Never off-duty

If the comment was a joke then it is a non-issue and should be forgotten pretty quickly. If however it was a serious remark, then it is quite revealing about the real feelings of a senior tory. The problem with this level of scrutiny is that we are very bad at telling the difference between these two things.

However, as I said on your last blog - these comments are a distraction, the big story yesterday was the unemployment figures. Mandy must be overjoyed that this rubbish is getting all the coverage.

I'm afraid you can be, and I think it may well be the right move for Cameron in many ways.

It is pretty unbelievable how so many MP's still seem unable to comprehend exactly why the public is so brassed off with them. It has little to do with whether or not rules have technically been broken. It is because they are treating the expenses as a salary top up, an entitlement to take the money to fund their normal living expenses. Claiming for food, refurbishment on your family home, widescreen TV's, none of this should ever have been considered reasonable, everyone else pays these expenses out of their salary. Which is why listening to Smith whingeing about not having broken any rules because she spends so much time at her sister's house is so objectionable.

Duncan's comments I'm afraid show that he just does not get it. He is another one who thinks the public are being unreasonable in their witch hunt.

"Don't you see, it is for your benefit we eat these apples and drink this milk"

"Can you be sacked for saying out loud what a lot of your colleagues are thinking?"

Well, you certainly can be if you're a whistleblower, despite there (allegedly) being legislation in place to stop that happening.

Doesnt apply to our right honourable friends though, does it?

Sheesh....

Trouble is we now live in a society where some opinions are just not allowed. It is a fact that a disproportionate amount of youth gun and knife crimes are commited by black males. There may be a host of socio-economic reasons why but simply stating the fact can lead to hysterical accusations of racism. The same goes in other areas, equality between the sexes at work, immigration, child sex abuse, domestic violence. There are political bandwagons and groups with vested interests that make debate of the issues impossible. People just stop voicing their opinions, although they still hold them. Complex issues are dumbed down into "black and white" where even the suggestion that there might be some "grey" leads to accusations of some sort of "-ism".

trouble is, of course, then when people hold opinions that they are not allowed to voice, their values are never properly explored or tested and when someone DOES listen to them, they get support. Why else the rise of the BNP? It is not that people's "off the cuff" remarks are likely to reach the public domain that is a worry, it is that fewer and fewer opinions appear to be "acceptable" in our overly PC society.

Your last sentence:

I wonder if you can really be sacked for saying out loud what many of your colleagues might think.

In the PC world that has gone mad, the answer is most emphatically YES! In offices up and down the land, people at all times are very circumspect every time they open their mouths. With some companies as an employee you have to also behave to certain standards in your leisure time. It's not right but that is the way things are now.

Perhaps we can have our vote on the whole debacle on expenses in the next month or two? Why should Alan Duncan's constitutes or the rest of the country for that matter have to wait for this lame duck, Government to call a general election?

Under-cover journalist is it a good thing? If some one says one thing publicly and then says the opposite in private, off the record? Should we know the truth? Example of this Damian Green affair, where the Government was saying one thing, but doing another?

Oh what a waste of time and space. He loves a joke does Alan Duncan, why else would he have appeared on Have I got News for You?

On the other hand, the furtive, looney lefty who trespassed on AD's garden and then got AD to entertain him on the terrace of the House of Commons is not so much of a joke, just a rather tiresome nuisance.

If 100 senators can run the United States of America then David Cameron may well decide to reduce his numbers. Up to him. He knows what he is doing.

Nevertheless what AD said was not serious and is only what hundreds of MPs say in different ways.

Democracy? What democracy. The Thought police (soon to be "opposition")are really desperate now.

No, he's all right is Alan. Let it rest for heaven's sake. Nobody is going to die as a result of it.

Was it a joke or an insight into the general thinking of MPs? A joke is something that can literaly be laughed off. If MPs are genuinely feeling that they hard done by because they are expected to act responsibly then the clear out in the next election needs to be radical and widespread.

Personally I think Mr Duncan has a tendency to open his mouth before engaging his brain, certainly he only seems to think of the consequences after the event.

Let me vote now!!

I wonder if you can really be sacked for saying out loud what many of your colleagues might think.

Do they really think this though? If they do then lets just hope that the those that take the time to elect them also have a look on line at what they have claimed for then perhaps decide if their in parliament for the good of the constituencies or themselves, and I dont mean this for just one party but the whole lot.

it was so obviously meant as a joke by a very rich man being ironic...but the media cant help themselves indulging in a frenzy, to prove my point is it really necessary to have two consecutive blogs on this issue, (Laura is NR pulling the strings here?).....Mandelson doesnt need a team at labour party headquarters, he has the UK media working for him...

"I wonder if you can really be sacked for saying out loud what many of your colleagues might think."

Yes funnily enough you can. Legally probably not, but the majority of us don't have the means to take employers to court if such circumstances arise.

As for Mr Duncan. His comments are indicative of the whole attitude of MPs and I see no reason why such comments should not be reported.

It's up to the media to print what is in the public interest and what is not, and in the case of MPs anything they say is in the public interest.

It's part of being an MP.

If they want time off then surely, like the rest of us, they have a home to go to with a wife and kids where they sound off all they want.

He's proven himself to be a bit of an inbecile more than once by now. Cameron should kick him to the back-benches and let his constituents decide if they want him to stay or not when the election finally comes.

I can handle flippancy and sarcasm, even "humour" from an MP providing they are doing their job well at the same time. In Mr Duncan's case, being in the opposition, the only ones who can judge this are his constituents. Definitely too much of a liability for the cabinet though.

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

Come on folks, we all have our foibles, and we all from time to time have to suppress personal feelings in the interests of "diplomacy" or politeness, or just sensitivity to the people who may take offence.

