The Poliblogs 8 February 2008

Time to beat the Archbishop

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of my blog that I am spitting blood at the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his call for sharia law to be adopted in Britain. He has managed to get the three main parties - including Baroness Warsi, of all people - to condemn his remarks, as has Trevor Phillips.

Blaney’s Blarney

£2bn Down The Tubes

We've blogged the Metronet fiasco before (see here), highlighting the risk of a serious taxpayer loss. Yesterday we got the bill for £2bn as Metronet's bank creditors called in the government's guarantee. Let's remind ourselves of the key features. Metronet was a special purpose vehicle (spv) established and owned by five construction companies to manage a £17bn contract to renovate part of London's tube sytem. The contract was Public Private Partnership deal bulldozed through by Gordon Brown in 2003. Transport for London had argued strongly against the PPP contract, wanting instead to fund the work via US-style municipal debt issuance. But that would have blown Brown's tricksy Golden Rule fiscal targets, so he insisted on the PPP.

Burning Our Money

Should al Qaradawi be allowed into Britain?

Qaradawi_ban.gif I’ve tried listening to those on the left who repeatedly try to tell me that I should see the utterances of Yusuf al Qaradawi ‘in context’. I really, really have. But the man widely regarded as one of the world’s leading moderate Muslim clerics openly argues that it is permissible for husbands to beat their wives and that gays should be killed, and let’s just say that I remain enough of a wimpish liberal to have one or two difficulties with this.

Dave’s Part

We have a problem

This blog has pointed out on numerous occasions, for instance here and here that Western Europe is in danger of becoming completely dependent on Russian gas for energy. The way things are going in that country and given President (soon to be Prime Minister and Chairman of Gazprom) Putin’s tendency to use gas supplies to bully his nearest neighbours, this may not be the smartest of political moves.

EU Referendum

An underground scandal

Taxpayers will have to pay billions after the failure of Gordon Brown's finance initiatives for London's tube. It's an outrage

Christian Wolmar

QT review

So what of QT? Well, new Culture Secretary Andy Burnham had the job of keeping the government's end up and he was deeply unimpressive. He particularly struggled when asked to defend Caroline Flint's bonkers idea to chuck the unemployed out of their council homes - a suggestion which seemed to have little support in the Liverpool audience - and also when put on the spot about Labour's potty plan to expel the four MPs who are demanding a referendum on the EU Treaty. Burnham does at least seem to have a bit of passion about him, as well as an element of Northern grit, but the overall impression is of an intellectual lightweight. I was left wondering what on earth Telegraph pol ed Andy Porter sees in him.

Paul Linford

Worried

It was while I was reading this in the FT that it dawned on me that I am in serious trouble. I don't know quite how to tell you this so I'll type it quickly. The fact is, I am missing Tony Blair. Worse, I am beginning to think of him as a heavyweight politician, a proper Prime Minister.

Prodicus

Privy Council Chilcot Review report on Intercept Evidence - more ***

The Government has now published the Privy Council Review of intercept as evidence: report to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary (.pdf 64 pages - censored) produced under Rt. Hon, Sir John Chilcot GCB. This review makes the recommendation. that Intercept Evidence should, vaguely, at some undermined time in the future, be permitted in Courts in England and Wales (but not in Scotland or in Northern Ireland), for terrorism and serious crime cases , but not for Civil cases,. It is unclear if the recommendation for "terrorism" cases also include other national security cases such as espionage.

SpyBlog

Listening For Evidence

I can see no real problem at all with using phone-tap evidence in court. After all, they can only record them, not make them say anything. It shouldn't be used instead of other evidence, and shouldn't be used as the sole source of evidence of any particular fact, but rather to strengthen circumstantial evidence gathered in another way. Also, if any phone tapping evidence is to be used in court, the defence must be provided with all secret recordings made.

The ThuderDragon

Principles of policing

With today’s publication of the Flanagan report on policing, there will be a lot of talk about civilians taking over the back-room tasks of the police. Today's police uniform is quite a change from the top hat and tail coat. However, it should be remembered that police ARE civilians. It is the one thing that differentiates our police from most of their continental counterparts, whose gendarmeries are quasi-military outfits. It was to stop them looking like soldiers that the first recruits to the Metropolitan Police when it was established by Robert Peel 175 years ago were issued with uniforms of top hat and tail coat.

