Publishing expenses

Your 'essay' is an entirely reasonable summing-up. The borrowed £2.7 billion is an inflationary move, from a government that wouldn't spend much smaller amounts on Police and other public-sector pay because - yes - it would be inflationary !

We've done the sums here: if even the smallest impact on interest-rates results from this, the £120 tax cut (which is the most anyone will get - many will get less) is more than wiped out if the recipient has a £100k mortgage.

Sorry to go off topic Nick but...whilst perched in a Little Chef today and (unusually) reading the free Daily Express ... Apparently, the Express claims, Treasury coffers this year will be boosted to the tune of £1.5bn from VAT on fuel duty due to the rise in fuel prices.

A treasury spokesmen then explains that there will in fact be no increase in net VAT received as people who were spending more at the pumps were spending a corresponding amount LESS in the high street and elsewhere.

Now - call me stupid but...hasn't the treasury just admitted today that it's fuel taxation policy is partly causing the slow down in the economy?

The view I take of both your comment on the expenses claims and essay for Today is both are suggestive of the clutter and negativity that can effect parliament, and a disease the Labour Party is prone to suffering. Working back from poor implementations like the Conway affair, to poor policy, we arrive at poor reasoning.

Politicians can get lost in ideologies and allegiances but the Tao suggests the sage clings to no principles. Both the expenses and Frank Field issues show what can go wrong when people cling to a fixed compass. Things change, thus, it is the principled man who is immoral in their mind and a disaster to those around him.

The Zen Buddhist view is that if politicians were less obsessive and judgemental this would create a clear space in which better thoughts and feelings, positions, and governance would naturally flow. Indeed, more correct policy will be more effective, less prone to misuse, and inspire more confidence.

Nick, as you seem to have the private ear of more than a few MPs please can you ask them one simple question.

Why is it that they feel that they should be above the simple accountancy rules and regulations that apply to every one else in the country?

Please report back soon.

Regarding the MP High Court case, this has been a serious mis-use of taxpayers money, and the conduct of the Speaker in this matter has simply compounded the problem.

The Speaker and PM seem totally unaware of the growing contempt that people feel towards politicians. Appealing against this judgememt will only make things work. I believe that they should not appeal against this and let the expense details be published.

I think the public should be aware of exactly where their hard-earned taxes are going, when MP's claim their expenses for their second homes.

Unfortunately, the expenses system was set up by the MP's for the MP's and I think it will be very difficult to make changes which MP's will accept.

Michael Martin and other MP's are claiming millions of pounds from the public purse, and we are all working very hard to keep them all in the affluent state to which they have all become accustomed. They should all be answerable to us.

I think that the situation facing Gordon Brown is really quite simple - he basically isn't up to the job.

The longer that he continues as PM, the more damage will be done to both the Labour Party, and more importantly the country.

The country has changed a lot in the past 11 years, and not necessarily for the better. Many people are not very happy about how our country is being run, and I am genuinely fearful that things can only get much worse under the present government.

John Major hung on to power for more than two years despite knowing that the people of the country did not want him in power. This total disregard for the people was punished by wipeout at the general election. Gordon Brown appears to be taking the same approach.

Nick - on the expenses and related matters, I am still waiting for the BBC wall to wall coverage of the finding that a large proportion of the Shadow Cabinet have been adopting a cunning plan to hide their donations, and the conflicts of interest that arise from them. Where are your stinging reflections on this scandal? Where is Paxo when you need him? But of course these are not members of the governing party, so you are not interested. Osborne's near half million is not nearly so newsworthy as Alexander's near one thousand,for some reason.

On Brown, I can't see anything to complain about in your 'essay'. The PM is clearly in trouble, and it would be silly not to recognise that fact. But his performance in his press conference yesterday was the best I have seen from him for months, and he does still have two years to turn things round. As I have said here before, people must remember (those who are old enough) that Major seemed dead and buried a matter of weeks before the 1992 election; indeed, Kinnock was certain he had won as little as a week before the vote. And Major, with his underpants outside his trousers, was much more a figure of fun than Brown is now or is likely to become.

Nick

A nice contribution to the Brown debate - particularly following diane abbots/lord levys only defence of him being "labour party rules make it impossible" (70- signatures required) and "who is there to replace him?".

If he is in serious trouble we are entitled to know - thanks.

Nick I can see that there is not an attractive replacement to Brown. I cannot believe that Labour will win Crewe no matter what Dianne "She would say that wouldn't she" Abbott said last night about the Labour vote holding up. Surely not even a Dunwoody can stop that tide. Is it true - could they hold it?

But regardless nobody has any idea how Labour could win the next general election and with our system that means the Tories are back - and they won't stop the SNP. Brown would be fighting against the shadow of an SNP referendum that only the SNP can lose. As a Scot he would then be ineligible in Parliament? Therefore he HAS to go doesn't he?

We are 5 years before we may well see the UK break up. I wouldn't be sad to see an English Republic if the Welsh and Scots are happier alone as good neighbours - but if we sleep walk off the cliff will we end up with a post-UK Bosnia?

I am NOT reassured by the smug complacency of MPs busy counting their expenses and saying over their shoulders: "Oh that could never happen!".

Nick

This is all perfectly reasonable and if anything over-kind to GB, as you usually are.

Comment 7 puts it succinctly "..the situation facing Gordon Brown is really quite simple - he basically isn't up to the job."

ps

Any comments on the Guardian story over 42 days?

pps

Welcome back to our favourite Zen Buddhist, Charles_E_Hardwidge.

I think that the situation facing Gordon Brown is really quite simple - he basically isn't up to the job.

The longer that he continues as PM, the more damage will be done to both the Labour Party, and more importantly the country.

Things are changing for everyone and, I think, both business and the public need to reflect on their own responsibilities. Is Gordon Brown responsible for the asset stripping of Thatcherism or consumerism of Blair? He may have had a role to play but nobody comes out of this with clean hands.

My take is too many people lack a proper measure of confidence and sociability, which helps explain a lot of the obsessing and negativity in the British people. We're suffering the aftermath of a socio-economic war so issues of hierarchy and damage the Prime Minister sees are notable.

The Prime Minister came in a wave of optimism, crashed heavily, but is entering the Aristotelian style third act of acceptance. As people move on from the snags and turbulence this should become clearer. A much more positive consus will evolve from this.

Re No 12 From Charles E

I like your comparison with an Aristotelian style third act.

It’s the end and likely to be tragic…

In a perfect world MPs would no doubt be unconcerned about making their whereabouts public, however I do have some sympathy with their concerns about their and their families safety. MPs do as a rule publish the times and locations of any surgeries they hold and I think also provide email and snailmail addresses for those that wish to contact them. I would accept a decision to keep their home addresses off the public record, including the 14 in question.

Your essay seems spot on to me. I would not be surprised if similar thoughts had gone through the mind of GB himself (even if only to be rejected)

Whilst GB's downfall began with Northern Rock and his poor handling of the phoney election when he bottled an election he probably would have won, he further blotted his record when failing to appear with all the EU leaders to sign the Lisbon "treaty". This showed his contempt for the people of the UK, especially those who wanted a referendum when the wording of the treaty was 90% + the same as previous.
He cannot admit to any error and most people would have sympathised if he had simply said he got it wrong with the 10p fiasco. However, this was of course his own doing as it was used to pay for a reduction in income tax from 22p to 20p for the middle classes and for his own "coronation". Most people would give up the 2p to help the low paid. Labour inherited an economy that was strong, the Tories will inherit an economy Labour is destroying and which is heavily in dept. Echoes of 1979.

