Bob Piper: Not A New Prat, Not An Old Prat, Just A Prat!

Fintan O'Toole In The Irish Times demolishes all the tired myths that people like David Blunkett and Bob Piper trot out. If only they ever listened to this guy who knows first hand what he is talking about, rather than closing their ears and revelling in their own ignorance of the subject. Hat-tip MAKE VOTES COUNT for highlighting O'Toole's article in the Irish Times - 'My vote will really count, but then i am lucky enough to have PR'.

Why Is David Cameron Defending Michael Gove?

After my post on Julie Kirkbride, she has now been forced to stand down at the next general election. So I thought one by one I would go through all the other inconsistencies in Cameron's position - he sacrifices some old grandees while defending his 'rising stars' who have done exactly the same.

There is no difference between what Michael Gove has done and Hazel Blears. Both have 'flipped' their houses to avoid paying tax and claim exorbitant expenses, both should go. So why are the media and David Cameron so quiet on this issue. Is it because Michael is their rising blie eyed boy in the media and an influential neocon? He has to go. In fact so should David Cameron with his £20,000 a year expenses off the taxpayer. Wisteria indeed.

Why Should We Have To Pay For Cameron's Mortgage?

David Cameron is worth £30m - he doesn't need a mortgage on his £1m second home. He only has a mortgage so he can claim £20,000 a year off the taxpayer to pay his mortgage interest (on top of his £141,000 salary as leader of the opposition).

And this man wants to be trusted to 'save us money'. Get real people, and if you want to punish MPs on the take, vote neither Tory or Labour. Remember though that on June 4th, if you do not vote at all, you make it more likely the BNP will do well. This is because the European elections are proportional elections and every vote counts.

Could The Rise Of UKIP Bring PR Closer?

UKIP members and MEPs are mostly made up of a bunch of right wing ex-Tory old men. And they are as embrollied in the expenses scandal as much (if not more so) as the Tory and Labour MPs. If you want to vote for a party unscarred by expense scandals, then vote Green on June 4th.

But UKIP could hold the key to electoral reform. It was the rise of the New Zealand Party - a party to the right of the centre-right Nationalists in New Zealand that finally brought a referendum on electoral reform over there.

Established parties to the left of the Labour party help the Tories in this electoral system, but UKIP does the Tories the most damage. If UKIP could keep in double figures then a hung parliament would be much more of a prospect.

Labour have been too frightened to take on the Tories over electoral reform, so easy places like Scotland and Wales where the Tories are a minor party and helped most by PR, were a good place to start to win Tory support for reform. Tory voters have been reinvigorated in these places as their votes now count and a lot of them now support PR there.

So all you disenchanted Tory voters, if you really want to punish the Tories but still vote against the EU then vote UKIP on June 4th. Of course UKIP are not exactly clean on the expenses issue either, in which case voting Green on June 4th is the best option.

Greens Overtake UKIP In Latest Poll.

According to Polling Report - ICM have the Greens on 11% to UKIP's 10% for the June 4th Euro Elections. The Tories are down to 29%, the Lib Dems on 20% and Labour collapsing to 17%. The BNP are on 5% which would not be enough to win them a seat.

Labour have also fallen behind the Lib Dems for the first time since 2004 for the Wesminster elections CON 40%, LDEM 25%, LAB 22%. Why are so many of you still willing to vote for the Tories? Do you really want more MPs with 'servants quarters', moats and duck islands at our expense?

Proportional Representation Really Scares Our Corrupt Political Classes: What Better Reason To Support It?

So, Jack Straw, David Cameron, William Hague, sadly a majority of the cabinet and all Tory MPs, plus the Tory press, lead the charge against proportional representation.

Ranged against them are some usual PR advocates, Alan Johnson (our best hope if he ousts Brown, calling for Alternative Vote Plus AV+), John Denham (calling rightly for a citizen's convention to recommend how we elect our MPs) and then there are fairly recent and important converts to PR - Jon Cruddas, Roy Hattersley, thinktanks - Compass, Progress, the Fabians, Christian Socialists and a whole range of political luvvies, right-on musicians and artists.

So no contest there then, the political status quo will remain.

But then there are the PR haters who would tolerate a 'little change'. Peter Hain is a long standing advocate of the Alternative Vote AV (used in Australia), he has been joined by David Blunkett (who says he could 'tolerate' AV) and even Jack Straw has mentioned he could accommodate it.

In an article today, Hain outlines (and Blunkett also) the usual myths against PR (weak unstable government and too much power to small parties and the party hierachies) that I am sick of continually having to rebut but here I go yet again.

The UK has had more general elections, more government reshuffles (currently more than one per year) and more leaders since the war than either Germany, Sweden or even Israel, who all have proportional list systems.

Canada which has the same 'Westminster style' first-past-the-post FPTP system as us, have had more general elections and governments than Italy (which is an electoral chameleon country which has had both first-past-the-post and proportional systems). In fact the UK has had a similar number of governments to any PR country. So it is a total myth to say PR delivers unstable government.

As for weak government - we only have to look at the higher economic growth and better public services of Germany and Scandanavia to see that the supposed weak government and legislative paralysis that PR brings exists only in the minds of first-past-the-post stalwarts. Sweden punchs well above its weight internationally and increasingly Germany previously hampered by its Nazi past is starting to assert itself again. To say that any of these PR countries is 'weak' is just meaningless waffle.