Three Line Whip

MPs and Democracy: We The People

The Wardman Wire has seen some very good articles over the past week on the subject of MPs and the money they claim, both as salary and expenses. It’s not my intention to weigh in on that debate, but use the opportunity to examine the role of MPs in our democracy.

The Wardman Wire

Wendy Alexander cleared but the back-stabbing goes on

According to the Scotsman there were 'shouts of joy and celebration among embattled Labour MSPs at the Scottish Parliament' yesterday after the Scottish Labour leader was cleared of any wrongdoing in the undeclared donations row. It won't last.

The Daily Pundit

Milk with your iPod?

The fact that MPs can claim expenses of £250 without a receipt has already been greeted with widespread incredulity. The fact we learnt today is likely to be greeted with even more. MPs can, apparently, also claim £400 a month for food without receipts.

Nick Robinson

The Late Lunch Briefing

Metronet: A Failure of PPP?

It was announced yesterday that the government would be picking up the bill (i.e. the taxpayer is picking up the bill) for the massive £2bn hole Metronet blew in the PPP contract they were operating on the London Underground. It is being reported as a deep embarrassment for the government as it was forced upon Livingstone and former TfL Commissioner, Bob Kiley. The Mayor wanted a bonds based scheme while the government insisted that it wanted to put the risk and debt on the books of the private sector. So who was right and why did it go wrong?

Metronet: The Failure of PPP

Firstly, to try and paint the collapse of Metronet as a failure of PPP is disingenuous and playing politics. The reason Metronet failed is not because the government used a Public Private Partnership, but was down to the consortium members of Metronet. WS Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier, EDF Energy and Thames Water have effectively cost the tax payer £2bn and suffered very little in the way of penalty. Instead of sub-contracting out the work like Tubelines (which is a very successful PPP deal and working fine on the rest of the Underground), Metronet decided to divvy up their contracts between them. In effect they were paying themselves to do the work. The incentives to actually do the work was immediately reduced. So while Metronet has gone into administration, guess who is still getting paid to carry out the work on the Underground...

The Government played their role too

The government and Gordon Brown do not get off scot free here, however. The big myth that handing out PPP and PFI contracts means that the risk of a project rests with the private sector has been shot wide open here. Metronet as a firm may cease to exist, but the companies that made up Metronet are still going strong and have not had to pay up a penny of the £1.7bn – because when all is said and done the risk sits firmly with the tax-payer. While PPP is in my opinion a good tool for getting major projects done, it by no means shifts the risk away from the tax payer. Nor is it the solution to all projects. Then again, Ken’s bonds scheme had its flaws to and was, at the time, by no means the better option. The big failing from the government in all this is that they allowed a contract to be signed without realising that Metronet would keep it all in house and shaft the tax payer when it all went wrong.

If you are angry by having to shell out for part of this £2bn fiasco, by all means direct it towards Gordon Brown – but the real culprits here are WS Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier, EDF Energy and Thames Water aka. Metronet.

The Poliblogs 7 February 2008

Tory Splits

The Planning Bill committee held its last session yesterday. Sixteen sessions in all, lasting a total of something like 100 hours. It has, for the last month, dominated my life, some of which I now hope to reclaim. As it turned out, yesterday was dominated by matters Welsh. The Government had, disgracefully late, tabled a clause giving additional legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly in relation to development plans. Three additional “Matters” were to be added to the devolved competence provisions of the Government of Wales Act.

David Jones

Phone tapping evidence could help convict Britain’s terrorists

The sooner phone tapping image evidence is permitted in our courts to help secure convictions of terrorists the better. How can anyone argue against presenting evidence to show we are serious about locking them up? The safety and security of our citizens should be the first objective of any government. Yet Britain is one of few countries in the world to ban the use of evidence from intercepted phone calls, emails, letters and faxes as part of a prosecution case in court. Phone intercept material from intelligence services in the courts are commonly used to secure convictions in America, Australia and countries in the European Unions. It’s time we did the same.