How much taxpayers money has been used to prevent taxpayers finding out how their money is spent?

Post 12 Charles_E_Hardridge

I'm all for the public accepting responsibilities so I agree with you there.

Unfortunately the culture which has been allowed to develop - and in some cases actively encouraged by the Human Rights act for example - by the government means that the public have rights without any sense of responsibility. And this is abused in many cases where activities are outside or on the fringes of the law.

As for acceptance and a more positive consensus. I don't think so. The common sense revolution has started, and this involves reversing many of the decisions made by the government. The only consensus I can see if for Gordon Brwon to go. Choose the future over the past as Tony Blair once said, and Gordon Brown does not seem to be capable of being part of it.

I have no real interest in seeing an MPs address published. It may be useful to report the first part of their post code (so one could get an idea of the claims against the values of properties in an area).

Whatever the details released, it would be interesting to see how the definition of a "first" or "second" home could be improved.

The Balls/Cooper ministerial combo declare that their second home is the one in which they live all week, from which they go to work and from which their children go to school. Sounds like a "first" home to me!

Maybe they have simply been forward looking.

It should be easy enough for them to buy an expensive London house while their ministerial salaries exceed £250+K.

I guess they will find it a little harder when they take pay cuts and become simple Opposition members in 2010.

Nick I was a bit slow:

"So, many were surprised - even in the cabinet - when they learnt that Mr Brown had agreed to spend a huge sum helping a huge number of people with simple tax cut."

Does that mean we are back to "sofa politics" and that StalinBean is bypassing Cabinet largely? Does Alistair Darling sit at his masters feet or on a chair?

Do tell.

Also on Brown living in a "parallel universe" according to some: I think 80% of the public have known that about our PMs for some time.

When you think Thatcher/Major and Blair/Brown do you think about their acute political grasp, excellent communication skills and strong leadership or butterfly nets? Be honest.

It seems clear to all that very few, if any, members of the British public have any interest whatsoever in such details as MPs addresses and those with access to their homes. But what is crucial and should be released is the details of the expenses. Purely and simply this is a contraversial issue across all sections of the floor, independant of party indentity, and the British public deserve to know which MPs have been shamelessly and knowlingly exploiting the system. It could be an embarassing time for MPs but rather than stalling and stammering about when the FOI request will be fulfilled, they need to accept that they are accountable to the public, a public which seems increasingly concerned that all parties are out of touch and far removed from the average working man.

Good piece Nick. I often critcise you and the Beeb's left liberal bias but this time I think you have presented a fair summary of the position.

Like jimbrant's message 8 I am also awaiting the BBC and Mr Robinsons comments on the Conservative Scam that allowed: Grant Shapps, Andrew Lansley, George Osborne, William Haque, Michael Grove, Alan Duncan, Jeremy Hunt, Theresa Villiers, and Francis Maude to hide from Parliament the true source of the monies recieved.

Maybe we are being to quick, in that the BBC and Mr Robinson are just waiting until all the Shadow Cabinet reveal from which vested interest the funds came. Or as the order come out of Party HQ to play down the report.

Finally it seems inconceivable that such a underhand deceit across the whole of the Shadow Cabinet was unknown to Mr Cameron

To Charles E,

I think that many would agree that Gordon's motives may be in the right place, and that he genuinely does seem to care about social equality and poverty.

However, his ability to deliver solutions to those problems whilst still improving the standard of living for taxpayers is what many are questioning.

For my own part my biggest problem with GB is his outright lying. I don't think he sees it as lying, and that itself is one of his faults.

Over the last 10 years it has been my job to loan money to the government by buying Gilts on behalf of my pension clients. I spend a significant portion of my time analysing the public sector accounts and from where I sit GB is just simply dishonest - for goodness sake take just one example of PFI - what is that if not an off balance sheet con trick to disguise the national debt?

I would concur with A Campbell that GB is indeed psychologically flawed. And sad as it is, having your heart in the right place is not a sufficient condition for leading a nation of 55m people.

Who cares what the MP's are up to.

I would rather have MP's who are in it for themselves rather than some free-thinking, ideological MP's who would have to the power to destroy the world.

Literally.

The current system of Government is palpably failing - it is hundreds of years out-of-date.

The fundamental issue with Government is the structure of the beast itself.

In my opinion, it is an organisation that needs to be nothing less than totally recast to match the aspirations of the people in this age.

The system of Government is far too ponderous, there should be a significant injection of 'direct democracy' via communications mediums such as this - the Web, to enable more responsive approach.

The power structures should be dispersed as much as possible down to the local level.

We have the technology to vastly improve Government but those 'forces of conservatism' want things to stay just as they are.

But I say that you cannot be 'too radical' when it comes the art of governing.

Once governing systems are in place that really are controlled by the people and truly responsive to their needs in a timely manner - then I think that we will not see so much anger and frustration with politicians, as expressed in media such as these blogs.

deep-breath-sedna

I think you need to lie down for a while.

I don't think the majority of us relish the thought of an MP creaming off what he/she can of our hard-earned money, without any questions being asked.

What is the point of electing them to represent us if they are "in it for themsleves?" No point whatsoever.

re: #15 thok1969 - perhaps you would consider two statements:

"The new European Treaty is not the same as the original Constitution"

"The new European Treaty is the same as the original Constitution".

The second statement is more than 95% the same as the first. Does it mean the same?

I also like the way you have swallowed Tory propaganda so completely in other areas:

Northern Rock - a success for Brown. It was Cameron who changed his mind and got it wrong.

'phoney election' - there never was going to be an election. If there had been, you would accuse Brown of cutting and running.

Lisbon Treaty - he went and signed the thing. What is so important about doing it at the same hour as others? What is wrong with putting the UK parliament ahead of a purely symbolic PR event?

"Labour inherited a strong economy" - balderdash. Just because the Tories had engineered their usual pre-election boomlet doesn't mean the economy was strong. The pattern was well established, and we would have been back to bust again as usual in no time. The UK used to be the weak man of Europe, and now we have the strongest economy of the major players. That didn't happen by chance!

#8 jimbrant

I do not know why Labour supporters are getting on their high horse about the issue of shadow-office funding.

The process for the Conservatives is exactly the same as that employed by Labour to avoid identifying those donors who contributed to Livingstone's campaign for Mayor of London.

The donor paid into Labour Central Office who then routed the money to Livinngstone's campaign.

Why are they now getting so hot under the collar about the Conservatives using the same process?

Could it be a smear campaign in advance of a sensitive by-election?

There is no comparison betwween the governments of Eden and Macmillan, with sound public finances, and that of the grossly indebted Blair and Brown administrations.

It is a lost cause for Gordon Brown to persistently boast that he is the right person to guide us through these difficult times. He created much of what we are trying to clear up. He created the Tripartite system that failed to act on Northern Rock and has left the tax payer with £100bn of subsidy. He busted the private pension system and bloated the public sector with thousands of workers with final salary pensions to be paid for by the rest of us.

He is totally the worng man for the job as all his solutions involve spending even more money to dig him out of this hole. This is our money he's spending at precisely the time we don't have it.

Nobody who boasts that they have abolished the economic cycle should be given so much as pocket money never mind the keys to number 10. The economic cycle is currently ripping through the credit, commodity and oil markets so how has Gordon Brown abolished it? Nobody paying their fuel bills thinks he's abolished anything except the need to answer questions every Wednesday in the House of Commons.

