Liberal Burblings

Archive for the ‘House of Commons’ Category

Malcolm Bruce’s expenses/allowances are covered by the Telegraph tomorrow. I’ve read through the piece. His wife, who works for him, uses part of their home as an office and that is claimed for. He’s done nothing wrong. I’m not sure where the Telegraph are going with a lot of this stuff.

A side note to the Telegraph “Keeping it in the family” special: One of the provisions passed through the Commons a couple of weeks ago was for MPs‘ employees to be employed by the Commons authorities instead of the MPs themselves. This should have come in ages ago, but ho-hum.

After posting twice about this, I’m very relieved to, at last, find some backing for publicly owned MPs‘ accommodation. A clear majority of the PoliticsHome panel have backed the proposal:

The solution to MPs‘ need for two homes if their constituency is outside London lies in adopting a model similar to the Swedish system, where a publicly owned and maintained house or flat is provided if necessary.

That’s the view of of the PHI100, the UK’s leading survey of political expert and inside opinion. A sixty eight per cent majority of the panel – which includes MPs and peers, senior journalists, party strategists and policy experts – call for a Swedish style system. That opinion is shared by the majority of both right- (eighty one percent) and left-leaning panellists (sixty seven percent). Most Liberal Democrat panellists (forty three percent) also take this stance.

Clear majorities of media panellists, strategists, and thought leaders back the Swedish system – but parliamentarians are split down the middle.

One objection I’d like to knock on the head is this: One LibDem MP is quoted as saying that there’s no suitable building (except ‘Wormwood Scrubs’). Der. It doesn’t have to be one building! It can be a mix of accommodation spread over a relatively large area.

After posting twice about this, I’m very relieved to, at last, find some backing for publicly owned MPs‘ accommodation. A clear majority of the PoliticsHome panel have backed the proposal:

The solution to MPs‘ need for two homes if their constituency is outside London lies in adopting a model similar to the Swedish system, where a publicly owned and maintained house or flat is provided if necessary.

That’s the view of of the PHI100, the UK’s leading survey of political expert and inside opinion. A sixty eight per cent majority of the panel – which includes MPs and peers, senior journalists, party strategists and policy experts – call for a Swedish style system. That opinion is shared by the majority of both right- (eighty one percent) and left-leaning panellists (sixty seven percent). Most Liberal Democrat panellists (forty three percent) also take this stance.

Clear majorities of media panellists, strategists, and thought leaders back the Swedish system – but parliamentarians are split down the middle.

One objection I’d like to knock on the head is this: One LibDem MP is quoted as saying that there’s no suitable building (except ‘Wormwood Scrubs’). Der. It doesn’t have to be one building! It can be a mix of accommodation spread over a relatively large area.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man! Over at LibDem Voice, I have voted for Sir Alan Beith to be the next Speaker. He has the right no-nonsense eloquence and a thoroughly reforming mind. He also used to chair the Commons Administration commitee so has experience of cross-party co-operation in the House.

A fortnight ago I would have voted for Sir Menzies Campbell. However, he has tainted himself, albeit very mildly. I don’t think it is right to have someone as Speaker, who, in the eyes of the country, has a inflated sense of MPs’ rights to reimbursement.

Otherwise Frank Field or Dr Roger Taylor would be good candidates in my view.

STV say that the Speaker will stand down. Sky also say that “sources” tell them this will happen!
Commons Speaker Michael Martin will resign over the MPs’ expenses scandal this afternoon, according to Sky sources.
He is expected to make an announcement at 2:30pm.
Mr Martin is due to meet party leaders to discuss reform of MPs’ expenses at 4pm.
Sky’s political correspondent Joey Jones said: “I think the likelihood is that friends of Michael Martin will have told him to think about the situation and to consider the events of yesterday, when he had no control of the House of Commons.
“He will have reflected on that overnight.
“I am sure that he will have taken counsel from his fellow MPs, perhaps particularly among the Scottish MPs, and decided that this was the time to go.”

Hallejujah! Let the church bells ring out! Let there be dancing in the street!

But, of course, he is not a scapegoat (of course) and will only be replaced by Buggins, so remember the old Chinese proverb – ‘Be Careful what you wish for – you might get it’.

But, for now, in the words of Mrs Thatcher: “Rejoice! Rejoice!”

Michael Martin has apologised for his role in reducing the reputation of the House of Commons.

Er, that’s it.

He’s setting up a meeting. All very bureaucratic. That’s just what will calm the public: Meetings and talk from him of “substantive motions”.

And several MPs expressed their unhappiness with him.

One shaft of light: The Early Day motion declaring no confidence in Michael Martin obviously does nothing procedurally – it is so much confetti. A substantive motion is needed, as Martin said. It seems that the government will not let in such a motion. But under close questioning from Susan Kramer it was apparent that an Opposition Day could be used for such a motion to be debated and voted on.

Bring it on! Martin needed to stand up and say something radical like: “No more allowances and MPs expenses will be paid to MPs until there is a new system – and the new system should only give MPs expenses for receipted travel. From the start of the next parliament Second homes will be funded directly by the government with the government owning them.”

That’s the sort of radical statement he needed to make but instead we got bureaucratic waffle, a refusal to even take responsibility for setting a debate on him (he should have asked the government beforehand to set one up).

Martin should certainly not be made a scapegoat. All MPs are responsible in some way for this mess. But until he goes there can be no proper reform and certainly no start to rebuilding public confidence in the Commons.