Justin at Chicken Yoghurt points out that when you look at a list of the most democratic states and compare it to the electoral system they use:-

"Of the top 21 countries on the Index of Democracy, 18 use proportional representation. The three that don’t are Australia (at 10), United States (at 18) and the UK (at 21)"....(Those three countries, by unhappy coincidence, were the only three to commit active troops to the invasion of Iraq.)

There are currently 2 independent MPs in the House Of Commons plus 1 Respect and 1 Kidderminster Hospital Concern, so 4 in total, that is 0.6% of the total number of MPs. I doubt whether the number of independents will reach double figures even after this expenses scandal - so no more than 1.5% of MPs - hardly a revolution no matter how much the Tories would like you to think it was. Currently 243 MPs or nearly 40% of MPs have been implicated in the expenses scandal as being on the take. So to argue as the Telegraph does that it is just a matter of replacing a 'few bad apples' rather than changing the electoral system is obvious nonsense.

In Ireland under the Single-Transferable Vote STV, they have 3% of their MPs who are independents FIVE TIMES OUR FIGURE. So it seems first-past-the-post is a bigger bar to independents than STV.

Of course when voters and party members have more choice of parties than the present two-party stitch-up, there is less need for independents anyway, as you can be independent within a party.

More real competition between the parties is what is needed. Under PR your vote actually counts and gets someone elected. This encourages more internal party democracy. So, under PR, where members and voters have more say as to who is elected, 'the party' is not such a dirty word as it is in this country, where members views are ignored and suppressed and voters only have a limited choice of Labour or Tory led governments.

So in conclusion, we need a proportional system to get rid of corrupt MPs sitting in safe seats. James Graham of the Quaequam Blog is particularly hostile to Alan Johnson;s suggestion of AV+, but even he would campaign for it in preference to our present debacle of a system.

So Peter Hain couldn't be more wrong when he criticises PR, but he does unfortunately have a point when it comes to MPs support - as he points out - 'turkeys do not vote for christmas' and MPs in safe seats will need to be eased out gently - which is why Alan Johnson thinks AV+ is all we reformers can get and Hain thinks only AV can win MPs support.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is perfect reform and 1 is hardly any change at all, AV comes in as a 1. To paraphrase the Hagley Road To Ladywood Blog's analogy - first-past-the-post is like going to a shop and only having a choice of 2 particularly coarse toilet papers that both uncomfortably scrape your arse, with AV you at least get to register your interest in something better, even if you are still given one of the coarse ones to take home.

My Ten Point Plan To Rescue Our Democracy.

After Cameron's clever waffle yesterday, that looked good but was purely designed to change as little as possible and protect the status quo, and Nick Clegg's truly radical and substantive effort today (shame he isn't more visible) - I thought I would add my twopenneth before conspicuously silent Brown follows behind and misses the point completely no doubt.

1. A Large Citizen's Jury To Design A System To Elect Our MPs and for local government (this debate shown live on TV) Any recommendations would of course be put forward to the people in a binding referendum held at the same time as the next general election.

2. Incentive Voting Make election day a Bank Holiday, but only those who turn up to vote get paid for or receive benefits for that day (for self employed or those who have to work, give them a tax free day as an incentive to turn up). This will not only encourage people to vote but also to register on the electoral roll.

When you think about it, the rewards to the individual of turning up to vote are actually miniscule, as it is unlikely that one vote makes much difference to the result (this is true under any system but especially under first-past-the-post where your vote only has a chance of counting if you live in the 15% of constituencies that are marginal). And yet the costs of turning up are a real disincentive. It is amazing how many people do bother to vote. But voting is a real benefit to society and our democracy and so a small incentive to compensate voters for their costs and efforts is appropriate. People could vote 'none of the above' or even spoil their ballot paper, as long at they turn up they would receive the incentive. A financial incentive like this would also appeal most to those voters that vote the least - the young, urban and poor.

3. Non-Voters Need Representing Too At the moment politicians can just ignore non-voters as irrelevant as they do not affect the result. In fact it makes life easier for politicians if there are large parts of the electorate they do not have to consider. This is of course terrible for democracy, the more these non-voters are ignored the more alienated and powerless they become (and the more exploited by our system). This skews our politics, as the young, uneducated and urban lower socio-economic groups have their needs increasingly ignored.

To redress this, I suggest that non-voters are represented proportionally in parliament by members of the electorate drawn by lot. So if 40% do not vote, 40% of parliament is drawn by lot. This would give a massive incentive to politicians to get the vote out and consider all the electorate's needs as low turnout would reduce their chances of being elected. After all, non-voters are not saying they do not want representing, just that they do not like any of the candidates on the ballot paper enough to bother turning up to vote.

4. Elect The Second Chamber I can't believe that in the 21st Century I am having to write this. The UK is the only country in the developed world to have a non-elected chamber making our laws.

But to preserve the uniqueness of the revising chamber (which would have its powers strictly laid out for the first time), members would be chosen differently and for longer terms than the Commons, maybe even 10-15 year terms to give people plenty of time to make an impact.