He is a man of egregious hubris who simply cannot be allowed to go on. He didn't create the jobs, business created them. He didn't reform the NHS or the education system, he just gave them our money. He didn't lift people out of poverty, our money lifted them out of poverty.

This failure to understand the electors is what did for Ken Livingstone; constantly boasting about things that were nothing whatsoever to do with him. People saw straight through it and kicked him out.

'Finding' £2.7bn to help the poor..from where? Behind the sofa? Under the carpet? Government borrows on our behalf and we end up paying. He's 'found' we can borrow some more.

He and his colleagues' boasting will put the Labour party out of power for twenty years.

Good riddance.

I'm not surprised that all the Trots are making an appearance as the Crewe and Nantwich by-election draws nearer. Their mission is to smear the tories, shout down any opposition and, if all else fails, try ad hominem attacks calling the tory candidate a "toff".

There's nothing but vitriol - no policies, no reasoned debate - nothing. The letters section on the Crewe and Nantwich Guardian is full of this sort of thing.

It says to me that they have no policies, no counter-arguments and no credibility and it comes from the top. Gordon, it seems to me, is too much of a schemer and a plotter to be a leader.

Gordon, his cabinet and his whole sorry shower of a party need a few years in the political wilderness, and the sooner the better.

Please remenber folks that...

£2billion of the recently borrowed £2.7 billion is going to middle england voters who didn't lose out from the 10p tax cut.

Only £0.7 billion will go to those that did.

Those that lost will only get half what they lost...if that.

1.1 milion 'losers' who earn between £6,500 and £13,500 will get nothing!

I loath the tories but right now I'd vote for Thatcher to get rid of this current imbecile!

Far from showing Gordon Brown contempt you have described the whole situation as it is. Only his greatest supporters can in any way continue to give this sad PM their backing when it is obvious to the majority of the public that this man lives in a world of his own, and truly believes that his recent behaviour is that of a prudent iron-fisted man - now that does take some believing!

Re #29 RobinJD - there is just too much nonsense to respond in detail, but perhaps I could firstly ask Robin to watch Brown's press conference yesterday (it's now on the No10 site if you have it nowhere else), and listen to him explain about economic cycles. He hasn't claimed to abolish them - you might as well claim that he had claimed to abolish the seasons.

Secondly, I am tired to death of the canard that Brown "busted the private pensions system". What he actually did was complete a very sensible tax reform that had been started by Lawson in the previous government to remove a distortion that encouraged firms to distribute profits as dividends, rather than to invest for the future. The effect on pensions was small and short-term - in the long term it helped occupational pensions by making firms more competative. What actually dished a lot of schemes was (1) the requirement introduced by the Tories that schemes could not keep more than 5% of any 'surplus' they might have. This meant that firms and members had pension holidays, and scheme conditions were improved, to get rid of the 'excess'. When things got harder, there were consequently insufficient reserves in schemes to cope. And (2) the demographics changed. People started to live longer, and so draw their pensions for longer. Perhaps the actuarial assumption had to be that instead of living on average until 75, pensioners would live until 80 - that means that each pensioner would on average live to draw their pension for 50% longer, so costs would increase by 50%. Schemes were strapped anyway because of (1), and firms were unwilling to agree to meet unquantifiable future costs that looked as if they would continue to grow. What if average age at deathh was to rise to 85?

Just another of the many Tory misrepresentations, most of which get regular expression on here.

People may remember the deliberately tight tax position the Tories left behind and some rather cruel legislation that would’ve forced anyone who was unemployed out of their homes and into hostels. Gordon Brown’s circumvention of this with PFI has helped created a better NHS and repealing cruel law has helped create more winners.

It’s mildly interesting looking at the Tory frontbench and mayoral campaigns, and how that’s reflected in online comment from bored office workers. I tend to find engaging it is a mistake as it sucks you into an Idi Amin style failed state scenario. If the Tories and their friends and allies keep ploughing that path they’ll get to where they’re going.

The government isn’t perfect but, I think, too many people are letting testosterone fuelled fears and worries take them over. This is obscuring the very real gains that have been made during the Labour years and in grave danger of talking us into a needless recession. I remain generally relaxed and somewhat positive that Gordon Brown remains the better option.

Nick the only positive to this situation is that Brown will not realise he is not up to the job. He has deliberately given cabinet posts to equally incompetent members of the Brown clique. He has no serious competition.

Let it roll on. It just means that the final reckoning will be harsh.

What is the phrase ....

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

MPs expenses: show them. Don't need addresses. I already find it annoying that their mileage allowance is higher than 40p/m, and that a a company director I have to disclose more than they do.

fingerbob69

Also, if there are 1.1 million people left still losing up to £112 (232 - 120) , then it would only take another 123 million to FULLY compensate them.

In other words, instead of borrowing 2.7 billion, if they had borrowed 2.8 billion they could have made the whole problem go away.

Its enough to make you scream in frustration.

jimbrant

So 5 billion taken from the pension funds, every year for the past 11 years has had little or no effect?

jimbrant at #33 more NuLabour bleating. Of course I listened to his press conference. He's a busted flush and he knows it. just like the rest of you who can't face losing power. You can't even get through any legislation now, shucks.

MPs expenses: show them. Don't need addresses. I already find it annoying that their mileage allowance is higher than 40p/m, and that a a company director I have to disclose more than they do.

Company directors often award themselves fat cat pay awards and use a raft of dodges to minimise their tax liability. The last time I checked the average company director was getting a 10% annual pay rise come rain or shine, and their pay is stratostrophically above the lowest rung in the company. By comparison MP's incomes are modest and transparent.

The general finger pointing and handwaving from the CBI-Tory axis has some truth to it but using that as a springboard to unfairly discredit MP's or the government is wrong. A more correct approach would be to better define a universal gold standard everyone could sign up to. If the CBI-Tory axis is so right, what have they got to fear?

May you get what you wish for, etcetera.

when will someone make the case that the public finances breach the 40% rule( by a huge amount) if you add all the PFI costs and the "tax credits" which do NOT appear as debt??? Nick please tell the public the real state of the Goverments finances

Thank In Advance (but not holding my breath !!!!)
Alan

#37 Grawth:

"So 5 billion taken from the pension funds, every year for the past 11 years has had little or no effect?"

That's right, because you quote only one side of a fairly complex equation. You ignore the reduction in Corporation Tax, and the positive effect on the performance of companies who are relatively more likely to invest profits rather than give them away in dividends. Look at how much more money pension schemes now have compared to 1997 - that dwarfs the figures you quote.

#38 RobiJD

"more NuLabour bleating" - which translated means 'I object to you using reasoned arguments to respond to my bald assertions. Since I don't go in for reasoned argument, I will resort to name calling.'

"I listened to his press conference..." - so how can you say that Brown claims to have abolished the economic cycle? He spent some considerable time explaining the thing - not something he would have done if he thought it didn't exist.

No. 34

"I remain generally relaxed and somewhat positive that Gordon Brown remains the better option."

I am glad that this person can be so relaxed but what about those who can not afford such luxury?

The pensioners with no income but the state pension who now have to pay more in utility bills? The police who just run away when confronted by an angry mob and are now selling their horror stories? The MPs who prefer big fat pay packets and lazy, drink filled days than to proper debate? The Armed forces who have to fly in 30 year old airplanes just to get home?

Nu (Improved) Labour or Useless Tories or Drip, drip Liberals?

Relaxed is not the word!

It doesn't matter which party, the MP's will grab what they can from the public purse for as long as they can.