Ellee Seymour

David Cameron cannot be bold enough in increasing accountability of politicians

24 hours after the Derek Conway report was published David Cameron took decisive action against the disgraced MP and he has kept up the momentum over the last week with welcome requirements for greater openness from his frontbenchers with regard to their taxpayer-funded expenses. It's also fair to say that Mr Cameron, with considerable support from Ken Clarke and Andrew Tyrie, has been working on many other proposals that aim to restore the public standing of politicians.

Conservative Home

PMQs - 06/02/08 Gordon Brown, just answer a bloody question - part two.

I've had to force myself to write something about this week's PMQ's. It was, all in all, a total repeat of last week's pathetic performance. David Cameron can't be blamed; he's doing his job i.e. asking questions that the public want answers to. Unfortunately Gordon Brown now sees it as perfectly acceptable not to answer them. The speaker seems not to care and even allows Brown to question Cameron - it's a sodding farce. We've got Labour back-benchers asking questions like "I think the Prime Minister is more super than Super-Duper Tuesday, will the Prime Minister agree with me?"

Daily Referendum

Does Brown suffer from selective deafness?

I missed PMQ's yestedray as I was out, but when I read the sketch by Simon Carr this morning in the Indy I couldn't quite believe it was as he said it was, but now that I have checked Hansard and it's true. Nick Clegg asked Brown some questions and Brown's answers were ona completely different subject. A truly bizarre exchange of words.

Dizzy Thinks

Brown’s terrible performance at PMQs

The point about Gordon Brown and PMQs is that he is supposed to be getting better at it, not worse. In recent weeks he had developed a certain dogged style which David Cameron could find no way round. It was inelegant but effective.

Three Line Whip

How Brown could revolutionaise PMQs, improve Labour's standing, polish the image of politics and make the Tories look like silly - all in one go

Another Wednesday, another PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions) in Parliament. What to make of today's Punch and Judy show between Cameron and Brown? First - I guess, as Nick Robinson points out, that Cameron has forgotten his professed distaste for Punch and Judy, you say one insult, I'll say two back more loudly style of politics. Perhaps he genuinely meant it when he said it, but if so he's long since changed his mind. Second -Gordon Brown really ain't that sharp or fast when it comes to PMQs. He was always going to have a tough act to follow after Blair who, love or loathe what he said, was a master of the art of question time.

Lynne Featherstone

Fixed rate mortgages for all? - The Chancellor turns mortgage salesman

Today I learn that the Chancellor has become a mortgage salesman again. He is lecturing us to take long term mortgages at fixed rates. Has no-one reminded him that his government has made mortgage selling a regulated activity? I doubt if the Chancellor has bothered to fix himself up with the necessary regulatory approvals to start selling the fixed rate proposition so actively.

John Redwood

Tony Blair and the race for the presidency

I’m told Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have discussed the possibility of Mr Blair becoming President. That’s President of the Council, the new top European job created by the Lisbon Treaty. Some want to find a high profile president to represent the European Union on the world stage at events such as the G8, the Bali summit and for meeting heads of state.

Mark Mardell

The PMQs Battle 06 February 2008

PMQs - The Verdict

Normally politicians like nothing better than an attentive audience but not when it is the security services listening into a private conversation with a constituent, as was apparently the case with Sadiq Khan MP. And with Ann Cryer, Willie McCrea and Nick Clegg all asking the prime minister about surveillance, it became one of the proceeding's key themes. Brown reassured Cryer that a review into bugging was underway and that until it reports, "people should not play the game of speculation." It was a reference to shadow home secretary David Davis calling Brown a liar in relation to what he knew of the bugging of Khan. Having mentioned the bugging probe, David Cameron revealed that the prime minister had established another 52 reviews during his brief premiership.

ePolitix

Sense Of Deja Vu Descends On Commons

You would be forgiven a sense of deja vu. Again. The questions this time round were about Government reviews and the future of A-levels, but the weekly clash between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is becoming as predictable as yet another Amy Winehouse freak-out. In one corner, David Cameron, asking for a straight answer to a straight question. In the other, a Prime Minister surely now delighting in failing to provide one, and instead choosing to ask some questions of his own.