It's what enables a society to function a little more harmoniously.

However transgressing this protocol is not exactly a big deal, and people should keep things in perspective. Otherwise we end up with an over-sanitised society where normal interactions and debate ... and humour ... are suppressed for fear of offending some over-sensitive party.

Where offence has occurred, a suitable apology (again in proportion to the evil-ness intended by the trangressor) should be sufficient to allow the World to get on with normal service.

Alan Duncan said what he was thinking, and thought it was a private comment between him and a 'friend'.

He probably feels hard done by, which is ridiculous, but the fact the MPs have been living this way for so long means that they've come to expect such a standard. When that was questioned, and the walls came tumbling down, those that had things to hide were suddenly exposed. Not all MPs were 'fiddling' the system, most were using a system that was biased in their favour.

Living on rations? I think Mr Duncan should adapt like the rest of us have done. I can't go to my favourite Michelin rated restaurant due to this recession, why should he? I'm buying 'own-brand' foods instead of my favourite brands, why can't he?

If he has any hope of being a popular MP, he would do well to remember that line quoted in workplaces all over the land: LEAD BY EXAMPLE

Otherwise, I don't believe he meant it with malice - he's a joker, after all. Does anyone remember HIGNFY earlier this year when he made his most famous gaffe ever - not 2 houses, but 3 wasn't it? Maybe he just needs a lesson in 'engage brain before opening gob'

I have been essentially alone in my complete lack of interest in MP's Expenses claims.

As I have said on numerous occasions it is not fraud and it does not constitute a conflict of interest - my real concern has always been second jobs, whereby an MP essentially has a divided loyalty between his Constituents and commercial interests.

I have no particular affection for Alan Duncan, and there is distinct hypocrisy in some attitudes towards his comments, when compared with people’s attitudes to Labour MPs. However I do agree with Duncan to a certain extent over expenses - even if I find his various other income streams an irresponsible distraction from his job.

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

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

16 Dayvine

How is it possible to have no interest in the MPs expenses debacle?

The country was united in its revulsion and condemnation of this cosy set up they had arranged for themselves.

That they have not learned one iota from it is proved ,not by Duncan type comments but the fact that immediately before the recess a secret meeting including Bercow, Harman and coincidentally Duncan agreed to raise the no receipts no questions asked allowance from 400 quid a month to 775 quid. This of course is in addition to salary and other expenses.

I dont get that much pension. You will not be surprised to learn I am very interested.

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

Alan Duncan's comments were not a joke. They may have been said off the cuff or in a moment when he felt comfortable and let his guard down. However, he said what he felt. We can commend him for his honesty in that regard, however it is the views that he holds that are unpallettable.

This is a continuing theme though with Boris Johnson's comments about £250,000 per annum as chicken feed and Anthony Steen arguing that anyone who feels that the expenses were unreasonable were just jealous. If our representatives have not taken this matter seriously, then who do they represent? Certainly not me. It indicates that they are not in touch with reality, and are unable to empathise with the people in this country who are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Hopefully, this will lead to a revolution of some proportion where people don't see becoming a politician as a way of getting rich or maintaining a luxury lifestyle. They will see that representing your constituents is a privilege and working in the Houses of Parliament is an honour.

I don't think this is a case of MPS never being off-duty but more a case of how they act in front of their "customers"

In a normal office situation you may have a moan about a particular difficult customer however when face to face with that customer you have to be act professional.

Duncan made his comment not only when in the presence of one of his "customers" but one who had previously expressed displeasure concerning his behaviour (in his own unique way).

Duncan should really consider his audience when telling his jokes, his fellow MPs would probably have loved it and even agreed.

All this goes to prove is that there are senior MPs (in both parties) who seem to be under the impression that they are somehow better then us. I think that Cameron may have to seriously consider Duncan's future as it really doesn't fit well with the current Tory PR pitch.

I have a mixture of feelings about this story - I can't yet decide how they balance out.

First, I despise Mr Prowse, who abused hospitality by recording what appears to have been a relatively informal visit. He ought to have declared a hidden microphone, or at least warned that he considered all conversation to be on-the-record.

Second, I question Alan Duncan's judgement. What was he thinking, inviting a malicious third party to a meeting where he makes off-the-cuff remarks?

Third, I cannot believe this story is worth the attention it is getting. "Well-known person makes ill-judged comments in the hearing of a whistle-blower." On the same day that the horrendous employment figures were published?

Fourth, and probably most controversially, I think Mr Duncan is right to say that MPs are being abused. So maybe the press has got the story upside-down. MPs may be paid more than most of us, but they are doing the equivalent of executives in industry. They should be paid executive salaries. To compare them with people who are losing their jobs is a dishonest way of attacking them. Compare them with managers of industry, or lawyers, or other professionals, not factory workers or plumbers.

And MPs do NOT get massive holidays - if they are doing their jobs properly. Mr Duncan was on duty when hosting the visit of Mr Prowse. He and other high-profile MPs seem to me to be on duty 7 days a week, most of the weeks of the year. The summer holidays of many MPs, I believe, are spent doing official-ish things, either in their constituencies or in relation to their portfolios. During most weeks, a minister, or shadow minister, will actually be "on call" 24x7, as they could be interviewed on a portfolio topic in any emergency.

Regarding expenses: MPs do need support. We do not want a system in which only the children of the rich can be MPs. And we don't want a system where only the richest MPs can maintain a lifestyle that allows them to rise to cabinet level. This witch-hunting WILL deter decent people from standing for Parliament, and we WILL be left with upper and middle class people whose families or fortunes can support them through the early years. Then we will be left with people like Blair, Cameron, Mandelson, Osborne, Benn, ... Back to the Thirties, I think.