I propose electing 50% of the chamber in 'vocational constituencies', an idea I have pinched off Fiona McTaggert Labour MP for Slough. So elections would take place within different occupations - doctors, teachers, construction workers, nurses, shop workers, students, delivery drivers, cleaners, farmers etc etc, all electing a number in proportion to their size. Even the unemployed could send a representative. All hopefully knowledgeable within their fields.

I propose the other 50% of the second chamber made up by people drawn by lot. This would protect against the growth of 'career politicians' and give a laymans view to any experts in the chamber.

5. Strengthen Local Democracy The two most important aspects here would be firstly to break up the decade long monopolies, the stranglehold that one party can have on an area. The way to do that is to introduce a proportional system or even the single-transferable vote. For the first time, a sizeable number of Tory voters would be represented in Labour strongholds and vice versa, and all the minority parties would have a voice for the first time. This would do more to remove inept and corrupt government than anything else.

Secondly, rather than raising just 20% of its own revenue through local taxation, local government should be able to not only raise about 80% of its own revenue but choose the method of raising that revenue - so if it wants to widen the council tax bands it can. A proportional electoral system would protect Tory voters from being victimised like they were with the rates system in Labour strongholds in the 70s and protect the poor from the Poll Tax in Tory strongholds.

Directly elected Mayors would also give an area more of a voice on the national scene.

6. Fairer and Cleaner Party Funding Scrap the current £60m a year of state funding that parties receive (through 'Short money' and other parliamentary hand-outs) and hand this decision to the voters on the ballot paper by allowing them to tick a box to donate £3 of state funding to their chosen local party organisation or nothing at all if they choose not to tick the box (from the Power Report). This will also give another incentive for candidates to get out the vote and increase turnout. Voters would be free to tick a box of a party other than the one they vote for. This would distribute state money more fairly between the parties and cost no more than at present (30m votes times £3 equals £90m every election). I would also place strict £1000 limits per year on individual donations and £1 a head limits on organisations. So companies and unions could only donate £1 per shareholder or member per year. This would stop them buying up too much influence in our democracy. The voter would now become the main funder of our politics and the main influence on policy. As should be the case in a true democracy.

7. Ensure A Free And Well Functioning Media If your press is not truly free you are not living in a true democracy. We have a real problem with our media, it is distorting the news that we hear. Nick Davies in Flat Earth News explains that it is not just the proprietors of newspapers that influence press politics but the news feeds that the press rely on (mostly the Press Association and commercial PR).

The wealthy control the news feeds and the press then relay this information wholesale because it is cheap and easy to do. The difficult stories that challenge the status quo are expensive and risky and it costs money to check stories, so false PR stories rule the day. Commercial churnalism takes over from real journalism as journalists are too few in number and not given the time to investigate or check stories properly.

We need to continue to properly fund an independent widely accessible media (i.e. the BBC) and stipulate that it is not only to be as impartial as it can be, but willing to be constantly investigative and challenge the consensus view and lead debate rather than follow the press consensus as it seems to largely do at present.

Although the proprietors maybe only influence 20% of the politics of their newspapers, this is influential. We need to stop Rupert Murdoch being the first person to be greeted at number 10 after an election, and our party leaders flying half way round the world to court him on billionaire's yachts.

We need to go back to regulating properly ownership of our press, so it is not just left to 4 rich men living abroad to dictate our news. Increasingly they own all the local press as well, and the privilege of having A-boards all over a City should not be there to back one political candidate and spread damaging false stories about another. There should be rules governing the press's impartiality as there is for the broadcast media (though even this will be scrapped if Cameron is elected).

8. Strengthened Internal Party Democracy The introduction of proportional elections will increase competition between the parties for voters and members naturally and also increase the representation of the working classes in parliament. So parties will have an incentive to be open and democratic under PR. But without PR there would need to be rules to ensure that members are not ignored by their leadership - proper elections, primaries, proper votes on policy. All these things are completely absent from the Tory party and largely absent from the Labour party. The Tories charge £2 to send a text message in their 'open primaries' and allow multiple votes. Open primaries will be of little use if like in the US, they just generally elect the person with the most money and most expensive advertising campaign.

9. A Directly Elected President (by AV of course) Abolish any remaining powers the monarchy have and replace them with a directly elected president who can place a check on the executive (along with the second chamber with revision powers). Remove most funding from the monarchy and allow them to continue only as an interesting relic from our past to continue to attract tourists.

10. Finally A Written Constitution This will protect local democracy powers, the powers to hold the executive to account, the powers of the revising chamber, party funding and minorities and human rights in general.

I don't expect any of this will happen in my lifetime, but I live in hope.

How Many Houses Does David Cameron Have?

A simple question one might think, but according to Johann Hari - Cameron DOESN'T KNOW!!

Let's start with a tiny story, that points to a bigger untold tale. A few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition was asked how many homes he owns. "I own a house in North Kensington and... in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have," he said. He then started to get confused, said he might own four homes after all, and pleaded: "Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I've got." Imagine if Neil Kinnock said this in 1991. Do you think you might have heard?

This surely tells us more about Cameron than any feelgood pose in the media. Why does he get away with this? This would have been front page news if Brown had uttered it.

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that our press is Tory, could it?

MP offers £100 To Name MEPs.

Tory MP for Shrewsbury & Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski is offering £100 to any constituent who names 2 or more of the MEPs in their region - the West Midlands. On Monday he stated on Radio 4's The World Tonight, that he has not had to pay out a penny in 4 years!