Niall Paterson

"Dithering" Brown stumbles on Cameron's attacks

When they didn’t mention MPs expenses last week, it was odd. This time it was downright embarrassing – and adds to the impression that they all have something to hide. Which, of course, they all do. First thing’s first: Ed Miliband seems to have a new job. He now sits next to Brown making theatrical grimaces and facial expressions of mock astonishment when Tories speak. Quite fun to watch. Oxford, LSE, Harvard – and he ends up as the highest-paid mime artist in Britain.

Coffee House

What is the point of PMQs?

It's somewhat strange, I thought that the point was that the Prime Minister answered some damn questions, not ask them. Before this, Cameron's first question was to do with the government's reviews: after the Monocular Fuckwit's lack of answer, Cameron then pointed out there had been 52 reviews—fifty-fucking-two!—since Brown took over. The Gobblin' King then pointed out that NuLabour had created 3 million jobs. No, you fucking haven't, you cunt. Private businesses create the jobs in spite of your high-taxing fucking government, you fucking little shit. Good question on the "surveillance state" by Clegg though.

The Devil’s Kitchen

Could Gord get away with abolishing PMQs?

Another Wednesday and another PMQs for Gordon Brown to have to endure. He clearly doesn’t like them and being open every seven days to the fierce blasts that Cameron is able to master cannot be very pleasant. Ever since a piece appeared in the Indy a couple of weeks ago about Brown’s views of the weekly ritual I’ve been pondering over whether we are being softened up for a proposal to change the structure. Maybe they could find a way of blaming Cameron for the need for change because of the way the Tory leader handles the event.

Political Betting

The Verdict

“They say we're young and we don't know, We won't find out until we grow. Well I don't know if all that's true, 'Cause you got me, and baby I got you

Babe!

I got you babe!”

IT’S GROUNDHOGDAY!

PMQs is back and Brown is at it again. Refusing to answer the questions, accusing Cameron of learning his lines, dribbling out facts and figures about the past ten years that could mean anything to anyone.

I have been very critical of Cameron at PMQs of late and I think I am quite right to be. He is up against an absolute numbskull of a performer at the dispatch box, yet has not really landed any heavy punches for weeks. Well this week was an improved performance.

For a start he didn’t fall in to the trap of asking about the bugging of Khan. The government are employing a new desperate tactic at PMQs of late – the spoiler question. This week Labour backbencher Ann Cryer was the patsy. She asked a very soft and leading question on bugging that the PM could easily bat away and look good with. Had Cameron then gone on to ask about the bugging case it would not have had much impact. Secondly, the government do not appear to be at blame for any of this and the only impropriety that we can be certain of is David Davis' completely wild statement that the PM had lied over the matter. Brown would have had a field day asking (as he does at PMQs) if Cameron backed up Davis’s claims.

Instead, Cameron was far more shrewd, though it was a little bit Groundhog too! He tried, and to a certain degree succeeded, to paint the PM as an indecisive dithering. Heard it before, though this time it was done masterfully and in a way that Brown could not have predicted. He claimed the PM has established 52 reviews—one every four days! Yet no decisions. Ouch. It struck the bad tempered old bear right on his wobbly jaw. For the first time in weeks Cameron had the clunking fist shaking and stuttering. He made him angry – only for a few seconds did it show – but it showed. Brown never looks more undesirable, less statesman like, less like a man that you'd want as Prime Minister than when he loses his temper. It is lovely to watch, but an all too rare sight because of Cameron’s inefficiency of late.

Again, it wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination a classic performance from Cameron nor was it the battering of Brown that these affairs should be. But it was effective and so much better than anything Cameron managed in January. Clegg’s half decent show was made to look all the more good for Brown’s illogical response – something about not supporting CCTV or something. He was starting to bore me by this point and I was switching off. It had little to do with Clegg’s question anyway.

All in all a win for Cameron and something to build on maybe. He still has such a long way to go before he can truly say he is a great Commons performer though. Brown on the other hand never will be.