Alan Duncan argued on QT last night that being a politician wasn't very well paid. Really? After reading the comments here I'm beginning to think I'm in the wrong job!

Nick Clegg put an expense bill in for £152,000. My spouse and I don't earn a quarter of that amount between us - and I'm assuming that he will be paid a salary on top of the figure. It's obscene - and we're all paying to keep these leeches in the affluent lifestyle to which they have all beocme accustomed.

I'm furious that these people can rip us all off without a care or leave, and treat us all like idiots. I think we should start to withdraw all perks from these parasites - starting with petrol allowances, mortgage payments and pension supplements. Then they will begin to know how hard it really is for the rest of us to live in Great Britain!

CEH (39)

Company directors don't have to be big company directors. Remember when GB conned small time traders into forming companies? And then removed the incentive? All companies have directors no matter what size.

No wonder GB does NOT feel our pain. He just continues to live in the unreal world of Labour spin.

"The trouble with Anthony Eden is that he was trained to win the Derby in 1938. Unfortunately he was not let out of the straying stalls until 1955."

True. But at least Eden was a thoroughbred. Brown is an ass.

A normally well informed source just told me there is a petition dooing the rounds at branch and constituency level in the SNP, to get someone to fight the speaker seat. She said "why should we respect conventions with someone that do not repect electors"

The reason why most of us want to see what MPs are claiming is because most of us think that MPs are living "high on the hog" with our money. For the vast majority of working people in this country, if you take up a new job, you have to find your own house, work out how to get yourself to work, and furnish any new accommodation out of your own salary.

Not so the politicians. They get subsidised second houses, generous mileage allowances for themselves and their spouses, get their homes furnished and then, to top it all of, put their families on the payroll. And when they are caught out, are they sacked? Far from it.

It is the manifest unfairness of it all that grates.

A journalist once wrote that to be elected an MP is like getting the winning ticket in some sort of grotesque lottery.

Superficially, it might well seem that way ... but there is a big downside, as the late Tony Banks mentioned ... all those tiresome constituents with their mundane problems.

The current setup is not working all at well and we English should be able to do a lot better.

Possibly starting, as the Scots have done by junking the cosy two-party duopoly.

Developed societies which run adversarial political systems are finding out that they cannot now afford that luxury anymore.

The choice is co-operate or stagnate.

Company directors don't have to be big company directors. Remember when GB conned small time traders into forming companies? And then removed the incentive? All companies have directors no matter what size.

That's may be true but it doesn't matter whether you're large or small, rich or poor, the same fundamentals exist. Action follows attention, and poor focus creates demand for more law here, and less law there. This is all part of the wheel of misery. I wouldn't worry about it as you only end up beating yourself up.

A recent survey suggested business confidence had slumped but this is, mostly, an illusion in the minds of business leaders. They buy into ideas and sentiments which then dictate their minds like so many marching tin soldiers. Better to be like the eighth-century Indian monk Shantideva and untangle your mind.

The Prime Minister is known to favour positive effort, society, and the long view. This is a difficult thing to nurture in a disorganised and disjointed country like Britian but the essence of his economic philosophy looks like it is designed not to remove the business cycle but expand the sweet spot.

1. The benefits of bodhicitta (the wish to reach full enlightenment for others)
2. Purifying bad deeds
3. Adopting the spirit of enlightenment
4. Using conscientiousness
5. Guarding awareness
6. The practice of patience
7. The practice of joyous effort
8. The practice of meditative concentration
9. The perfection of wisdom
10. Dedication

This may not sound like much of a business plan but the principles of Daoism, Zen Buddhism, and martial arts seem to be something the Prime Minister understands. They're battle tested across a range of industries, countries, and history so I have confidence in them. Better still I see they work with my own eyes.

MPs, civil servants, public company directors and staff all work for us one way or another. To use the argument the government uses so often - "if they have done nothing wrong what have they to fear".

Publish it all in detail let us see how they use our money. Or perhaps not - now those who rule us may come to see just how silly, indeed ridiculous, is the argument that they use for Identity Cards.

If keeping their expenses private is the price we have to pay to kill this silly ID card business then perhaps it is a price worth paying.

Another real idiocy is the NHS computer system - by the time it is introduced it will be so out of date it will make us a laughing stock and do more harm than good. HMG has being trying its hardest to hide this from public view just like the MPs' expenses.

So Charles_E_Hardridge will you now be logging off with

Oh hell, blasted leader......

#41 Jimbrant

Company pension schemes have more money in them (those that still exist) for two reasons.
(1) on an asset/liability matching basis they were forced to re-evaluate the value of their assets using bond growth rates and not equity growth rates (as were previously used). This left a significant hole in most of the pension fund balance sheets.
(2) they were forced to declare these pension deficits on the balance sheets of the companies themselves.

Both of these factors meant companies have had to plough enormous sums into pension funds in order to meet the new rules and to repair their own balance sheets.

Neither of these things are necessarily right or wrong, and it is a good thing that company pension funds are properly funded, but these are the key reasons that pension funds are so much larger, not any corporation tax cuts.

They are also the key reason for companies abonadoning final salary schemes in droves. That's not such a good thing.

Unfortunately the tax reaches beyond company pensions and also affects all equity based pension savings. And it is those who have to rely on personal pensions who will suffer most from it. Raising a few billion from these people's pensions is really neither here nor there in terms of overall government spending - but it is potentially catastrophic for the people in these pension schemes. It created the single biggest discentive to save for retirement until means tested pension credits were dreamed up. The magnitude of this ticking bomb cannot be underestimated, and it will only help to widen the divide between rich and poor in this country in later years - as if it hasn't got wide enough already. It was, and remains, a shameful and disproportinate tax grab (in terms of the effect it had/has on those trying to save for their retirement v. the benefit the tax revenue raised is capable of delivering).

Of course the disincentive to save has helped to fuel consumer spending, which may have propped up our domestic economy through the last few years. But the pension timebomb will not go off for quite a few years to come, by which time those responsible will be busy with their memoirs and not around to face the consequences of what they have done.

There are many debates to be had about the success or failure of the various incarnations of the Labour government since 1997, but in the realm of personal finance - and encouraging / enabling people to be financially responsible for themselves - there record is consistently woeful.

sorry - "their record is consistently woeful."

Got to get your grammar/spelling right around here!

#52 colinefb - you may well be right about personal pensions - that is not an area I know anything about. But I think that you are wrong about occupational schemes (that I do know something about). The major factors in the demise of such schemes in my opinion have been the haemhoraging in scheme finances as a result of the introduction of the limit on so-called 'surpluses' in relatively good times, so that not only was money not put in but permanent improved benefits were introduced to mop up the temporary 'surplus'; and most importantly the change in actuarial assumptions driven by demographic change (people living longer, and so drawing their pension longer).

Whatever the reason, I am sure you are right about the pensions 'time-bomb'. I suspect that many people have seen the investment (=savings) they have made in their property as sufficient to meet their ultimate pension need; and recent events have shown that that is a dangerous assumption to make.

Final salary pension schemes tended to reward the bosses who typically awarded themselves higher salaries in the last few months of their career, and more people are living long enough to collect pensions. Also, younger people have a larger slice of the income pie and tend to live in their own properties. This would be a tough picture for any government to deal with.

People call on the Prime Minister to change, yet, the realities of finance and age are staring people in the face and this drives them to beat the Prime Minister even harder. This may create a short-term thrill and make people feel better but solves nothing. Better just to follow the Prime Minister's lead and get on with it.