His point being (I assume) that PR elections are bad for the 'constituency link'. He is (along with Labour's Jim Murphy (safe Labour seat in Scotland) a founder of the first-past-the-post supporters group in parliament.

But what does this prove when most constituents cannot name their MP or any of their councillors (elected under first-past-the-post), so it is hardly surprising they also cannot name 2 or more of their MEPs.

Off the top of my head I can name 4 of my MEPs here in the South East - Daniel Hannan (Tory), Caroline Lucas (Green), Peter Skinner (Labour) and Nigel Farage (UKIP). Maybe I am lucky to have some quite high profile names down here.

I can also name my MP in Hove - Celia Barlow (Labour) and in Goldsmid Ward my councillors, Melanie Davis (Labour) and (I think) Paul? Lainchbury (Tory although he has never been in the ward or attended any council meetings) and somebody whose first name I forget - something Fallas-Khan (Tory).

Off the top of your head, how many can you name? (and please be honest!).

Referendum 2010?

Nothing demonstrates the duplicity of David Cameron, the Tories and the Right in general more than the issue of referenda.

Labour promised a referendum in their manifesto on the EU treaty and I agree that it is a betrayal of that promise not to provide one. Some would go further saying it is 'travesty of democracy'.

Yes, all well and good, yet, Labour also promised a referendum in their manifesto on proportional representation but the Tories categorically oppose this referendum.

It seems failure to honour a referendum is only a 'travesty of democracy' when the Tories...

(and their right-wing friends in the press) say so.

You have to hand it to Cameron, he knows how to spin a yarn. He presents high minded talk of 'giving power to the people', while actually carefully entrenching the status quo.

Fixed term parliaments are just window dresssing and impractical anyway. If a minority Tory government in a hung parliament won power, they would soon call a general election if the opportunity to strenghten their position arose. All this talk is just a figleaf to present as radical something that is not. Ditto a few independent MPs and one or two de-selections of near retirement Tory grandees - just window dressing. So far, 1 in 3 Tory MPs have been found to be on the fiddle, and 1 in 5 Labour MPs, how will more Tory MPs elected under the same system make any difference? Notice also how it took 5 days into the expenses revelations before the Torygraph mentioned any Tories and made out the £250,000 a year Cameron gets from the taxpayer for doing up his house and having nice holidays is all good and above board.

What of his reduction in the number of MPs, surely a good thing? Well putting aside Cameron is only doing it for partizan party political gain (it makes it easier to gerrymander the boundaries in the Tory favour) - less MPs would ironically only work well under a proportional system where an enlarged constituency could provide a number of MPs of various political stripes for constituents to consult (elected in proportion to what voters actually want). If Cameron really cared about strengthening the constituency link he would be making constituencies smaller and more coherent under our present system.

The so called 'constituency link' that is used to defend our present system is completely meaningless when constituencies are so large and prone to alteration. The Tories also propose to ignore administrative and geographical boundaries when drawing up constituencies for the general election after next. This is just pure and simple gerrymandering. How can you punish your MP, if you are likely to be in a different constituency by the time it comes to vote? How can you engage a community when it is split between several constituencies and combined with bits of communities from other areas?

What about open primaries? These could potentially make a difference is they really were open. So far the Tories have just used them as a money making racket, charging £2 a text to vote and allowing multiple votes just makes a mockery of our democracy. The Tories are just not serious about real democracy - which is why they oppose the one truly radical measure that would give power back the voters - proportional representation.

Which is why the thought of David Cameron being our next PM is so depressing.

Like Helena Kennedy, I still harbour delusions that this dying Labour government will go out doing something truly radical and honour its promise to give people a say on how we elect our MPs (I also realise the futility of leaving the party under our present system). Although the cabinet don't seem to be able to get ther head round it, only PR will get rid of rotten MPs sitting in safe seats for life. Gordon Brown clearly has no principles, but maybe an appeal to his legendary hopeless tactical accumen would persuade him. Otherwise he must be removed, if the Labour party is to be in any shape to put up a decent fight.

If we are denied a say once again, even though not 40, I might not live to see the realisation of the true dream of democracy. Just as rotten boroughs were swept away with votes for all, only equal votes for all will sweep away our rotten MPs, making EVERY VOTE COUNT no matter where you live.

*Finally I just want to add that Cameron's proposed changes to Commons procedures are just fiddling around the edges - as Alan Johnson put it - 'we need to change the engine not just the uphostery'. When MPs on the backbenchs have shown themselves to be thoroughly untrustworthy, a few powers over timetabling bills and on second readings won't help.

Another General Election Under This System Is Just A Waste Of Time.

No wonder David Cameron is calling for a general election when just 39% of the vote will give him a landslide victory under our present system.

What we need is proper reform not one or two independent celebrity MPs (and that is all it will be) who will have no power in parliament - outnumbered by 400 or so Tory MPs.

Cameron is sacrificing a few old Tory grandees near retirement to spin his holier than thou image. But while he expects £20,000 of taxpayers money to go towards his mortgage on his gigantic country house, his spin is all hogwash. Why also are Tory MPs like Michael Gove allowed to 'flip' their mortgages and get no sanction from Cameron. Gove is no different from Hazel Blears and should get the same contempt.