AD should step down from the Cabinet. He's made a couple of gaffe's in public. DC has plenty of people he can use. It'll be a good move as it shows conviction and true repenting. None of the other parties can argue against it. AD can always come back later. He just needs to be supportive and less vocal during his time away from the front bench.

Given Duncan is Shadow Leader and also serves as Tory representative on the pay and rations committee which, by the way, recently voted through an increase of £100, making the new monthly allowance not requiring receipts, £500; I just don't see how Cameron can do anything but sack him.

I'm actually surprised he has lasted this long given his cringingly embarrassing performance on HIGNFY.

Shadow leader of the House? 3rd rate music hall act more like.

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

It is all about context,
(incidentally, Laura, you appeared to promise a blog on unemployment which hasn't materialised and is certainly a more important issue, later?).

If you let off steam to your friends then you can reasonable expect this to be private. The whole Corfu saga of last summer was basically down to this, sounding off in what was understood was private but then was used publicly.
If you are having a beer with the man who videoed himself digging a £ sign into your lawn and sound off then you can reasonably expect that it may just get into the public domain.
It was an extremely inappropriate comment in an inappropriate setting.

After all, if you call your boss a fool in private or public then you might expect there to be consequences whether it's true or not - if you impune the integrity of your electorate in private or public then expect there to be consequences.

It suggests he is either a fool, a hypocrite or both. We have enough of both already in government and parliament and I hope we have fewer after the next election. DC can ensure that there would be one less in government for certain if he chooses, but will he?

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

You are wisely approaching this very gently. It is of course profoundly unhealthy that politicians can't let off steam. They of course have been turned into scape goats, and must feel dumped on.

The management of MPs pay was very badly mishandled and manipulating expenses was pretty shabby.

MPs should try and understand the source of this frustration, and maybe Alan Duncan did, which is why it is really terrible to rake private comments entirely out of their original context.

Now the system has been steadied, both parties should be thinking of ways of bringing the bankers to heel. BAB is an insult to us all.

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

How often MPs are 'on duty' is something that really should be discussed. As much as they may need to let off steam, they are chosen to represent the public and should expect the same level of scrutiny and attention as celebrities get when considering the level of pay, power and responsibility that comes with the job.

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

Have seen the incident on TV and it sounded just like a throw away comment trying to be humourous. Contrast that to Margaret Becketts effort on Question Time a few weeks ago and it is miles apart.
This was a private conversation covertly recorded, not a policy statement.

Did I also hear that Alan Duncan invited this chap to the House after he dug up a part of his garden? If so then then I don't think I would have been so friendly about it.

Only 2 MP's have resigned over the expense claims!

They are the only honurable ones, all the ones who "are not standing" at the next election still have their hands in the cookie jar and will receive a massive tax payers golden good bye.

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

"But is this development a good or a bad thing? Is Mr Goodman right when he suggests that politicians, like everyone else, need to be able to "let off steam"?

He was showing off in his place of work. If behind closed doors, then fire away but even then only to someone you can really trust.

Apparently his gaff was made in one of the house of commons very heavily subsidised bars.

Easy to "live on rations" when you can buy all your meals for a few quid in the house of commons bars and resturants.

The rations comment was obviously a joke. Trying to claim he really thought that is just silly.

However, I dislike his insinuation that can be paraphrased as 'the salaries of MPs are not enough to get wonderful people like me into the job so we deserve our extras'.

the tory leadership is wrong to keep mr duncan he should be removed and ordered to stand down at the next election.
by protecting him the are acting along the same lines as the present government and every one knows how trustworthy and honest they are, keeping mr duncan will only damage the parties election persona as far as voters can see.

This is a continuing theme though with Boris Johnson's comments about £250,000 per annum as chicken feed and Anthony Steen arguing that anyone who feels that the expenses were unreasonable were just jealous. If our representatives have not taken this matter seriously, then who do they represent? Certainly not me. It indicates that they are not in touch with reality, and are unable to empathise with the people in this country who are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

-----------

While I agree with you on Steen, I can not find too much to fault Boris on in this matter.

He is a wealthy man, the fact that £250k is not a whole lot of money too him is neither here nor there. Should he have bitten his tongue? Of course. But he is earning this money, he is paid what the newspaper feels his articles are worth, and it is noone elses business. I found myself grinding my teeth when the interviewer immediately siezed on this slight gaff, and pretended some sort of moral outrage. So Boris does not think of £250k as a lot of money. Big deal. There are no laws against being wealthy.

The jealous comment though is completely out of order. It is quite likely that many of us are jealous of a system that allows people to draw cash over and above their salary to pay for normal living expenses. I would love to be able to supplement my income in such a way. What makes it morally reprehensible is that they are doing it with our hard earned money, just helping themselves to the public purse to improve their own lot, and acting as if they have every right to it. Absolutely disgraceful, while we struggle to get by, and as unemployment hits 2.4m and national debt goes up to some ungodly figure, these people have the nerve to complain when we tell them that we don't want them thieving from our taxes anymore.

I forget who the Tory MP was who said he "wouldn't want to be worse off" because of the coming changes. That one gave me another moment of purest rage. Never has there been a better demonstration of how they view their expenses, to them they are not there to reimburse the necessary expenses of their job, but to make them "better off". I find myself running out of ways to describe the utter contempt I feel for them.

There was a piece in the Times recently that posited that you would have to be a pretty odd sort of person to want to be an MP.

The piece was really referring to being a party MP, which often involves excruciating compromises.

Virtually everybody says something different in private to their public discourse.

However, the opinion expressed by Alan Duncan is probably very typical of the mainstream parties MP's attitudes.

Most of them should get the chop at the next General Election but sadly not enough will.

Anyway, this blogger looks forward to seeing more independents and at least one English Democrat in the HoC come the next General Election.