Brown 0


Cameron 1

The Poliblogs 6 February 20008

The limits of the Wilson doctrine

As with other areas, the constitution must evolve to deal with the devolution. It is not immediately obvious why, if members of the Parliament at Westminster are entitled to confidential dealings with constituents, members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly should be excluded. The same principle would, logically, extend to Stormont. That might mean, though, that surveillance of people attached to paramilitary organisations could be verboten.

Dave Cole

Cameron: put up MPs' pay

It was a brief press conference, but Mr Cameron did some useful business. He made the obvious (though not to all politicians) point that "the House of Commons has got to see itself as others see it. There is a danger that we don't see ourselves and our arrangements as others see them." He put the Wintertons - and other MP couples - on the spot by arguing that MPs must be ready to defend "in the court of public opinion" the arrangements they enter into. "It's difficult to do that in this case." Ouch. He said there was a case for rolling some of the allowances MPs receive into their pay, in particular the additional costs allowance which helps MPs with the cost of running two homes.

Ben Brogan

Cameron's Conservatives Must Do More

Each of the two main parties are suffering from accusations of sleaze and sharp practice aimed at various of their parliamentary members. This, coupled with an increased focus on the new Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, best explains Sky's latest monthly average of opinion polls.

Michael Thrasher

David Cameron shows Brown how to lead a party - Expenses

Once again David Cameron has taken the lead on the tough decisions. He hasn't waited for a fake inquiry to publish a nonsense report - he's got on and behaved in the way any decent party leader should - by acting decisively. From July, all frontbench MPs will register details of any Commons allowances spent - and any relatives they employ. This information will be published for public scrutiny each April from then on. All other Conservative MPs have been urged to follow suit. David told the press:

Daily Referendum

The left press in Britain

Can any explicitly socialist publication in Britain credibly claim a five-figure circulation anymore? And does it matter if they can’t? Let’s start from the premise that New Statesman doesn’t count for these purposes; it’s better described as left of centre rather than leftwing. Last time I checked, the Morning Star and Socialist Worker were officially insisting that they shift more than 10,000 but less than 20,000 copies, per day and per week respectively. Then again, I have heard sources close to both these fine organs frankly admit over a beer that quoted figures more accurately reflect print run than actual sales.

Dave’s Part

Unwarranted Intrusion

The debate about bugging hots up. Two speakers on the Today programme this morning revealed quite how much power The Authorities have to keep tabs on us. 600 organisations have the authority to put us under surveillance, and they don't have to go to a judge for a warrant. The Police - quite rightly - cannot search your home without a warrant, but they can intercept your email. When the current "RIP" legislation was being put forward it was all about counter-terrorism, but why would your local council need the power to watch over you if it was only about terrorism?

Edland

Is Caroline Flint thick?

She said on Today prog this morning how so many people in social housing were unemployed - yeh well divvy it’s because you carried on the Tories policy of allowing people to buy up council housing so reducing the stock. Thus only the unemployed etc have access to it. Oh my giddy aunt and this woman’s a Minister! She wouldn’t be pandering to the crowd would she?

Liberal Revolution

Is there some merit in bits of what Labour are saying about making people work ?

I note today that Labour minister Caroline Flint has come in for some deserved criticism of labours announcement that they may wish to make people homeless if they fail to get jobs. This is a slightly odd situation as presumably when they become homeless the council would then be forced to find them a home, but that is not the point.

Norfolk Blogger

Attention Scotland: Salmond's threat

Given the choice between cheap stunts and issues of principle, it would appear that Scotland's Alex Salmond will always choose the former. The SNP First Minister's threat to resign and call an election north of the border if his budget is thrown out at Holyrood today is not some great issue of moment. At present the SNP has only one seat more than Labour but if there were to be another Scottish election, they would probably do very well, given the chaos that passes for leadership in the Scottish Labour Party and the fact that the Tories and Liberal Democrats are making no headway with the voters.