I also think that the next 12 months will allow voters to be told exactly what Cameron's MPs have been up to. Cameron would prefer we have a quick election before all that - no wonder.

Alan Johnson has pointed out that all the groundwork has been done for electoral reform just a few years ago - we could just implement the Jenkins report which recommends 'the alternative vote plus' mark 1-2-3 on the ballot paper for a constituency candidate and 1-2-3 for a regional candidate. MPs would need to get 50% support in their constituency and regional MPs would make up 20% of parliament and produce a more proportional result. Under AV+, parties would need around 45% of the vote for a majority in parliament, still not a majority of votes to get a majority of seats but much better than the present situation where 35% can give you a landslide

The dream scenario is this :- Gordon Brown is removed this summer, Alan Johnson (or someone else) is installed by the party members for the party conference in September announcing an immediate general election in October coupled with a referendum on how we elect our MPs for the same day. It is a dream I know.

Alan Johnson and John Denham Call For Referendum On How We Elect Our MPs

This is what we want - a referendum bringing proper reform that allows us to 'kick the buggers out' and not some crappy general election that will just re-elect the same old faces.

If only Labour members had been given a say in leader, maybe with one of these two at the helm we wouldn't be looking at a 20 point deficit in the polls.

Is Gordon Brown A Tory Stooge?

I have thought this for a while. I mean Gordon is just so bad it is like he is a put up job from the Tories.

There must be plenty of infiltrators - think about it, it wouldn't be that difficult. Only 2 or 3 active members in each ward, around 30 or 40 a constituency, there easy could be 5 or 6 Tories running the show in each constituency.

So many decent left-wingers have left the party that the charlatans have taken over. Destroying democracy in the party and instilling Tory like policies. But worse acting so incompetently that the Tories don't seem that bad an option. It has definitely happened in Brighton and I can guess who the Tories are.

I mean it all makes sense, deny a definite election win in Autumn 2007 and waste £1.2m of party funds in the process. It will be confirmed for me if Gordon calls a general election this year when we are in a awful place in the polls. Moron Brown might just be a Tory. Even stuff he must know is bad he tries to defend. He has no humility - surely nobody is that bad.

But worse of all, the party has got so corrupted that Gordon Brown can become our leader and somehow stay there despite being obviously absolutely awful. At least we members are absolved of responsibilty since we were never given the vote of who our leader should be. What a joke!!

Why Is David Cameron Defending Julie Kirkbride?

This is from wikipedia;

"On May 14th, 2009, her husband Andrew MacKay, the Conservative Member for Bracknell, resigned from his position as parliamentary aide to David Cameron, in the wake of the furore over Parliamentary expenses after what was described as an "unacceptable" expenses claim.

MacKay and Kirkbride own two homes: one in her constituency of Bromsgrove; and a flat close to Parliament in Westminster. In a case of so called "double-dipping," according to the Daily Telegraph, Mackay had used his Additional Costs Allowance to claim more than £1,000 a month in mortgage interest payments on their joint Westminster flat, while Kirkbride used her Additional Costs Allowance to claim over £900 a month on paying off the mortgage for their family home near her constituency. This means they effectively had no main home but two second homes – and were using public funds to pay for both of them. In 2008/9, MacKay claimed a total of £23,083 under Additional Costs Allowance, while Kirkbride claimed £22,575. They also claimed for each other's travel costs, with Kirkbride claiming £1,392 to meet spouse travel, while MacKay claimed £408."

So how is her husband guilty but not Julie Kirkbride when they both did exactly the same thing?

The plot thickens...

"On 10 November 2006, it was revealed that she had previously undisclosed links with the Midlands Industrial Council, which has donated millions of pounds to the Conservative Party".

Maybe she is just too valuable to the Tories.

Julie Kirkbride is homophobic (despite her ex-boyfriend), voted against a transparent parliament (what a surprise) and voted for the Iraq war. Here is her voting record. Do we really want these bunch of hypocritical Tory spongers ripping off the taxpayer and in our next government?

Cameron's Call For A General Election Is A Cynical Ploy To Take The Heat Off His MPs

David Cameron knows that Labour, currently 20 points behind in the opinion polls, indeed any party in that situation in government, would not call an early election so he can give out his populist call for one (backed by his new friend Murdoch).

But there might be a hint of panic in Cameron's call. Nobody knows how much more revelations are going to damage the Tories. Over 12 months voters will have a lot of time to hear about their Tory MPs misdemenours - as Labour deselects its culprits, Cameron would have to confront a lot of his own MPs and constituency associations that don't want to lose their cushy positions.

Currently about 30% of Tory MPs have been implicated and about 15% of Labour MPs (see lists below) the Tories potentially should have more to lose by this, but the press have managed to make Labour seem the main culprits.

Can you imagine Julie Kirkbride and Nadine Dorries faced by a drug dealer claiming it was circumstances that led them into crime - they would give them short shrift and their right-wing response would be to hand out a long prison sentence.

But when these hypocritical Tories were caught with their own hands in the till suddenly 'it's the system that made us fill our pockets with taxpayers money'. But there are plenty of MPs (maybe the majority) who didn't make outrageous claims. By their own right-wing Tory judgement Nadine Dorries and Julie Kirkbride and all the other piggish MPs should be behind bars. Any party and party leader who defends Kirkbride as Cameron and the Tories have closing ranks around her, deserve no seats at all, let alone to be in government.

