Posts Tagged ‘Expenses’

Poor old Jacqui Smith, her husband’s adult films; her sister’s accommodation; Bob Quick’s security leak - there seems to be an endless cast involved in her long drawn-out decline. With the latest wave of media attention over hiring an accountant to fill in her tax returns, it became obvious that the game was up; Jacqui Smith was so exposed and vulnerable that she was ineffective as Home Secretary, attracting copious media attention and derision.

But more so than Jacqui Smith herself, Gordon Brown has been seriously damaged by this latest headline. Like the election he never called in 2007; his indecision over expenses and Hazel Blears’ resignation (after he criticised but did not sack her), Gordon Brown’s thoughtfulness and desire to weigh up decisions have cost him dearly. Clearly he is a highly intelligent man and as Chancellor of the Exchequer this assured, thoughtful approach brought him plaudits. It was always rumoured he ran domestic policy and was instrumental in election strategy, as the consummate policy setter. At the time that same character trait was reassuring, contrasting very well with Tony Blair: Brown the man of substance, Blair the charismatic media man.

But sadly when he took the country’s top job in summer 2007 no-one mentioned that whilst a formidable presence and thinker in politics he was sorely untested at leading decisively. After his initial success in the first few months the pressure was focused on him in the autumn and he was so aware of acting in a measured and substantial way, he appeared to delay in whether or not to call a snap election. His delay and radio silence seemed like plodding.

From then on the problem has grown. He has become accustomed to allowing David Cameron to produce sound bites, steal the headlines and dictate debates, while he sulks in the background and declares he is “getting on with the job”. In the financial crisis, his area of expertise, his desire to think technically about the problems and weigh up options made him look slow to react over Northern Rock. He and Alistair Darling were criticised for not seeing the signs and acting earlier. It emerged that they had an idea of the scale of the crisis, but seemed to wait to see how it turned out.

Even now the reason this premiership seems so doomed is because there is no-one willing to say it is not. The media jumps on every error and despite a terrible spring there has been no reshuffle, no decisive measures, nothing that stands out - the nothing Budget showed this. It seems apparent that although intellectually astute and good on policy, when backed into a corner Gordon brown would rather talk over the problems than strike back. It is this deliberate, thoughtful approach that in 2007 was so craved, which has now made his premiership seem like it is comatose. Sadly as a man of substance it is unlikely he will change his ways and it seems now his peak was already behind him when he became Prime Minster in 2007. He is just not suited to the time-sensitivities and decisiveness that being Prime Minister requires.

At 1.06 am on Monday morning the British Geological Survey stations in Herefordshire, Aberdeen and Devon suddenly began registering a tremor at magnitude five on the Richter scale. These tremors did not occur along a fault line and did not have the complex mix of P-waves and shear waves that are the tell-tale sign of an earthquake. Instead the tremors seemed to be caused by an explosion, which had its epicentre in the county of Kilju, deep in the mountains of north-eastern North Korea - the home of the P’unggye-yok nuclear test site.

South Korea stated immediately that these readings were probably caused by an underground atomic explosion by the North Koreans - an explosion the size of Hiroshima.

Suddenly Douglas Hogg’s moat; Jacqui Smith’s adult films and Damian McBride’s puerile emails, which have ruled the media in the last 2 months, are thrown into relief as the world is plunged into a serious, deep crisis. It is one of those challenges like the Bosnian war, the Suez Crisis and the Rwandan Genocide where you cannot help thinking that the UN looks feeble. Realistically what can the UN do to stop North Korea’s nuclear ambitions? They have the power of sanctions and the threat of isolation for the aggressor nation. For the UK during the Suez Crisis of 1956 these measures were enough to force the UK to back down over its intervention in Egypt. These measures designed and condoned by the US, Europe and the UK are effective against similar countries because they all want to be at the centre of the western world and genuinely fear being cast out by the international community.

But, for nations outside the western world, with a history of antagonism towards Europe and the US - do sanctions or the fear of UN condemnation court influence? I say no. North Korea has strong links with China and Russia - the two megaliths of Asia. With these alliances Kim Jong-Il can laugh in the face of UN pressure, as he has the support of two of the largest energy producers manufacturers and exporters in the world and permanent members of the UN Security Council. Also, which countries around the world would really stand in North Korea’s way if they further developed their nuclear ambitions? It is clear that despite having nuclear capability and strong armed forces the UK would do almost anything rather than use force against North Korea, because as Iraq and Vietnam show - foreign wars lose popularity very quickly. The world’s policing system, therefore, is almost solely confined to diplomatic measures.

In the last 5 years this crisis has developed and has shown the world’s inability to stop North Korea’s march towards developing a nuclear arsenal. In 2004 North Korea carried out its first nuclear test; in 2007 under multilateral pressure North Korea agreed to shut down its leading uranium enrichment site, but in April 2009 it seems these promises were empty as they fired a multistage rocket and vowed to start up the site once again. A month later and this latest nuclear test is recorded.

This is a dangerous situation - even more so since it must be asked why is North Korea absolutely determined to develop nuclear weapons? Are they really prepared to fire or is it, as one commentator suggested, just a means of making President Obama stand to attention. I hope it is political manoeuvring because for anyone who has read Nevil Shute’s On The Beach - the thought that North Korea might actually use its nuclear technology harbours up images of ghost towns, tumble weeds and nuclear fallout on a worldwide scale.