Three Line Whip

What Should the Rules be for MPs? Guest Article Series

The next article in the Matt Wardman series on "What Should the Rules be for MPs? Guest Article Series" is up. Today it is Dave Cole - and a jolly good post it is too. We are not in total agreement, but we do share the belief that our MPs are not such bad lot and that things should be done to tighten up the system - we differ slightly on the means and extent. I suggest you have a read.

Below is my contribution from yesterday for those who missed it:

Independent Adminstration Needed

This first contribution is by Garbo of the Poliblogs, who argues that our politicians are in fact far more honest than they are currently being painted, but that an independent decisonmaking and administrative process would help create the necessary transparency and clarity, and improve the reputation of politics.

Garbo previously wrote an article on his own blog soon after New Year, which you may like to read first. He then updated his opinion after the Derek Conway affair at the end of January.

Bad Week for Politics

It has been a shocking week for the reputation of our MPs. There is a long held perception that MP are a bunch of no-good, money grabbing corrupt jobsworths who look after themselves and don’t give a damn about the rest of us. I think this is a lazy and unfair view of what are actually some of the very best politicians in the world.

Compare our lot to what goes on in other countries, then you start to actually thank the Lord we have them and not anyone else’s. And I’m not just talking about the developing world. Russia is basically run by corruption. Nothing would get done without some level of corruption in Italy (and very little does with it). Even the US presidential elections make our dirty trickster politicians seem like high jinks in the playground. But while our press (and bloggers) love a good scandal story and will exaggerate the sleaze of our MPs, I am not suggesting for one moment they are whiter than white.

Take Money Decisions out of MP’s Hands

As such I propose that the only effective way forward to ensure our MPs snouts are not in the trough and to appease our over-reacting press, who paint one MP’s misdemeanours as the wrong doing of 650 MPs, is to take the money decisions out of their hands altogether.

The issues at stake here are:

• MP’s Pay – the yearly MP pay rise
• MP’s expenses – the right for MPs to take housing allowances and get the tax payer to pay for just about any facet of their constituency work from pens and pencils to transport.
• MP’s staff allowances – the MP’s employment of anyone they see fit to do as much or as little work for a very generous salary.

For me, I think it is time that all the above was done by an Administrator. Cue Matt Wardman and David Cole to shout “U-Turn” and The ThunderDragon to suggest that all HR types are crap and that we are somehow handing power over to unelected bodies… but bear with me!

Independent Pay Body for a Fairer Deal

Firstly I will deal with the MP’s pay rises and Matt’s and Dave’s correct calls of a U-turn. I am not suggesting that MP’s have the decision to vote on their pay rises taken out of their hands because they are abusing the system. Far from it.

As Matt and Dave know, I believe that MP’s are worth every penny of their £60k salary and that by voting for themselves every year they are under such massive scrutiny from the press and public they actually end up giving themselves pretty modest increases.

This year’s annual pay rise was preceded by all the cynics shouting and ranting that MPs will inevitably vote for an inflation busting rise. What happens? They gave themselves a 1.9% - instead of the full 2.56% recommended by the independent Senior Salaries Review. Not such a good story, eh?

It is no coincidence that the one area of payment to our MPs that is least abused is that one that is most in the public eye. Instead of awarding themselves a massive pay increase, they actually went well below the independent recommendation. This is a system that works.

Only it doesn’t. Because MPs are under such pressure to take such small pay rises, it only encourages them more to play the system outside their salary, i.e. expenses claims. Therefore, I propose that we take the decision out of the hands of MPs, not to limit their pay, but to give them a fair pay rise – because right now they are not getting one.

No more free-for-all on expenses

Secondly, this same body should be responsible for handling expense claims.

• Every single expense claim that an MP makes should be verified and signed off by this independent body. No random checks that will inevitably lead to individuals getting through the system.
• Everyone should be checked – no room for the odd opportunistic claim that someone will probably get away with and thereby muddy the name of MPs again.
• Housing should be handed out on a needs basis, not as some sort of privilege that is to be taken advantage of.
• Transport should be verified and signed off.

Then at the end of the year every single MP’s expense claims should be published for all to see by this independent body.

Professional support to end nepotism and falling short of the law

Finally, the employment of MP’s staff. Again, this should be done with the independent body. Professionals who understand employment law and who is the best candidate. HR professionals.