Amen to that I hear a lot of you saying. So why are so many of you still voting Tory and going to deliver them a landslide? For Tories to still be on around 40% in opinion polls, you obviously cannot bring yourselves to disown your party whatever the provocation - which is why our system, with most MPs in seats for life, is so crap.

Go and vote UKIP or something if you want a load of right-wingers (although they are a bunch of crooks as well). Better still vote Green (especially in these PR Euro elections on June 4th where every vote will count) if you want to slam the main parties. Currently 54% of voters are still backing Labour and Tory in the Euros and even more for Westminster. What is wrong with you all?

Cameron is making people think a general election is the answer to a rotten parliament, but replacing one lot of Tory and New Labour frauds with a new generation of even more Tory frauds is no answer.

Have you noticed how it is all the new Labour and Tory MPs we on the left really despise who seem to be the worst culprits? - new Labour MPs who fiddled (so far)-

Douglas Alexander
Hilary Armstrong
Ian Austin
Vera Baird QC
Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper
Margaret Beckett
Tony Blair
Hazel Blears
Ben Bradshaw
Kevin Brennan
Gordon Brown
Nick Brown
Chris Bryant
Andy Burnham
Dawn Butler
Stephen Byers
Ben Chapman
David Chaytor
David Clelland
Tam Dalyell
Alistair Darling
Ian Davidson
Natascha Engel
Caroline Flint
Barbara Follett
Barry Gardiner
Ian Gibson
Geoff Hoon
Phil Hope
Diana Johnson
Gerald Kaufman
Alan and Ann Keen
Ruth Kelly
Fraser Kemp
Mark Lazarowicz
Shahid Malik
Lord Mandelson
Sarah McCarthy-Fry
Steve McCabe
Ian McCartney
David Miliband
Madeleine Moon
Margaret Moran
Elliot Morley
George Mudie
Paul Murphy
John Prescott
James Purnell
John Reid
Jack Straw
Kitty Ussher
Keith Vaz
Claire Ward
Shaun Woodward
Phil Woolas
Ian Wright and Tom Watson

Tory MPs who fiddled (so far) -

Michael Ancram
James Arbuthnot
Greg Barker
John Bercow
Sir Paul Beresford
Alistair Burt
David Cameron
Ken Clarke
Stephen Crabb
David Davis
Nadine Dorries
Alan Duncan
Michael Fallon
Cheryl Gillan
Michael Gove
James Gray
Chris Grayling
John Gummer
Alan Haselhurst
David Heathcoat-Amory
Nick Herbert
Douglas Hogg
Stewart Jackson
Andrew Lansley
Julian Lewis
Oliver Letwin
David Lidington
Peter Luff
Andrew MacKay
David Maclean
Anne Main
John Maples
Francis Maude
Patrick McLoughlin
George Osborne
John Redwood
Keith Simpson
Michael Spicer
Anthony Steen
Robert Syms
Ed Vaizey
Sir Peter Viggers
Theresa Villiers
Bill Wiggin
David Willetts
Sir George Young

They should all go!

Vote Match Europe Launched

Its fun and its over on the Unlock Democracy site or just click above. Find out who you should vote for in the European Elections on June 4th. As the Labour Campaign For Electoral Reform puts it;

"We are just about to vote in an election where EVERY VOTE WILL COUNT. It will count for the party you vote for. It will count for the way the European parliament operates and what policies it influences. It will COUNT AGAINST the far right (assuming you don't vote BNP). In a proportional system, turnout counts and therefore votes count" (the BNP need 9% in the NorthWest and over 10% (approx) elsewhere to elect MEPs)

As Lewis Baston at the Electoral Reform Society puts it;

"The BNP missed a seat in the North West by 0.4% in 2004. While the threshold is higher this time because there are fewer seats, 8 rather than 9, they should be able to win a seat with something like 8-10% of the vote depending on how the vote falls between the major and minor parties. This is their best chance, being a region with lots of seats, hence more chance for minor parties and a significant BNP vote. I would guess they need 10% or so in their other strong regions, Yorkshire & Humber and the West Midlands, less in London and the South East, although their vote is lower in these regions. The BNPs maximum showing could be 5, which would be alarming. I would not rule out 0 either which would be reassuring. A lot depends on turnout, and frankly on the luck of the draw with how the vote is split between the other parties"

Currently the BNP are on 7% nationally in opinion polls, heres hoping that is not enough for seats.

Out of interest, my results on VoteMatch were as follows;

Green Party 51 out of 73
Lib Dems 49/73
Libertas 48/73
Jury team 44/73
Labour 42/73
Conservatives 29/73
UKIP 15/73

Electoral Revolution?

I won't hold my breath, I've had my hopes dashed too many times before, so I'll believe it when I see it.

But since the expenses scandal has shown so many of our MPs to be ludicrously unaccountable, there does seem to be more than the usual voices calling for a referendum on how we elect our MPs, theres even a Tory MP at it!

Cameron Has No Credibility In Getting Value For Taxpayers

If David Cameron thinks it good value for taxpayers to continue to pay him £20k a year on his £1M mansion, how can we take his claims on getting good value for taxpayers seriously?