23. At 12:30pm on 13 Aug 2009, bertrambird wrote:
Fourth, and probably most controversially, I think Mr Duncan is right to say that MPs are being abused. So maybe the press has got the story upside-down. MPs may be paid more than most of us, but they are doing the equivalent of executives in industry. They should be paid executive salaries. To compare them with people who are losing their jobs is a dishonest way of attacking them. Compare them with managers of industry, or lawyers, or other professionals, not factory workers or plumbers.

--------------------

A couple of things to take issue with on this statement.

First of all, managers and lawyers are losing their jobs just as quickly as factory workers and plumbers.

Secondly, if politicians think they deserve to be paid more, they should make arrangements openly and publicly for their salaries to be increased. They should not keep salaries at the same level, whilst at the same time using the expenses to top their pay up behind the backs of the people who pay their salaries.

Do they deserve more money? I don't know to be honest, but the huge amount of time they get off work would imply to me that they do not. I have an office job, myself those around me get 25 days of holiday a year. I work an average of between 50 and 60 hours a week, am expected to be available on weekends when necessary, and even when I am on holiday I need to spend some time checking my e-mails and responding too emergencies. Listening to our MP's moan about how hard the job they have to do is, it is extremely clear that they think life for everyone else is easy and they are the only ones under any pressure.

I have no problem with MPs making a joke or two, but the problem here is that there is every reason to think that the sentiments behind the joke were genuine, and that's why it would be appropriate for Dave to sack him.

However, I notice that Dave hasn't sacked him. So much for his zero tolerance for Tory MPs who don't take this whole expenses business seriously. It looks like Dave is just as full of lies and spin as New Labour.

16. Dayvine, I am with you. I am bored to death with the expenses debacle. Time and politics move on.

Bottom line here is Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ALL decided that giving a pay rise to MPs would be unpopular with the public, therefore they devised an allowance and expenses system which would repay them commensurate with their responsibilities and dedication to duty (working away from home, long hours etc etc).

OK it went pear shaped.

Let's put this issue to bed - until the results of the review rears its ugly head and starts some of you off again.

There are some appalling misuses of our money STILL going on. Just look at the local councils and the quangos etc etc.

Oh where is my alka selzer?

So 'Dave' is a shoo-in at the next General Election.

Fine (not).

The sort of people that have run England mostly for their families personal benefit for hundreds of years get another opportunity to gorge at the trough.

I suppose some will argue that it cannot be any worse than the mess that the metaphorical donkey-jackets i.e. Labour, have made of things.

It might be a faint hope, but maybe the English people are finally waking up from their long political topor and will cast aside the Labour/Tory duopoly.

this is quite unfortunate for Alan Duncan - who of us, after all, would NOT be embarassed by certain things we have said in an unguarded moment - still, the man is not exactly imbued with the public service ethic, is he? - I mean, if he was a stick of rock, it wouldn't be "Public Service Ethic" written inside ... would it?

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

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

It is not what you say but how you say it.

What Alan Duncan said may have been a joke but his winning smile and his very twinkly eye were missing. He should have made it obvious it was a joke. Any comedian or Prime Minister knows that the right body language helps to get the context across.

I hope he enjoys his rations.

At 12:30pm on 13 Aug 2009, bertrambird wrote: "Regarding expenses: MPs do need support. We do not want a system in which only the children of the rich can be MPs."

I'm sorry?! MPs NEED support with regards to expenses! When they're claiming for things such as duck ponds?!

MPs earn 3 times or more what I earn and I manage in life, without an expense account, in fact you'll find the majority of honest hard working individuals in the UK do the same.

Why should MPs be paid a salary as high as they do and then get any extra on top, in fact why should anyone?

Maximum wage now please.

Why is it that so many people call for someone to be sacked at the slightest gaffe?

Do we really want us to become a race of zombies who can only express ourselves through drama or comedy?

Perhaps the same ones will want to put an end to that too.

A touch of realism is needed here for even the despised politicians are still human beings and can be excused the odd gaffe or two.

Most of us believe that there are many more important matters to sort out like crime and drugs and don't forget our freedom of speech.

We don't expect MPs to be self sacrificing saints. But we do exepct them not to undermine and scarifice UK's sovereignty in politics, finance, military and domestic policies for a bit of YOM (You Owe Me) from UK and foreign lobbyists, repaid in/out of office to themselves or families members in forms of book deals, speech tours, directorships, ...

We know some MPs will always put self interests before thei party and the interst of the party before the country. But surely, there must a a few who regard MPing as genuinely honour to serve. No?

Perhaps we should consider that the media are the ones getting it wrong. At this time, when there is so much more to report on important issues, should we really be interested in Alan Duncan being filmed without his knowledge.

Personally I do not like Alan Duncan, I think he is arrogant and immature. However, when he choses he can be a Minister of great ability, many of his interviews are some of the best a politician has made for putting the points across to the public. The other side of him is a man who has a strange sense of humour, and is inclined to mimicry, which earns him hostility from all sides of Parliament. Whether Cameron should keep him depends on if his talents outweigh his rather flamboyant nature. We will never know if his comments were meant in jest or not, so it is probably best to give him the benefit of the doubt. He will always be a man who makes gaffes. However the organisation who secretly filmed him are not exactly blameless either. In a lot of ways Duncan reminds me of Mandelson, who seems himself to have lost the plot recently, judging by some of his interviews.

We make far too much of what people in public life say in unguarded moments, some of which is probably said very thoughtlessly with no intent. Even Mrs Clinton herself, the comsummate professional, made a big mistake this week, it happens, they are human. If we were all to come under the same scutiny, which of us could say we would come out of it completely clean. Myself I wish the media would concentrate on reporting and investigating the real truth of what is happening in important issues, not wasting time on this nonsense.