At this point, last time I suggested this, The ThunderDragon (see comments) stated that all HR professionals are crap and that we would be appointing more unelected people in to positions of power.

Nonsense.

I may sometimes sympathise with his stereotyped opinion of HR people; howeber, the reality is that I am not suggesting they employ bad HR people! If all HR were so bad, why would every single major company in the world have an extensive HR department with the most senior figures usually right at the top of the company? You can not dismiss a whole profession just because you don’t like them!

As for appointing people to power? Who is being appointed to power? Not the HR people:

• These HR professionals will be there to ensure that the correct and proper procedures are gone through – like they are in every other public sector body:
• They know the law and so will take the pressure off the MP.
• They will ensure that the best candidate gets the job, not some MP’s son who is studying for his degree in Newcastle where he is clearly not best placed to do the job!
• The HR people won’t be going in to the Chamber and voting on laws that affect the country! Nor will the researchers and PAs be doing much more than reading Hansard and writing letters.
• They will manage employment of MP staff under a competitive process and the position advertised publicly to all, in line with the law for all other public sector recruitment.

I also propose that the MP is part of the employment process – the HR professional is there as a guide and as a check that nothing that falls under the category of nepotism occurs.

It both protects the MP from making a mistake and also from deliberately abusing the public purse.

The Cost Savings

And how much would this all cost? I suspect it would pail in to insignificance with the cost savings that they would provide. MPs would think twice about claiming expenses and they would be under real pressure to provide value for money – including in their employment of staff. They would employ a better calibre of candidate who would churn out more work.

Everyone is a winner

By setting up this administrative body, everyone is a winner - including MPs. The tax payer will save money, and can be sure that there is no corruption going on. MPs get a better annual pay deal and will see that they appoint a better calibre of candidate to their staff.

It will also restore some confidence in our MPs and do a lot to restore our faith in politics - which right now is being undermined by a very small minority of MPs and a savage press.

A View Across The Pond

Damp Squib Tuesday?

So finally we have arrived at Super Tuesday. Or “Super Duper Tuesday”, as some people are calling it. Why? I don’t know. To me it seems more like “Damp Squib Tuesday”. What do we know today that we won’t know tomorrow? McCain will be the Republican nominee and the race will still be on between Obama and Clinton. Granted, tomorrow we will know how close the race is, but I don’t expect either of them to secure the nomination when all votes for Super Tuesday have been announced.

Still Exciting Though!

The reason probably rest in the American psyche – and Super Tuesday is yet another reminder of how they do things differently in America to us Brits. We treat politics in this country as a very sombre and serious business. We don’t use superlatives like Super Tuesday. The only time we ever name a day is if it is a particularly bad one – Black Wednesday for example. Super Tuesday – it conjures up excitement and glamour. Hell, it makes going to the polls sound like a trip to Disneyland!

Maybe We Can Learn Something Here...

Maybe we should spice up British politics with a few meaningless superlatives to make what is otherwise a pretty boring activity for vast swathes of the population sound more like a Hollywood Action Thriller. Why not call our election day Super Thursday? Or PMQs could be Interrogation:PM. Local Elections and European Elections could do some spicing up too – though it may well be just too disingenuous to treat European Elections with anything more than the total apathy we give to them currently.

The Serious Stuff...

So what of the candidates. Well McCain and Obama are on the up, Clinton is having a blip. I still expect Obama to win this race eventually, but the Comeback Kid Mach 2 is by no means out of it – and is still probably the favourite. If the Democrats are going to win come November however, Obama is the stronger choice. While McCain is seen as the War leader, the coming months in America are going to be about domestic issues and that will play far better in to the Democrats hands. If that is the case, I just sense that more floating Republicans are likely to switch if Obama is on offer rather than Clinton.

Only 278 Days To go...

Only 278 days until polling day – it’s another 331 before the next President actually takes over! Hell, it’s only 324 until Christmas! Mmmm... maybe that is why it’s called call Super Tuesday – they have to use these exciting adjectives just to keep everyone going.

Politics Decoded...

...is up on the The Wardman Wire.