The Tories now say they won't claim for moats and duck islands and may even de-select a few older Tories, but they will continue to be very wealthy people on a top 5% salary expecting us on an average £23k to pay their mortgages.

Save us money? They are having a laugh. How can we consider them moral when they cut benefits of £63 a week or teachers starting salaries of £17k - they repeatedly say teachers and others are having it easy.

People may not want Labour anymore, but please don't replace them with these jerks. Vote for anyone but the Tories, they need teaching a lesson too!

Nancy Platts Labour PPC for Brighton Pavilion: Why I Support Electoral Reform.

"On the doorstep, many people express concern about the lack of policy difference between the two main political parties because they feel the current voting system encourages both to try and occupy the 'centre ground'.

The result is an increasing number of people who feel their views are not going to be represented whoever they vote for, which can result either in a protest vote or not voting at all.

In particular long-time Labour voters express disappointment that more 'socialist' values have been sacrificed for Labour to gain and maintain political power.

Where 'moderate' minority parties (that is, not the BNP) have a large enough following nationally, but where that is spread across the country, they should be able to represent that view at a national level. I think people should be able to vote for the party that actually represents their views and see that reflected in parliament. To get people voting again, they need to feel that their vote will count"

mBlogging Can Be A Bastard!!

I learnt an important lesson yesterday, as you can probably see from the post below - in trying to correct a few typos I managed to delete half of the post and cannot get it back. As it happened to be a post I had spent a lot of time writing I am particularly pissed off. Any suggestions as to how I can get back what was there yesterday? I have tried google cache but to no avail.

Old Labour Still Don't Get PR.

It is welcome to see LabourHome having more debates about PR, but so despairing to see the same tired old discredited (and right-wing) arguments used against PRs introduction.

Weak government, unstable government, legislative paralysis, Italian corruption, Lib Dems in perpetual power, too much power to minority parties, too much power to political parties in selecting MPs, the 'constituency link' lost, 'smoke filled rooms', 'PR brought us Hitler' to the ludicrous 'we can't throw the buggers out under PR'. All of it bullshit and here's why.

Konrad Adenauer, German leader from 1949 to 1963, Willy Brandt leader from 1969 to 1974, Helmut Schmidt 1974 to 1982, Helmut Kohl, 1982 to 1998 and Gerhard Schroeder, 1998 to 2005. All elected by PR - all well respected strong European leaders with very good longevity. It seems 'weak and unstable' doesn't apply to PR elections at the top at least. And there are plenty of examples of strong leaders elected for long periods under PR, Olaf Palme (12 years as PM) and Goran Persson (10 years) in Sweden, Helen Clark (9 years) in New Zealand.

In fact it isn't just leaders elected under PR which have good longevity, but PR elected governments actually last longer than governments do in the UK. Countries that have had proportional systems continually since the second world war have had less general elections and less post war leaders than the UK (which has had post-war 17 general elections and 12 leaders)- strong stable government in Germany (16 general elections,8 leaders), Sweden (19 elections,8 leaders), Netherlands(14 leaders,19 elections), even Italy has had less general elections (fifteen)and Israel a similar amount(18 elections,12 leaders). If you want to see really weak and unstable government look at Canada (21 post-war elections, 12 leaders) - a country that has the same first-past-the-post system as the UK.

What about the corruption and instability of Italy? For a start Italy has had many different electoral systems in its time including our system first-past-the-post. Proportional systems cannot overnight eliminate historic problems with mafia corruption and outside US interference in elections and of course Italy has the most biased and owner concentrated media in Europe which doesn't help. Yet Italy has managed strong economic growth and has high political engagement - a legacy of occassionally having proportional elections maybe?

Coalition government has a bad reputation in the UK because people remember the Lib-Lab pact in the late 70s and all the right-wing propaganda that has built from that since then. But coalition government under PR and coalition government under first-past-the-post are two entirely different beasts - one is representative of what people voted for the other is not.

In Europe parties are elected in proportion to the vote they receive and have long had to negotiate and work together and produce results, in Britain petty quarrelling and point scoring and fractious puerile debate dominates our Westminster and local politik as one party can dominate for generations on a minority of the vote (especially in local goevrnment). This breeds corrupt and inept politicians unresponsive to public demands (most MPs elected for life in safe seats). Coalition governments are successful under PR in Europe and even in Scotland and Wales, where it has been recently introduced, because unlike the stop-go and constant reversal of policy we get in this country under first-past-the-post, a consensus is followed and radical ideas listened to. It is a bit like cooking on a gas hob compared to electric. With gas the heat can be fine-tuned to cook to perfection, with PR, governance can be fine-tuned to provide better governance, while electric you have much less control and the same is true with first-past-the-post as it swings from one extreme to another.

Of course strong and stable government is not just about the number of elections or leaders, it is about strong economic growth, quality of public services, environmental protection, political influence in the world and general public engagement with politics. But on all these issues the UK scores badly in comparison with PR countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and even electoral chameleon countries like Italy - all spend more on their health and education services, have had stronger post-war economic growth, better public transport, higher party membership and higher turnout in elections and who would argue that countries like Sweden punch more than their weight on the internatonal stage. Germany with its Nazi past to contend with and federal regional system of devolved power has been hampered in the past, but is now starting to assert itself with authority. And PR run countries make swifter decisions in their parliaments than our outdated feudal like system which can take an age to pass even the most simple law despite having no effective (or even elected) break on the power of the executive - if legislative paralysis is anywhere it is here in the UK and in the United States.