46#

Not a quality that you see imbued in any MP from any party, Saga. FWIW, I think most of them lost that quite some years ago.

''on/off-duty'' ??
For the millionth time. What the public wants from their MP is honesty,not jokers or actors...and if they haven't learnt this from the recent scandal,so be it.
Leave the jokes and jests to comedians.

Q:Is Alan Duncan a p/t comedian ?
A:I don't think so...

Q:Should A. Duncan have a sense of humour ?
A:Sure,we can judge by his ''humour'' the character/calibre of the man.

J:Given the number of politician's holidaying at home,this may well be the height of Britain's ''brain drain''.

If Alan Duncan thinks that living on an MP's salary is like living on rations, he ought to try living on the paltry income that many pensioners have to live on. Unlike him, many people do not have a gold-plated pension to live on and cannot charge their expenses to the taxpayer. Instead, they have to pay everything out of their own pocket.

I really worry that, with attitudes like this,if we really would be better off under the Conservatives as they seem to be adopting the New Labour tactic of trying to give the impression to taxpayers they are doing one thing when in fact they are doing something completely different.After the current crisis, it's highly unlikely that Labour will be elected for some time, but if the Conservatives carry on in the same manner when elected, the same could also be true of the Conservative party.

Maybe we should all vote for the Lib Dems as modest Vince Cable seems to have not only a better understanding of the financial situation than all the other pundits and civil servants put together but also a less arrogant attitude than some New Labour and Conservative MPs.

I will not sack Alan Duncan, says Mr. Cameron.

No, no, please don't sack him, as he is a vital asset for a forth Labour victory.

I wonder if you can really be sacked for saying out loud what many of your colleagues might think, says Nick.

Good one Nick. You hit the nail on the head.

Nothing more to add!

48. At 2:13pm on 13 Aug 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

I'd far rather that MPs were held to account for their voting records - and contributions - in the H of C, rather than worrying whether they live in a strange world of expenses.
_________________________________________________

This is possibly the most sensible comment I've read on these boards.

Sadly it's never going to happen as the press are far to lazy to analyse the work done by every individual MP. And voting records mostly follow party lines for fear of being branded 'rebel'

I don't know if this link will be allowed. However it does demonstrate his views on expenses over time:

youtube com/watch?v=y6xO4xEebNU

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

When Alan Duncan was originally interviewed about his lavish expense claims for gardening he confidently asserted that they were within the rules and he would not pay any back.

He had to backtrack on this when Cameron became strict with the shadow cabinet expenses.

However, Alan Duncan has continually given the impression that he did not agree with his leader's attitude to clamping down on expenses and his recorded comments in June (which were unguarded not a joke) just confirm what was already apparent.

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

Guido has run a post saying he was offered the video in June so it's been around for quite some time.

It would be interesting to find out where it's been in the last couple of months; stored away for release no doubt to detract from the BoE announcement that we are remain in the mire or that Tiddles has paid off his mortgage.

It was obviously meant as a joke; the fellow Duncan was talking to was the one who dug up his lawn and planted flowers in a £ sign. He would have to have been monumentally stupid to .....

I must be in the minority here but I dont see what he said that was so terrible.

Yes politicians are treated like sh!t. Often from armchair commentators that, like me, don't even put a name to their comments.
Not all politicians are dishonest, definitely not when compared to our compatriots elsewhere in the world. So yes, I agree with him on that charge, it is a bum ride and they are treated unfairly.

Furthermore, a pet hate of mine for some time now has been the role of professional politicians. I still think the best politicians would be the ones who have lived and worked in the real world and are champions of their industry.
Why is the minister fo health not a doctor or an ex-hospital administrator?
Why is Alistair Darling (and Gordon Brown) for that matter not an acocuntant?
Why does David Milliband not have an international studies degree?
Etc etc etc.

Today we have politicians whose portfolios range from froeign affairs to healthcare to space travel from one year to the next. Do we really think that shifting professional politicians around into portfolios in which they have no experience is the way to go? I personally think not.
Which brings me nicely to his second point - yes I agree that no really talented person would work as a politician for £64k a year. If they're really that good then, along with getting treated poorly, they're certainly not going to be enticed into parliament.
Especially not when one gaffe results in calls for them to resign en masse, a peculiary British trait I must add - as if any of us perform our jobs faultlessly.

Yes, fair enough, they are paid more than the "average" person, but then they're supposed to be best and brightest, not "average". It has nothing to do with the hours they work and everything to do with the work they actually do.

End of the day every society gets the politicians they deserve. If paying them less than they could get in industry makes you feel better then be prepared to attract less desirable candidates.

Alan Duncan has at the very least been very foolish to vent his anger in public. Whether he was just saying what many MPs are thinking or not, he should step down from his position on the Shadow Front Bench. He clearly doesn't get how angry the public is over expenses.

But I have to ask: Is this story really worthy of all the attention the BBC seems to be giving it? On the day after the highest unemployment figures for 15 years were revealed, and on a day when it is announced that France and Germany are showing growth but the UK is nowhere near. On a day when the dead bodies of 4 more soldiers are brought home, this story is getting prominence on the BBC news channels! I watched the BBC1 lunchtime news and Duncan story was 2nd; the dead soldiers near the end.

This is just another opportunity for the BBC to propagate their anti-tory message on behalf of the Government. Shame on you BBC!