Almost everyone has a car that doesn't break down, wears new clothes, and has a flat screen television. Pensioners no longer die of cold, and we have more and better food in the shops than ever. If indeed we are moving into more practical and sociable times, embracing contentment would be an appropriately Confucian ideal.

MPs are to all intents and purpose Public Sector Workers and it is tax revenues that pay for their salaries and expenses.

Therefore they should be accountable to everyone who pays tax for how they spend the tax revenue we provide.

It's the same for Boards of Directors - annually reponsible to company shareholders for good governance of the money the shareholders have invested in the business.

I don't need to know were an MP lives or weather he/she is married, has kids or whatever. But I do need to know what they are doing with my money!

Although I am now retired, both as an employee and employer I was responsible to my employer, company shareholders and the HMRC for claiming expenses that conformed to an agreed Expenses Policy. If I abused this I could have been sacked, prosecuted or both - and rightfully so - because that is theft/fraud.

I want those that govern us to be accountable fully for what they do and how they spend my money. If they perform poorly or are inept then they should be sacked, and if they behave criminally or fraudently then they should be sacked and prosecuted.

For all of us outside Government or the public sector these rules apply, so why not to them also? Otherwise they are totally corrupt and immoral.

I suggest we all read George Orwell's Animal Farm again and decide who the pigs are and what we can do to turn them into bacon - apologies to any Jews or Muslims out there - no rudeness or offence intended.

One final thought on public expense, last week someone told me that a recent statistic revealed that 55% of ALL JOBS in Scotland were now in the PUBLIC SECTOR - UK Civil Service jobs mainly created by Gordon Brown moving departments from England to Scotland - I wonder why? And I also recall back in 1997/98 GB pledged to pay for increased public spending in the NHS and Education by reducing the number of civil service jobs. Well that's yet another lie from dear old GB - well done that man!

Nick,

What I cannot understand is how the Labour machine gets away with lies; time and again.
In your interview yesterday it was repeated again by Mr Brown himself: "it was always the goal to have a two rate tax system with credits", or something along those lines.

Next time, could you perhaps ask him how that sits with the Labour manifesto pre 1997 that said it was their long term goal to introduce a 10% starter tax rate? Maybe it's me, but I would say the two are mutually exclusive. Or has it perhaps always been Mr Brown's PERSONAL intention to have a two rate system, and was the 10% rate maybe foisted on him? If so, he might now have some understanding of how it feels when things are foisted on you.

More specifically, how it feels to Joe Public to find someone in No 10 who 1) didn't have to fight an election to get there, 2) who holds on to power by repeating the mantra that he "has steered the country through difficult times before", so he "is the right person to get on with the job (sigh; I feel more like killing every time I hear this remark) of steering the country through the current difficult times".

Perhaps the quotations aren't entirely correct, but you get the point. As to the steering qualities of the great helmsman: could you maybe next time this sort of balderdash is uttered by Mr Brown or any of his underlings ask them exactly WHICH difficult patches they were through which Mr Brown has steered us? I for one cannot remember a single one, and I would venture that Mr Brown's so called good performance as CotE is actually directly in contradiction with "previous difficult times". Didn't/doesn't he always hark back to his results re the economy, and how well everything has always gone and how good everyone has always had it under (hate to use this turn of phrase, as it really begins to feel like a very oppressive situation we're in, with Mr Brown and his troupe up there) him? That sort of (self)appraisal doesn't much include "difficult times", I would say.

One final thought on public expense, last week someone told me that a recent statistic revealed that 55% of ALL JOBS in Scotland were now in the PUBLIC SECTOR - UK Civil Service jobs mainly created by Gordon Brown moving departments from England to Scotland - I wonder why? And I also recall back in 1997/98 GB pledged to pay for increased public spending in the NHS and Education by reducing the number of civil service jobs. Well that's yet another lie from dear old GB - well done that man!

The government has a strategy of developing the regions so moving jobs to Scotland makes sense. Also, people with jobs spend money on goods and services, and don't sit around rotting.

If I recall, the government has identified some legislative and systems changes which can reduce the Civil Service headcount. If business picked up the slack and created more job opportunities the economic and social shock would be eased unless, of course, you're suggesting a few million people who've never hurt you are just written off to make some numbers look tidy.

It's easy to pull figures out of your ass and mouth off on the internet but how true is the picture that's painted and what's the impact? How is believing lies and influencing other people to believe those lies beneifical? What's the personal cost to you in terms of wellbeing and economic kickback?

As to the steering qualities of the great helmsman: could you maybe next time this sort of balderdash is uttered by Mr Brown or any of his underlings ask them exactly WHICH difficult patches they were through which Mr Brown has steered us? I for one cannot remember a single one,...

When you're riding a bicycle down a road full of potholes and don't fall off, do you grumble that you can't be a good bicycle rider because you didn't fall into a hole, or just accept that you cycled onwards with hardly a jolt?

Just as you look ahead, mind the occasional hole, keep peddling, and subconciously maintain your balance, so the developed economies have worked the magic trick of maintaining fairly bouyant economies. This isn't an accident. It's taken a measure of skill.

Business confidence, economic shocks from abroad, and other emerging issues are things governments have to deal with. They don't always handle things perfectly or quick enough but things aren't too bad. Worrying about it just makes you unhappy and risks losing the plot.

Nick Robinson:

I think that publishing expenses should be required for the taxpayers of the United Kingdom...

I don't think your essay showed contempt for Brown,millions of hacked off people do yes...but not your essay.

Perception is reality

So a very large number of UK people PERCEIVE that all Politicians need to be more open and transparent about their expenses

A very large number of UK people PERCEIVE that Gordon Brown is not very good at his job

A very large number of UK people PERCEIVE that NuLabour tell lies and half truths

Those that write into blogs like this are active and invloved enough to vote with their heads and I PERCEIVE that most will not vote NuLabour - whenever that may be.

And those who are not involved in blogs like these or similar forums will PERCEIVE whatever Rupert Murdoch wants them to perceive - via The Times and The Sun

Sorry - but that's the way I precieve it to be. Prove me wrong - but as I started ... PERCEPTION IS REALITY

Nick
The main figure that commands my interest is 105.

The number of weeks to go before Mr Bean HAS to put his head above the parapet.

Thats not ZEN thats REALITY.

He can run but he cant hide!

How can expenses information possibly reveal addresses? Mine wouldn't. Could it be that MPs are claiming for door-to-door travel, something that no-one in private industry would ever be allowed to do?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It's hard not to see our politicians as being greedy opportunists helping themselves to as much of tax payer's money as they can.

Meanwhile some of us have to eat cake. Brown has devised a tax credit system that is wholly incomprehensible. On earnings of less than £8,000 I was awarded tax credits of around £40 a week. I then discovered that because of that I had to pay the full council tax of £111 a month and when the council discovered I was in receipt of tax credits, demanded all of the previous year's council tax followed soon by a bailiff's letter. When I went to talk to them about it I was told that if I earned more that £59 a week I had to pay the full whack.

I remember asking "So I have to pay the same as someone earning £100,000 a year?" Answer "Yes".
I would have been better off if I had signed on and collected housing benefit.

I sense some slight-of-hand in all of this. What is 'spun' as helping the low paid is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I'm sure a big part of it is to make the unemployment figures seem lower. And I have no idea if I am better or worse off after all the recent gerrymandering and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Meanwhile MPs have come up with a wonderful scam called "Expenses" that enables them not to have to spend any of their own money at all! Everything is paid for by the taxpayer - it was reported that Tony Blair even claimed for his TV licence - no wonder they don't want us to know about it.