Hopefully the North Koreans are aware of the stake as well, because as has always been the case the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is the best mean of ensuring nuclear safety. Hopefully Kim Jong-Il is aware and afraid of the nuclear backlash if he ever uses nuclear weapons. But that is a leap of faith and since it is evident that the western world can do little to stop the North Koreans if they have their mind set on gaining and using nuclear weapons the situation is suite terrifying, when you think about it. It seems like 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell we still have to place all of our faith in North Korea not using its technology. Personally relying on Mutually Assured Destruction, knowing that the West is powerless to do much more, is not particularly reassuring.

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard makes his opinion clear

This is more of a point of interest than anything else, but I’ve had a number of long chats with colleagues and friends about the benefits of the Australian Political system that I grew up with and first acquired my love for the cut and thrust of politics - although, to be fair, in Australia, it is more like the punch and head-butt of politics.

But I noticed this article in the Rupert Murdoch owned paper, The Australian, which was published overnight UK time. Essentially, the article describes how “Austalia’s politicians are more accountable than Britain’s”. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25513653-16382,00.html

It goes onto to make a number of key points about the differences in accountability and transparency between the British Westminster system and the Australian Washminster system - a mix between the British and American systems.

Interesting article, enjoy.

Whether this was intentional or not, very cleverly, the Speaker was made to be the fall-guy.

Effectively, the Speaker is the CEO of the House and the buck stops with him when it comes to rules and guidelines of the House. With the downfall of the Speaker on that basis, the story has been deflected away from the MPs to the need for change within Parliament.

Unfortunatly for the MPs, the story has refocuesed itself back onto them, with revelations that more MPs have claimed for mortgages that didn’t exist, claimed for flood damage when they could have used their insurance, or built duck islands, all on expenses.

But surely, there is still lots more to come. Even with 25 journalists working on this story day and night, they can’t have gone through every single receipt and every single backbencher yet. Now that the Speaker has fallen, the Parliamentary smokescreen been blown away, opening the door for the Telegraph to publish more stories about wayward MPs?

If you knew the expenses details of Morely, Chaytor and Hogg, would you hold onto that story until the public was already demanding blood, or would you have released them earlier before stories on the higher profile Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet MPS, which were interesting but ultimately less tantalising?

Will an MP talk to the Telegraph again? Obviously, but its reputation of being in the pockets of the Tories has now clearly gone and they have led the pack of attack dogs that is the media in this situation.

But, as a former member of the fourth estate, I’m on their side. I’ve heard people say the media has gone too far etc. but this is what the media is here to do. It is part of their remit nay, responsibility to stir up the establishment and right wrongs. This is journalism that hasn’t been seen in Britain for a long time - proper hard muckraking, designed to bring the seemingly unaccountable to account.

With the resignation of the Speaker,  the blood-letting has formally begun.

Current and former ministers, Committee Chairs, backbenchers have been drawn into the quagmire. Even the few who have been deemed to have been Saints such as Ed Miliband, Adam Afriyie, Alan Johnson, Vince Cable due to their low running costs have all been tarnished and Parliament itself is being referred to as the Moat Parliament or the Manure Parliament. But the Speaker has been the first to officially fall on his sword.

It is fascinating to look at how the expenses story has evolved in the press. According to Assistant Editor, Benedict Brogan on last week’s Question Time, The Telegraph has had the disks for at least a month and have had a team of 25 journalists plugging through the millions of receipts and documents.

At first the public was simply disgusted by shocking story was but as the media continued to bay for blood, the public have been whipped up into a frenzy with the sleaze story to end all sleaze stories.

The blood-letting will continue and we will witness further infighting as a number of MPs scramble to get the position of Poison Chalice, sorry I mean Speaker.

Who will it be? Will it be old guard, Sir George Young, Sir Alan Haselhurst? Will it be the Lib-Dems turn, Vince Cable, Sir Menzies Campbell? Will it be a fresh face like John Bercow? Or could they go with a temporary Speaker who could hold the House in order until the next general election, someone like Ann Widdecombe?  Or will it be someone from complete left field?

I’m not going to discuss the merits of each - that will be played out in the media in the coming days and weeks. Loyalties will be questioned, reputations tarnished, dirty little secrets aired.

But without question, in living memory, never has a choice of Speaker been so important in the eyes of the public and this is a decision that Parliament has to get right.

Parliament is facing a crucial time, the new Speaker is facing a crucial time. Recent events surrounding MPs expenses have left us all thinking how did it come to this and how did this go on for so long without anyone noticing.

All MPs need to consider how this looks to the public - claiming allowances for moat cleaning, for mortgages already paid off, for other border-line goods and services, regardless of whether the rules allowed them or not, does not look good and does not help with forging closer links between politics and the people of Britain.

The question also has to be asked not only what can be done about it but what can be done to prevent it happening again?

Michael Martin came in for pretty robust criticisms from MPs and from outside the House. It is rare for such outright defiance of a Speaker to be seen in the House of Commons. Regardless of the necessity of the Speaker to stand down, there are many people who will regret the manner in which it was done.

How much is this down to MPs really thinking that the Speaker is the best option to save their own hides as a convenient scapegoat  after so many of them have been caught with their hands in the till?

There have been suggestions that Michael Martin was not up to the job, that he was lacking in either the intellectual capacity or the authority to command respect in the House. These allegations may have some substance and perhaps time had run out for him.

The question remains though, to what extent was the Speaker perceived to be the problem or representing the blockages to reform?

There is a big task ahead for the next Speaker to help to begin the process of restoring faith in politics, Parliament and the role of MPs - it would have helped if MPs hadn’t put themselves in this mess in the first place.