Duncan was foolish to speak like this but he is correct, actually, to say that MPs are treated like s***. The public are certainly doing so at the moment, not without cause, and the whips treat backbenchers that way all the time. More importantly, GB treated all MPs like s*** when he made his U-Tube announcement of his off-the-cuff, ill-considered and, in the event, unachievable "reforms" without any consultation.
It may be that they deserve this treatment, they may know that many of them deserve this treatment, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant when you are experiencing it.
#45 JohnConstable:
"The sort of people that have run England mostly for their families personal benefit for hundreds of years get another opportunity to gorge at the trough."
You mean like Tony Blair, John, who is now "filthy rich" as a result of running England entirely for his personal benefit for over 10 years?

"Is Mr Goodman right when he suggests that politicians, like everyone else, need to be able to 'let off steam'?"

I'm having a problem understanding why Mr Goodman thinks politicans are "like everybody else" when it comes to 'letting off steam' but apparently they are not like nobody else when it comes to paying tax on certain things that the rest of us MUST pay. Obviously Mr Goodman sees something special about MPs that I don't see? Maybe someone could tell me what it is?

If people think they are as bad as each other, then why do you keep voting for the usual suspects?

45 JohnConstable

"the English people are finally waking up from their long political topor and will cast aside the Labour/Tory duopoly"

And replace it with what? The Liberals? Whose big idea for the National Health Service was to tax the rich to raise an extra 1bn for health. I dont know how many tens of billions New Labour has put in since that great policy strategy appeared in the Liberal's manifesto, but it is a huge amount, and while I am a fan of the NHS it is a bottom-less pit. The Libs are also for Europe at any cost. They did oppose the war with Iraq, but so did a lot of people from their en of the spectrum, and it is over now.

UKIP dont seem to have the depth of talent, and are a one-trick pony, as are the Greens. BNP are not meant to be talked about in decent circles.

I want David Cameron to come forward at the right time with an agenda for Britain 2010-2015, and if I had my way it would be a Britain out of Europe. He has no baggage and will be standing against a party that has brought this great country of ours to the brink of ruin.

60. At 3:42pm on 13 Aug 2009, Onlywayup wrote:
I will not sack Alan Duncan, says Mr. Cameron.

No, no, please don't sack him, as he is a vital asset for a forth Labour victory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haha

Labour have absolutely no chance of a fourth term,the New Labour experiment is finished

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

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

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

We all say things we wished we had not said, that is true. But political leaders are in positions that change policy and how they make statements that can infer positions regarding policy are important. The current problem is more about projecting an attitude that did not carry well to a public in this difficult econmoic times. Lack of sensitivity for the common working man has been a continuing problem for the MP's and elected officials in most countries. Bailing out wealthy banks and bankers, because of their schemes and greed, requires that maybe the MP's might want to be a lttile more sensitive to public feeling and comments that may not reflect the level of compassion that people would like to see from elected leaders. The issue of public comments can be viewed as a diversion from the content of those remarks and the attitude, commonly held by MP's, they reflect.

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

46 sagamix
"Alan Duncan ... the man is not exactly imbued with the public service ethic, is he? ..."

sagamix, perhaps you would like to eloborate on that remark. Or is this just going to be a circuitous argument back to him claiming some gardening costs. Not to say I particularly defend that, just I happen to regard it as less of an offence than, say, four times flipping your second residence in order to build up a little property empire.

Anyway, Alan Duncan performs a very valuable public service. As Shadow Leader of the House, he rather smoothly and wittily gets a long long way up a certain Harriet Harman's nose on a pretty regular basis. He does it excellently - I know, I've watched him do it quite a few times. The man deserves a medal, in my view.

Alan Duncan was on Have I Got News For You not long ago and proved that he is perfectly happy to say controversial things with tongue placed firmly in cheek.

Better that we have MPs like him than the mealy-mouthed automotons who only repeat the thoughts of Chairman Brown, or is it Chairman Mao-ndelson now.

all you have to ask yourself is why was it released now...it has been around for weeks..what is mandy trying to hide? His paid up mortgage?

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

#68 & #69:

I don't know if that was a deliberate juxtaposition, probably not, but #69 does seem to answer #68's question.

#68: I am as baffled by your question as you are. I don't think #69 comes up with a totally satisfactory answer, despite making some mostly sensible points.

It's true that most politicians from the minor parties are hardly a serious alternative to the labour/tory duopoly. But seriously, how much worse could they be? Just think of the message it would send if everyone who is fed up with the labour/tory stranglehold on politics actually got of their backside and voted at the next election, and voted for someone else. There is plenty of choice: LibDem, Greens, UKIP, Jury Team, etc, plus a whole raft of independents.

I shall definitely be voting for one of those other parties at the next election (and genuinely haven't yet decided which). I would really strongly encourage anyone who is as fed up as I am with the current crop of politicians to do likewise.

If nothing else, it would really send them a message that in a democracy, the electorate are in charge.

Why is there no condemnation of the man who did and leaked the recording. He was invited as Mr Duncan's guest, hospitality was provided and in my eyes he then behaved atrociously. Was this honour? Would Mr Duncan do this to him? He is the one who owes a mega apology - something which he seems unable to comprehend.

#58. At 3:33pm on 13 Aug 2009, hmcynic wrote:
48. At 2:13pm on 13 Aug 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

I'd far rather that MPs were held to account for their voting records - and contributions - in the H of C, rather than worrying whether they live in a strange world of expenses.
_________________________________________________

This is possibly the most sensible comment I've read on these boards.

-------------------------
"Recordings of candidates who believe they are off-duty can be very damaging: remember Obama's "God and guns" remark, made when he thought he was talking only to a private audience?"

If anybody posting here hasn't felt badly about their bosses or colleagues or their working conditions and vented their feelings from time to time, I suggest they have no social sensibilities. If people (even the Mods) are always completely in tune with the rules and regulations they live within, there can never be any "progress".
--------------

That was nice, hmcynic,

But it seems that my post you responded to was deleted for some reason, after being visible for a while.