What was Mr Brown saying about 'transparancy'?

The other similarity with Eden, as well as having to wait a long time to become Prime Minister, is that both Eden and Brown failed in their area of so-called expertise

so jimbrant caves in that he doesn't know much about the pension system after all despite having a go at everyone else for suggesting Gordon Brown has ruined it.

This has characterised much of NuLabour criticism - snipe first, ask questions later.

What for instance is the meaning in Crewe and Natwich of the 'Tory Toff' tired old class warfare campaigning? The man comes from a family who played foster family to several underprivileged children. NuLabour don't seem to understand with all their ridiculous promises about 'lifting people out of poverty' that the upper orders have been doing this for centuries....and with their own money.

Yet despite this, NuLabour put forward as a canmdidate, wait for it all you class warfare anti nepotists out there, the daughter of the previous candidate. Hypocrisy? You couldn't make this up.

As for Brown's one hour attempt to relaunch himself...firing off an answer that more people were being banged up in prison as an antidote to social breakdown shows just how out of touch this man is. He just can't do empathy. How does locking people up sort out societal problems? Even the Tories worked this one out with the failure of short sharp shocks. But no, Brown's immediate knee jerk response is a controlling one - lock them all up.

You've got a loser not a leader.

Before I read any posts on this subject this is the situation as I see it.
As you rightly said yourself Nick and I quote....

"However, it was the prime minister's stubborn denial that there were any losers and his insistence that there was no political problem that made this row so dangerous"

We in the real world (known as Planet Earth, Terra Firma, UK) all knew there were loosers with the one exception which appears to be our very own PM (Appears to be on Planet Zogg, dancing with Fairies in the No10 Rose garden etc etc.)

There is therefore but one question, and one overall question only.

Is he just so utterly incompetent to not see the problem and the writing on the wall before being nailed to it by you guys. Or (as some would say, but I could not possibly comment) did he set out to deceive the electorate using the most weakest in our society as a springboard in an attempt to keep his hands on power.

I think those affected should be told don't you?
Kind Regards
Baron VonRipWinkel De Parkbench.

The comparison between Eden and Brown is weak. Eden had virtually no domestic policy experience and frankly was ill. He also had at least 2 very able Cabinet ministers ready to take over at any time in Butler and Macmillan. Who could step in to replace Brown in the current Cabinet?
One other thought - Labour has no history of disposing of unpopular leaders. The Tories are experts in "regicide" (not quite the right term) but Brown will survive to the next election comfortably. Talk of a leadership challenge is media mischief making - the looney right might "get off" on the speculation but it will not happen.

Economic cycles ????" as a poster said above...
"He hasn't claimed to abolish them - you might as well claim that he had claimed to abolish the seasons."

err, well sorry poster but yes he did say just that . Not only that, he said it in every single interview, every single news report, every single day, every single week and every single month and when chancellor every single year as well.
"The end to boom and bust!!!!" he constantly said.
Err Right.

Kind Regards
Baron VonRipWinkle De Parkbench

Thank you BaronVonRip, it appears someone else was actually listening to the protestations of the Great Ditherer down the years and unlike all his apologists was not just tuned into selecto-vision. "No more Tory boom and bust" I heard it too loud and clear on several occasions. So what exactly was running the money supply at levels of between 10 and 14% growth then? Looks like a bit of a credit boom to me.

My question now is when does the NuLabour miracle period actually begin? Anything that goes wrong now is being blamed on a Tory administration of eleven years ago, so has all the last eleven years 'success' actually been down to the Tories as well? Did they order the growth in the money supply for eleven years. Did the Tories create the failed Tripartite structure now under review and responsible for busting the Northern Rock?

What is missing from this adminstration is an ability to engage with its electorate - principally Brown's failure to engage - and any kind of accountability for anything that happens from credit booms to busted banks to failed public sector reforms, to Railtrack, to lost documents, to anything that's happened on their watch in fact. The very idea of actually accepting responsibility or resigning is beyond these guys.

#33.
Watch Brown's press conference yesterday (it's now on the No10 site if you have it nowhere else), and listen to him explain about economic cycles.

I went onto the Labour Party web site. One page contained the following twaddle -

The values Labour stands for today are those which have guided it throughout its existence.

social justice
• strong community and strong values
• reward for hard work
• decency
• rights matched by responsibilities

Can anybody in their right mind say that this is what they have achieved in 11 years of government?

Think the above would discredit anything else Mr Bean decides to ramble on about!

#33.
Watch Brown's press conference yesterday (it's now on the No10 site if you have it nowhere else), and listen to him explain about economic cycles.

I went onto the Labour Party web site. One page contained the following twaddle -

The values Labour stands for today are those which have guided it throughout its existence.

social justice
strong community and strong values
reward for hard work
decency
rights matched by responsibilities

Can anybody in their right mind say that this is what they have achieved in 11 years of government?

Think the above would discredit anything else Mr Bean decides to ramble on about!

I am amused at the ever-entertaining Chuck E Hogwash's mentions of Aristotle, Zen, Tao, Shantideva , etc., yet all his rarefied writings can be personified in one Nu Labour minister: Balls.

Any expenses paid for travel from home to the normal place of work is not an allowable expense and thus taxable income.

Nick - why don't you check that MPs are declaring this taxable income for travel from home to the House of Commons?

#67 RobinJD -"so jimbrant caves in that he doesn't know much about the pension system after all "

No. I know about occupational pension schemes, which is what the discussion was about. I don't know about personal pensions, which colinefb introduced into the topic, and said so. It appears that Robin doesn't know the difference.

#70 and 71 "The end to boom and bust"

The economic cycle has nothing to do with boom and bust. Brown has indeed had a lot of success in ending the cycle of boom and bust that characterised UK economic performance under all governments, and has replaced it with a regime of steady but not spectacular growth. He hasn't claimed to abolish the economic cycle, which is why he was talking about it in his recent press conference.

What has mainly 'gone wrong' recently has been a very large and very rapid increase in the price of oil - of the order of a five-fold increase. I can remember when oil prices merely (!) doubled in 1973, and the country lurched into a three-day week, limits on the availability of electric power, and cars limited to 50mph. Neither government could do anything much about the price increase, but the different consequences for the economy have a lot to do with the quality of economic management by Blair/Brown as compared to Heath/Barber.

Good piece.

Whatever your political leanings, is there really anyone who's thinking it's when not if GB collects his P45?

May I suggest that quite possibly we're all missing the point here? The real issues are NOT Gordon Brown, the UK inflation rate, New Labour, Dave Cameron, the 10% tax rate, 42 days pre-charge detention etc etc. The REAL issue (rather like the Emperor with no clothes) is the end of cheap energy, minerals and other natural resources on our little planet. Specifically, and brutally, the end of cheap oil is now hammering its way into every quarter of our lives - and will continue to do so. Note that I've not said "and will continue to do so until ...." some vague time in the future when it will become cheap again. It won't. So, forget wondering if the Brown Terror or any other politician can fix the state we're in. He/she can't. All of us need to get our heads around the end of cheap energy and the seismic effects this will have, not on the UK but on the whole of mankind in the coming decades. Hold on to your hats guys: we're on the leading edge of the toughest era in history. Gordon can do nothing about it.

