stage.
Labour MPs use our money to pay for Kit-Kats, porn videos, pet food and patio heaters. But Tory grandees dip into the public purse to clean their -- as well as buying horse manure to fertilise their massive gardens. Some will find this even worse than Labour's profligacies -- after all, most of these Tory grandees are rolling in it and don't really need any help from the taxpayer to pay for anything.
Suddenly Mr Cameron's Tories don't quite look the modernising, 21st century political force he has tried to make them. And the expenses row is taking its toll on them, just as it has on Labour.
The latest poll puts the Tories on 39%, still miles ahead of Labour but down on the previous poll -- and in the current climate the opposition should be comfortable above 40%. So it's plague on both your houses and the are the temporary beneficiaries -- until the turns its attention to their expenses.
The unanswered question for me is the one I raised yesterday on the show: what is the clear way forward out of this morass?
Few will be placing much hope on, after yesterday's astonishing performance in the Commons.
Gordon Brown has tried and failed -- and now perhaps lacks the authority -- even the Guardian's on him to be deposed this morning.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg talk about reform -- but lack the power to do much about it. MPs clearly are never going to do it themselves. Which is why this story is set to run and run and run ...
And now it's . Their MPs turn out to be just as adept as Labour at playing the various expenses scams and their excuse -- "all within the rules" -- just as unconvincing as when Labour MPs use it.
The "flipping" of houses seems to be where the big bucks are for many MPs: tart up a second home at taxpayers' expense, then sell it for a substantial profit and pay no capital gains tax because you've redesignated it as your main home. Oh yes, and claim the stamp duty when you buy another "second home", as well as the mortgage payments.
Voters will be amazed at the little things MPs expected us to pay for ---- but it is those who indulged in sophisticated property manipulation that have done best -- at our expense.
Trevor Kavanagh catches the disgust best inbut, incredibly, some in the Westminster village elite don't seem to get it. A few MPs are apologising outright -- though voters might conclude only because they've been rumbled -- but nobody is offering to hand any big sums back. And the response of most MPs is still a combination of denial and evasion.
The Parliamentary Labour Party has even sent out an e-mail to Labour MPs telling them they've done no wrong and not to be contrite:
"It would be easy for the public to gain the impression from this [media] coverage that MPs are generally claiming excessively or outside the rules laid down by Parliament, which is not the case."
Any MP who wants to take this line would be advised to think again.
Then there's the idea of bringing in a private sector company to run the expenses department. Sounds reasonable enough if it's truly independent and transparent. But along with this proposal comes the idea that it could prevent future receipts from getting published under the Freedom of Information act. In the current climate I doubt that idea is going to fly.
Amid the mess, which has come close to destroying the reputation of Parliament for probity, there is still no sign of a clear way forward -- no inkling of a plan that will restore honesty and modesty to MPs expenses.
It's the worst morass Parliament has got into in my lifetime -- and MPs, government and opposition cannot agree on a sensible way forward. So Parliament's reputation is in danger of sinking even lower, if that's possible.
Yesterday the febrile Westminster air was thick with talk of a cabinet reshuffle after the local elections on June 4th; now that's been replaced by talk of a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown should be the disaster for Labour it is widely expected to be.
Tongues are wagging about the possibility of a senior Labour figure -- Charles Clarke seems to be everybody's front-runner though he denies it (but then he would, wouldn't he) -- seeing if he can get enough backbench Labour names in the summer to mount a challenge to the PM in the autumn.
Yesterday I warned against taking talk of far-reaching cabinet reshuffles too seriously -- and wondered aloud if they really matter anyway. I feel the same about all this talk of a leadership challenge.
For a start, no matter how bad it gets, I'm not sure Labour has the stomach for it: unlike the Tories and the Lib Dems, Labour doesn't really do regicide.
That is especially true when the incumbent shows no inclination to go and, for all his woes and travails, Gordon Brown gives no sign of voluntarily calling in the removal men.
Nor do the plotters offer that much. Even they don't think a change of leader can win Labour the general election. They simply argue that the carnage would be a little less with a new leader than with Mr Brown. It's hardly a stirring rallying cry -- and who would want such a poisoned chalice anyway?