Think I'll give up. I try really hard to at least pay tribute to the topic. Maybe I stray a little. (OK sometimes a lot. Many times because another post is so far off topic that I assume a response is tolerable.).

But I just don't understand why completely off-topic posts are tolerated, while stuff in response to those postings are removed.

So, why would your response to my posting be allowed to be sustained, while my original post was apparently NOT suitable for public view?

I'm off to the shops. Going to brave the CCTVs, while the internet monitors will no doubt kill off my comments on this site. (At least in my town, I very rarely see a PC - in fact I only ever saw a bobby on the beat 3 times in 8 years - so I don't expect to be picked up going to or returning from the shops. Once, a rare sighting was because a copper wanted to pop into a shop to buy some fags...)

But if I disappear, my mobile number is....

Gordon Brown (or Lord Mandelson) - maybe both for Monarch. Would that allow me to have a posting that lasts for a while? I'll check when I get back.

Ah, well. Was a time when really strange comments were allowed and new lines of chat developed.

For goodness sake, I'm married. So I KNOW that women are superior. I KNOW that injecting somebody else's money into an economy is a good thing. I KNOW that anybody who can't live with being a number is really misguided.

I plan to move to Portmeirion. Quite happy to be Number 6.

Alan Duncan may have complained about the way the public treats MPs, but have any been investigated for fraud or tax evasion yet and if so at what stage are they? You know, MPs who told porkies about where they lived and claimed bogus rent or made a nice profit on moving house. More serious than claiming on gardening expenses and lawnmower repairs.
Perhaps the BBC might like to give us an update on that? Surely that's of more importance than the Shadow Leader having a bitch?

57 onlywayup

Unless you mean someone else who is not immediately obvious to me, Nick is Laura and has been for some time. With lots of interesting blogs too.

#82 fairlyopenmind

I do hope your return safely oldchap, I seem too be suffering the same random disappearing post act to.

I was in the capital the other-day for the festival, there you will seem many community wardens and no police, strange days indeed!.

Why the obsession with what is a non story ? Why not a mention of Brown and his missus hiding away in the lake district , twittering happily about the health service and possibly getting rumba lessons from the lovely Arlene ( dance tzarina)? Maybe Arlene would have more success teaching the lovely Lord Mandellson how to trip the light fantastic, then he could set his fairy tales to music and dance thereby creating new ballet for the nation and posterity. While Britain was best placed to come out of recession I notice the sneaky French and Germans went behind our backs and did the dirty on Gordon by coming out of recession before they were supposed to, and probably at least a year before us. How can Gordie ever trust them again ?

It appears that France and Germany are now out of recession.

DisgustedofMitcham2 80

The problem is, as the Americans find having just Republicans and Democrats in serious contention, it always going to be how it is now unless we are stupid enough to go for PR. I can remember waking up almost every day to a new Italian Government - at least our system almost always gives us a certainty that one or the other can govern, and if they are no good we will throw them out as we wll soon do to GB.

One good thing to come out of the expenses scandal is that it has put them and us on our mettle. My MP, who seems to me to be a worthy man, got an absolute roasting at a local meeting, but at least he was brave enough to go. I wrote to him seeking an explanation for what looked like flipping and he replied almost immediately. He is a very bright man, but also very worried

One small point about elections, which is sobering. You might get a million people who understand what is going on, like most people you encounter on these boards. You may say I am a pessimist, and the number is much higher. However, what I think is indisputable is that a huge number of the electorate either dont understand the intricacies or couldnt care less. They have the same vote as we do, and can and will change an election. That is why the Times, the Mirror and the Sun can have such an influence on them, and why Murdoch is one of the most powerful men in the world. Ask Tony Blair (and Neil Kinnock)if that is so.

What would we do without it?

Laura:

No, the papers are doing their respected duties and reporting on a
news story that broke about, a politican(s) remarks that were not acceptable ...At least, he (Mr. Duncan) did the right thing and apology for the comments....

=Dennis Junior=

This Tory supporter will not defend Alan Duncan. I do not necessarily disagree with his contention that MP's should be paid more and that with the benefit of hindsight it was wrong to let expenses compensate for the relatively low pay - when compared to what is available to captains of industry and people at the top of certain professions.

His main fault is that you have to question his judgement in making such comments to a person he knew to be a publicity seeking opponent. Further lack of judgement can be seen from his appearances on Have I Got News For You where he has tried to appear to be a wit but has ended up being a bit of a t wit. It takes a special kind of politician to hold their own in that company, Boris Johnson, Charles Kennedy and Bob Marshall Andrews to name three.

87 Roll on
Wasn't it nice of Lord M to introduce the car scrappage scheme here in the UK to help the Germans and French pull themselves out of recession by supporting their auto industry!

A much more relevant story if i may say so, Laura, than silly Mr Duncan making a fool of himself.

I'm going to try again with what I felt was a politically neutral posting, completely aligned with the blog Laura wrote.

"Recordings of candidates who believe they are off-duty can be very damaging: remember Obama's "God and guns" remark, made when he thought he was talking only to a private audience?"

I hate to think what Churchill, Atlee, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown etc said when they believed themselves to be in "private" conversations...

JohnC,

I have no idea what you mean by the "donkey-jackets". Was that "off-topic"? At least it seemed to survive on the blog, while a response to it was "disappeared".


Michael Foot famously turned up at the Cenotaph ceremony in a donkey jacket. Why? Was that a symbol of solidarity with the "working class" (although the closest Foot got to dirty hands was spilt ink) or just a rather silly political gesture? Rather like Brown turning up at Mansion House occasions in a lounge suit, while everybody else was in penguin suits? (Of course, he changed that attire when he became PM...)