Ref #76 jimbrant draws parallells between Blair/Brown and Heath/Barber. Unless I am wrong - these were two very different times .... Heath/Barber had just come into governement after a Miners strike (Joe Gormley as I recall) and strikes by cemetary workers and refuse disposal workers. They were already trying to cope with a previous mess left by another Labour administration (was it Wilson/Foot - it's all so long ago)and were taken off guard by OPEC who were flexing their muscles. But I also recall that the 3 day working week and the issuing of petrol coupons took place quickly and efficiently and with little 'spin' or 'media marketing'. Indeed the petrol couponds were never required as the issue was resolved by common sense all round.

As for #78 (above) I was also remembering that in 1968 a gallon of petrol was approx. 5/- thats five shillings (25p). The average weekly pay was about £20pw so a gallon of petrol cost 1.25% of a week's salary.

Today with average pay of approx. £385 pw and petrol costing £1.12 per litre the cost per gallon works out at about £5. Thus the price per gallon in 2008 is 1.29% of a week's salary! Hmmm - not much difference there.

When we got married in 1968, our average weekly shopping bill was £7 - 35% of the week's salary. Today a good weekly shop at Tesco for the 2 of us is approx £85 - that's about 22% of the weekly salary - Hmmm again - so the problem can't be there

Likewise the telephone bill in 1968 was a lot more expensive as was air travel and indeed all household electrical and domestic appliances.

A new Mini in 1968 cost £815 - 81.5% of an average annual salary, today a Mini costs about £16,000 - 80% of an average annual salary. Strange this - where is the problem?

In 1968 the mortgage rate was over 7.5% and a first time buyer needed a 10% deposit and the lenders would only advance you 2.5 times your annual salary.

A new 3 bedroom house cost £8,000 in Herfordshire and that represented 8 years salary, today a similar property would cost you £300,000 or 15 years salary.

Can I suggest that the real problem is not fuel prices but over inflated property prices and cheap money, mixed in with a spend culture and extended credit.

These problems are both of our own making and are 'fixable' to a large degree with the UK itself. However the medicine our culture needs to cure itself is both unpleasant and lengthy. Do we as a nation and our politicians have the strength of character and moral fibre to accept the challenge?

I for one would be happier to live in a society where peope didn't spend what they didn't have, and financial institutes were more responsible in the way that they loaned money and invested it too.

And of course never forget - like politicians, the banks are using our money to play with. All those who speculate with money that they don't personally own should be totally accountable for the good governance of same.

Back to the original theme ....

I don't understand why the same inland revenue rule of expenses that applies to me (a minister of religion ie a vicar) doesnt apply to ministers of state. I am provided with a house that is within the parish... give each mp the offer of a rent free, water free, council tax free (these are not really free but paid by the church) home walking distance to portcullis house. if they want a new carpet/TV/bed they can buy it out of their own pocket else let the public buy it for them and they can pay tax such that after 5 years they have paid the same tax as the original value of the item and when they leave office the item must stay with the house. I cannot understand how anything from John Lewis can be an expense other than a PC, printer, desk and chair. If I tried put a widescreen TV down on my self assessment I think an IR inspector would be knocking on my door. Let them furnish with things from their other home like anyone else who lives in the city during week and commutes home at weekend.

Re-Post #79 (badworthsboy). Yes, your cost comparisons may be correct (I haven't checked the figures). But in the 40 years since 1968, on the subject of oil/transport specifically, our economy and society has evolved to bake in this relatively cheap commodity. As the oil price now soars (and there's a long way to go yet - we'll be at $150 per barrel and more before the year's out), the impact on our lives will be increasingly significant - to the extent of being genuinely "life-changing". The point is that our politicians must not be allowed to live in a parallel universe of pay, expenses and benefits (your money and mine, don't forget!) as we all struggle to cope with the forthcoming economic tornado. I go back to my first point: we're in for a very rough ride in the coming years and the sooner our politicians side with the population, the easier it will be for them to govern through the storm.

Headlines 18.05.08

Tories target extraordinary win

Headlines 23.05.08

Mr Bean promises - the Labour party is safe in my hands.

Headline 24.05.08

24 hours to save the Labour Party.

Newsflash 25.05.08

The parties over!

These problems are both of our own making and are 'fixable' to a large degree with the UK itself. However the medicine our culture needs to cure itself is both unpleasant and lengthy. Do we as a nation and our politicians have the strength of character and moral fibre to accept the challenge?

Good comment. Too many business leaders lack spine and too many consumers can't keep their fingers off the bling. The government has taken measures to better direct things but some of the more wilful genies need to get back inside their bottles.

A proper measure of confidence, sociability, and happiness is enough. By working from the inside out as you recommened the long-term outcome is better. The BBC is trying to talk up boasting. Anyone who buys into that is merely perpetuating unreality.

There's a lot of noise and bullishness from the mob but anyone who pays attention to that contrariness and negativity is being a fool to themselves. Things change and people adapt so I expect these issues will be dealt with. It's nothing to worry about.

jimbrant "it's not our fault it's the oil price" - it is your government's fault they spent eleven years in power levergaing up the economy to a point where it couldn't cope with external shocks.

If Gordon Brown thinks he's the right man for the job he should explain why when economic conditions were benign he decided to ramp up spendong. governments are there to protect our interests. Why was he so busy splashing the cash? (to no effect)

he's big on rhetoric and short on accountability...a bit like his apologists.

and I've given up even trying to understand what planet Chuck Hogwash is on...he changes his position more times than his underpants.

Nick

Please can you name and shame the MPs who wish to keep their expenses undisclosed. This is an atrocious use of taxpayers money and they should be made accountable for every penny. I know that the Speaker is the main person using our money to fight this in the High Court, but having had his wife's taxi trips paid for, no doubt he is confident of getting this to a satisfactory result. For a Labour MP he is quite keen on keeping the boys and girls club of the elite in the House of Commons away from scrutiny. Bizarre use of his ideology in my book!

If MPs want us to trust them, they need to be accountable. This current system is open to abuse and clearly is being abused.

More pertinently can you name and shame those who shredded Blair’s expenses.

And why does Michael Martin allow officials to destroy claim forms and receipts up to April 2005 while the rest of us have to keep them for 7 years.

As it goes, I think the retrospective applicaton of a disclosure rule on expenses is a bad thing - no matter whose they are: Blair's, Brown's, Prescott's, Cameron's or Osbourne's. Publicising expenses when they breach the rules is fine. But having a system for expenses, which when introduced is confidential, and then changing the system so that the principle of confidentiality is then broken so far as the past is concerned, seems wrong to me. By all means paste expense claims on a notice board outside Parliament in the future. But to enforce disclosure in the past seems a bit petty and almost vengeful. As for Tony Blair's expenses being shredded, I should mention that regardless of anything else, HMRC have rules concerning the retention of documents, usually for periods of up to 6 or 7 years. The idea that documents can be destroyed when subject to an official investigation is almost criminal; the explanaton that someone didn't know is pathetic. Someone needs to be held to account for this. I should add for the record that if his past expenses were within the rules then I have no problem with them.

If Mr Bean thinks he is the right man for the job, I have no problem with that providing he goes to the country for a mandate.

I, for one will not hold my breath!

After reading the news article - Tories will be good housekeeper. My first observation is - this is the only person in GB who is talking any sense.

As the head of a household, over 40 years, I know to well that the prime tenets of sound budgeting are to keep spending and borrowing within acceptable levels. Another important virtue of good house keeping is to put something aside for a rainy day.

Unfortunately, on these issues, Mr Bean talks the talk but does not walk the walk. God help us all when the pack of cards economy he has built, starts to collapse!

MPs only show contempt for the electorate when they introduce rules governing party donations and the FOI act and believe themselves above these laws.