I can't see Labour figures lining up to be a caretaker leader whose purpose is to preside over a bad defeat (as opposed to the widely expected rout) then quickly depart the post-election stage.
Mr Brown will be even less inclined to go quietly -- no matter how bad the June results -- now that there is growing chatter about green shoots beginning to sprout in the economy. The , the stock market has been rising strongly on both sides of the Atlantic and even sterling is staging something of a recovery after its slump.
I'm not sure any of this has much political significance. Even if some economic indicators look a little better, there is still a lot of bad news to come. What recovery there is this side of a 2010 election is likely to be an "economists' recovery" ie only economists will notice it. But that won't stop Mr Brown and his allies claiming that it would be folly to get rid of the PM just as his policies were bearing fruit. The claim may or may not be true but I suspect Labour, in its current resigned state, will be inclined to listen to it.
The worse Gordon Brown's fortunes, the faster the Westminster rumour-mill turns.
This morning its speed is frenetic. The air is thick with talk of a cabinet reshuffle, after the local and European elections in June, in which the PM will "shore up his authority" by sacking (who mocked his YouTube performance) and Jacqui Smith, whose difficulties coping with the Home Office have not been helped by her embarrassments over MPs expenses.
Plain folk will wonder if any of this makes sense.
First, if Labour really is heading for a thumping on , why not give the cabinet a fresh look before polling day in the hope of reducing the scale of defeat?
Second, cabinet reshuffles rarely matter beyond the Westminster village. Who is Home Secretary or Community Secretary will not determine how people will vote at the next election. Many Labour MPs fear that Mr Brown's chances of winning the next election are close to zero no matter who he has in (or out) of his cabinet.
Third, do you really "shore up your authority" by releasing a feisty critic on the backbenches like Ms Blears? I think not -- which is why I doubt it will happen (the PM has enough backbench critics as it is). Ms Smith is another matter -- few Labour MPs rate her as Home Secretary and few tears would be shed if she were sacked.
The post-June elections reshuffle is being billed as the last before the general election. Disloyal and ineffective ministers will be cleared out as Mr Brown settles for the team that he will take into the 2010 election. I'd take all this with a cellar of salt.
Mr Brown no longer has the authority to preside over a clearout -- and if he attempted a large-scale one after a June election rout he could easily precipitate a wider rebellion over the summer that really would threaten his leadership.
The PM has enough enemies on the backbenches -- many MPs who've given up hope of winning their seats under him -- and hardly needs more. He also has some friends he could do without, such as John Prescott, the nation's official "bull-in-a-china-shop".
Though affecting to give full backing to the PM, Mr Prescott yesterday opined that Mr Brown had and, for good measure, proceeded to pull a face intending to mimic the Brown smile. In fact, it looked nothing like it, but Mr Prescott knew it would get him in all the papers, which it duly did. Labour cynics will conclude that the former deputy prime minister is more interested in generating publicity for himself than saving G Brown.
The public spending squeeze does not take a grip until after the general election (the sees spending still gaily rising until 2010) but after that it will be vice-like.
Strip out automatic increases in welfare and pensions and the project real rise in spending of only 0.7% a year will in practice means real cuts for many departments. This will be all the more painful after the binge spending of the last decade or so.
The squeeze is on because the markets -- those who finance our debt -- are worried that borrowing will get out of hand and want to see a programme that gets debt back to more normal levels. That means whoever wins the next election cannot avoid tax rises and spending cuts.
The debate about spending has already begun. Ministers still talk in terms of efficiency savings, though everybody knows that would be inadequate.
David Davis, former shadow home secretary, using the freedom of the backbenches, suggests a stop to the ID cards, child benefit to be means tested and a debate about renewing a full-blown Trident.
Others have their own shopping list. Vince Cable agrees with a re-evaluation of Trident and also wants to reduce the number of students in higher education.
So the debate has begun, which is just as well since cuts will be the language of the new politics of austerity. We will get a measure of the debate and where it's going when we're joined by Mr Davis and Mr Cable on today's Daily Politics. Get a taste of the shape of politics to come.
British MPs continue to writhe, duck and dive as the expenses scandal reaches the Telegraph's Day 21 -- with many more days to come. For some backbenchers it has become a cruel and unusual punishment, a sort of Westminster water-boarding.