I rather like the "donkey jacket" element in parliament. If by that you mean people who have some experience of real life before they become MPs.

John Prescott mangled the English language, but at least you knew where he was coming from, emotionally and politically. Tony Blair "adjusted" his pronunciations to meet the local audience, but there was no clue as to whether a comment was the prelude to real action, or just a throw away line for short-term effect. Lord M simply floats across the oil he pours on waters so troubled that everybody involved with it should sink without trace.

I'm lucky enough to have worked with lots of people.

If you sit down in a 24 hour, 365 days operation and get involved with other people, it's amazing how folk from every political persuasion can affect you. At 0200, waiting for the next intense period of activity, you learn a lot about people - if you want to.

In the dead of night, I talked to people who ran service companies (employing 30-40 people) in their spare time. Folks who were recognised as experts in the field of orchid production. People who created charitable organisations because their own children died because of genetic oddities. Some people who could turn a wrecked car into a totally road worthy mechanical icon. Guys you would never want to cross (although in a working environment you'd argue with), but who you would call if you needed one person to help against 3 or 4 not-really nice people. Sometimes people with a prison record, who were rehabilitated through very rough banter and a determination to become the people they wanted to be. Some people with extraordinary talents. Some folk who had experienced personal tragedies that would make you weep.

At 0200, you could still talk about political stuff. Knowing that when the real work had to start, it didn't make a difference.

Donkey-jackets? I'd really prefer those people with a sense of real life in parliament. Tell me pray, just how many Labour Ministers or candidates have done anything before their election that hasn't depended on public spend (i.e tax-take salaries)?

Those donkey-jackets may be Labour, Tory or LibDem (maybe other party) supporters. Funny thing is that "donkey-jackets" seem to have a good sense of the value of money. For themselves, their families, their children.

I haven't noticed too much of that being released on the public over the last decade. Have you?

Laura's comment: "But is this development a good or a bad thing? Is Mr Goodman right when he suggests that politicians, like everyone else, need to be able to "let off steam"?
Or should levels of scrutiny be so intense that every word that comes out of their mouths is beyond reproach?"

It's a nonsense to believe that an individual in any role should not be able to rail against the rules within which their jobs exist. Even an MP! Maybe the HoC should have a padded and sound-proofed room. That would possibly be good for the Whips to apply pressure (although a little bit of regulation would ban the "whips"), and maybe good for "normal" MPs to let off steam.





Come on Mods. How does that break the House Rules?

#58. At 3:33pm on 13 Aug 2009, hmcynic wrote:
48. At 2:13pm on 13 Aug 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

I'd far rather that MPs were held to account for their voting records - and contributions - in the H of C, rather than worrying whether they live in a strange world of expenses.
_________________________________________________

This is possibly the most sensible comment I've read on these boards.

Dear hmcynic,

It's rather odd, isn't it, that a post I wrote @ #48, was removed. But your response was permitted. And my reply to yours was deemed to be within the House Rules. For the time being.

What's going on? I expect my #82 to disappear soon.

While I directly commented on a blog from Laura. How much closer can you get to "on-topic".

I know that Brown promised apprenticeships all over the place. But I didn't expect them to turn up as interns on a political blog during the summer holidays!!!

If somebody from the Mods office would tell us what was "acceptable", as well as being within the House Rules, I'm fairly sure that most of us would make an effort to "conform".

If what he said was in jest then its very poor taste, not as bad as saying that the UK was best placed to weather the economic storm!!!! Good job Mr (not my fault) Brown is away at the moment, then we would have a laugh as he tries to explain why France and Germany have weathered the storm a darn sight better than us. You'd have thought that Mandy would have been out and about saying that France and Germany have got it all wrong or would that be telling another blatant lie......

Wow,

My post @ 82 has been published! Guess how long before it disappears?

MPs should always be cautious about what they say - and to whom.

Just as they should be careful about claiming that a patio heater is a "necessary" item to allow them to conduct their business on behalf of their electorate...

Just as business people have to be careful about what they say, whether in a customer meeting or over a casual drink in the pub with friends.

If they can't manage a little bit of tight-lipped self management, what's the point of them being in a position of power?

But is this development a good or a bad thing? Is it right when people suggest that politicians, like everyone else, need to be able to "let off steam"?

Guess I forgot. Blab on about "What we will (probably) do - at your expense"?

When it's stated publicly, as in the HoC or on public broadcasting networks, it's an "initiative". Even if there is no real back-up to support it. And very little money available to justify a statement.

When said in the pub/HoC terrace/tax-payer funded patio heated space, it should be a throw away comment.

Or should levels of scrutiny be so intense that every word that comes out of their mouths be beyond reproach?

Anyone prepared to monitor what they say in bed???

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

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

64

I like the sentiment, and would tend to agree, if they are doing a better, harder job, they deserve to be paid more.

The problem we have though is that very few of the present incumbents deserve half of what they get. They are a bunch of arrogant, out of touch, self serving incompetents.

There is a chicken/ egg argument to be had here. Do you pay more to attract better people, or do you pay the present lot what they deserve and increase pay as and when there are people in office who actually deserve it.

One way of looking at this would be to seek the underlying issue of why people - media and public - jump on this kind of off the cuff comment.

I think the underlying issue is that many of us think politicians are almost continuously lying to us. Every now and then something happens that proves that theory and people jump on it as proof.

Whether it's this bloke or Obama, I think it's very interesting to hear the truth once in a while.

And just to add, not too many of them would get a job in industry that would pay them as nicely as their ones as MP's (all told, expenses, pension etc.), at least not on ability alone (having MP on the CV might be worth a bit extra). There are few who I would have working for me, and if one of them managed to worm his way into the CFO spot (my boss), I would be pretty much straight out of the door.