I don’t need part time economic bloggers to tell me what constitutes common sense budgeting. But there again Common Sense died some years ago under this government.

I for one will be making a lifelong change and voting Tory if they put some policies around what they are advocating. I feel sure that I will not be alone.

Nick please may we have a thread running on Tory finances, not forgetting an investigation into the Midland Council.
Who and what vested interests are bankrolling the Conservatives and why, what is their motive?
Why if they are not going to privatise the NHS is it neccessary for Andrew Lansley to be bankrolled by a private medical company?
Why is it that Lansley is on record as saying that any hospital authority than runs out of their yearly cash allowance will be allowed to go into recievership and not one journalist, media etc has challenged that thus far?
If and when Lansley is ever challenged on this will he do the usual Tory ploy and retract when they realise how unfavourable that would be with the electorate?
After all Cameron bear in mind has only ever committed himself to two policies. Inheritance tax and stamp duty.
Why is the right wing press and the Murdoch orgaisation keeping stoom about this?
Why has the Murdoch press and opreganisations come out so much in favour of Cameron, has he promised to put the BBC on the same footing as SKY?
So those that cannot afford to buy the services of Sky will have to either pay the same or similiar for BBC or stay with free to view.
This is only a guess but since there has only been one journalist bring it to the attention so far of the ferocity that is conducted by our press and the Murdoch media and press organisation againsts one man, our PM Gordon Brown. No one person can fight the might of a free press,not even Gordon Brown.
A level playing field is required here.
Let us see Nick if you have the backbone to tackle this thorny subject, even although you were the chairman of the young conservatives in an earlier lif.
I hope you keep a fairer balance it is sorely needed.

Re 90(below) and 91
___________________
OnThePeripheral wrote

"if Mr Bean thinks he is the right man for the job, I have no problem with that providing he goes to the country for a mandate.

I, for one will not hold my breath!"
___________________

It is unwise for any of us sitting at a computer, typing into this blog, To use the term Mr Bean, The famous comedy nerd as a form of abuse against Gordon Brown. He is running the country. Not sitting at a computer parroting conservative nonsense. It was mildly amusing when Vince Cable said it. It 's not any more.

I do wish the conservatives would stop using technical terms like "Putting money aside for a rainy day.".

Gordon Brown had a better mandate than John Major. Everybody knew when they voted Labour that Gordon Brown would probably take over some time into the government. Especially as the conservatives kindly warned us "Vote Blair, Get Brown" Are you suggesting that the public didn't trust the Conservatives when they said that?

#91 OnThePeripheral

Yes, I tend to agree with your sentiment (if I am interpretting it correctly) that quoting stats and what have you in a place like this is unlikely to influence anyone's opinion. It is a case of "Wittegenstein's ruler" - unless you trust the source of a comment then really all the comment serves to do is to give you a better idea of that person's point of view (rather than influencing your own).

Do people vote on specific points of policy, or do they go on a "gut feel" based on an assimilation of all of the pieces of information they uncover, or - for most people - are fed by their preferred media source?

Ultimately I think it is the latter, which is why Gordon Brown is in such a hole right now (as he seems unable to turn the tide of perception around). But there's a long time till the next election, and the Conservatives will have to tread carefully in the meantime. Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them (in my opinion). All the Conservatives need to do is to appear measured, confident and competent. I don't think they are doing a very good job of this at the moment, and it is only the size of the perceived incompetency of Mr Borwn's government in recent months which is masking this. There is still plenty of time for both sides to raise their game or slip up. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

#92

I take it you wont be voting Tory at the next election.

Kiwilegs really sticks the knife into our Nick.

Revealing to the public that a nominally neutral political correspondent was actually affiliated with Party X/Y/Z 'in an earlier life', sows a seed of doubt in the mind.

Not necessarily that that person still has an affiliation but because of it, that they might be tempted to lean slightly in the opposite direction.

Nick, people will be watching even more closely now for the slightest whiff of political bias, either way.

Kiwilegs,

Bless you! Sometime you are so sweet.

This is a rant pure and simple.

You seem to suggest that all this reporting is all one sided. I suppose it would seem that way sometimes, usually when things aren't going your way.

However the facts are the facts where were you when Major was getting a pasting? Or perhaps Howard? Or Hague? It was fine when Tony was getting an easy ride from the very same press you are lambasting. Now you get all self righteous when GB gets a pasting?

Come now let’s try and keep this an informed debate. Let’s talk about the issues and their merits rather than bleat about the press.

#93 dhwilkinson

You're right. Gordon Brown has an absolute mandate to lead - as did John Major. Our constitution - although unwritten - is quite clear on this.

Notwithstanding this, it does seem to me that governance is becoming more and more "presidential", with general elections being fought, won and lost on the personalities of the party leaders (and yes, I'd agree that people knew Mr Brown was coming in 2005, whereas I doubt the majority of the electorate had even heard of John Major before he took over).

What do you think of more presidential style debates (as in the US and as in the recent London mayor elections), I think these would be very interesting and would give the potential leaders who are going to shape our nation the chance to sink or swim. By the way, that's about as far as I'd like us to go down the US route!

By restricting your vote to one individual, who usually has a political (party) affiliation, once every four or five years, then your precious vote has, in effect, been massively diluted and compromised.

If you vote, then you have to choose an individual who is usually running on a party platform, whereby you almost certainly do not agree with some of the measures that they are proposing.

This compromises the integrity of your vote.

There is no technical reason why voters could not vote themselves (direct democracy) on many more issues.

All that stops it is the cosy political cartel, those 'forces of conservatism' that all the mainstream parties collude in, which dilutes your vote.

In effect, they are saying you can have 'democracy' but only a democracy tightly controlled by us.

Surely us English can do better than this?

# 15 Thok1956 I find it strange that people here would find that the governments handling of Northern Rock as being a bad move, in the first instance it saved thousands of jobs mostly in the North, if it had been in the south it would have been hailed as a good thing, the effect of not doing anything about Northen Rock would have been devastating for the banking system and consequently the country, Mr Cameron agreed with the prime minister on every move and then took another look and decided it would be better to jump on another passing band wagon. its a pity that a few of the shareholder and investors whose money was saved dont step up to the mark and say thankyou, but their mostly tories I guess.
What election can anybody tell me when Gordon Brown said there was going to be an election the Tories said there was going to be an election the press said there was going to be an election and were quite excited with election fever but the only man that could make that decision never said there would be an election. Far from bottling out as you tories love to say he should be commended for keeping his head when all around were losing theirs..
Then you say he showed his contempt for the British people by not arriving to sign the Lisbon treaty until two hours after the other 27how on earth that insulted the British people only you know, but at least you admit it was the "Lisbon Treaty" the man had a previous appointment with the select committee, had he not attended that you would be saying he bottled that and put Europe before the British parliament, the fact that he arrived two hours late signified that he did put the British government first.
The referendum at least you had the honesty to admit that it was a treaty so we've cleared that point up, do you honestly believe that whether it was a treaty or a constitution that we all and I mean all voters would have sat down and read either or both of these documents and then come to a measured opinion of which way we should go or should they have listened to the Tory I hate Europe machine E.G.the Murdoch press who are doing all in their power to get us out of Europe. out of the 27 countries involved only one had a referendum Ireland and its built into their constitution that they have too, He did admit he was wrong over the 10 pence tax and apologized. the rest of what you say is your opinion and your entitled to it as we all . please dont remark on my grammer as I am quite aware its appalling but believe me the content is'nt.