So what about disproportionate power to minority parties under PR? Well coalition in the UK under our present system could end up with the Lib Dems and Nationalists wielding disproportionate perpertual power that is for sure - just like the Bloc Quebecois does in first-past-the-post Canada, but ironically the one policy the Lib Dems are famous for - PR, would lead to their destruction if implemented.

The Lib Dems are a fractious bunch, disaffected ex-Tories and ex-Labour lumped together for political expedience with no clear purpose or ideology. Under first-past-the-post the Lib Dems are the 'dustbin' national party that protest voters unite behind to have any chance of getting someone other than Labour or Tory elected. Most of their votes are still wasted (but much less so than other minor parties (apart from the geographically concentrated nationalists).

Without the glue of first-past-the-post to hold them together, Lib Dem members and voters can peel off to vote for their real cause or ideology, whether pro-Europe Tory or left of Labour Socialist or Green. The rump of liberals left will be no more than 10% of the electorate (like it is in shown to be in other countries where proportional systems removes the need for tactical voting).

The main example used of the liberals supposedly being in perpetual power is the example of the FDP in Germany - but this party has not shared power in Germany since 1998 (the rise of the Greens have dimished their importance). Yes, it managed to form coalitions with both right of centre CDU and left of centre SPD, but only because it was the third largest party and maintained a centrist position that could accomodate both main party's positions and 10% of the vote.

*from this point I managed to accidently delete the rest of the post - I will try and rewrite the rest from memory - extremely annoying!!!! Bear with me while I rewrite it (bit by bit).

So the point I was making here was that the liberals in Germany - the FDP got about 10% of the vote and were in several coalition governments. Did they have disproproportionate power? In short, no. Any government under PR must get at least 50% of the vote to get 100% of the power, unlike first-past-the-post where 35% is enough. So any governing coalition partner would expect to get twice the amount of power as their vote - the FDP got around 20% of the cabinet posts which suggests it was entirely in proportion with their share of the vote. Although in government slightly more often than other parties, they were very much the junior partners in government with both SPD and CDU and from a centrist position would only moderate a few policies. This might seem strange to those of us used to first-past-the-post, where small national parties have no power at all, but it is fairer and more importantly a more efficient system. And that is the crux - judge PR by its results - better value public services and higher growth, not the right-wing myths in the Tory press.

Internal party democracy is integral to any political system, but what makes our system so bad and PR much better is that our system encourages party leaderships to repress internal democracy. With 2 parties having a duopoly on power, voters and members have nowhere else to go that can exert an influence. Whereas PR enables competiton between many parties as to who can offer members the most say. If a party is not democratic, members can leave and voters can vote elsewhere knowing their vote will count - actually get someone elected. This is crucial to the health of our overall democracy.

So what of the accusation that PR hands over too much power to parties? Like I say the 'Party' has a bad name in this country because it is so undemocratic - Tory members have no say over policy and Labour members are increasingly ignored. Parties under PR have to be democratic to survive, they compete for members or they lose seats. But leaving that aside our system is still worse. Considering the above it is not surprising that party membership in this country is at an all time low, less and less people are having a say in selecting our MPs - the majority of which are being selected into 'seats for life' (no surprise they felt unaccountable about their expenses - the tip of the iceberg I feel). There is no more 'closed list' a system than first-past-the-post. But what of the 'constituency link'?

The Tories (and Labour MPs in 'seats for life') are the biggest defenders of the constituency link. Yet if the Tories win the next election they have promised to scrap geographical and administrative considerations in drawing constituency boundaries and cut the number of MPs. Already 58% cannot name their MP and 68% do not vote for them, what meaning will a constituency have if it pays no attention to geographical and administrative boundaries and becomes so large there is no recognisable community cohesion? My parents live in a constituency where they have always had a Tory MP and always will despite not voting for him. This is true for the majority of people, how does this represent them. Wouldn't it be better to have a choice of representative from the party you voted for? This would be the situation under PR where maybe 5 MPs of representative political stripes would properly represent constituents.

This 'smoke filled room' idea of coalition government under PR is also a false premise. Every party is a coalition and there is nothing more 'smoke filled' than a parliamentary Labour meeting or Tory backbench '1922' committee? This is where at present manifestos are drawn up behind closed doors, out of sight of constituents. Most importantly this is where different wings of the party decide on policy they will conveniently omit from the manifesto which is probably more significant.

In government manifestos are not always followed (it is not always desirable to follow them) - they are only a guide to voters and most issues that crop up are not in manifestos anyway. Think of Labour, a wide coalition from Alan Milburn to Jeremy Corbyn deciding policy - at present voters cannot choose which wing of the party they prefer and members are increasingly shut out as well, under PR the people are given this choice. PR allows people to see the joins in coalitions and decide which bit of policy they want. It is far more open a system than first-past-the-post will ever be and currently we do have to put up with behind closed doors decision making. PR encourages more open debate and radical ideas, whereas our present system encourages petty point scoring and secrecy. PR will bring a breath of fresh air and clean out the inept and corrupt politicians encouraged by MPs sitting in 'seats for life' and local councils knowing they will be in power for decades or more no matter what they do.

Finally 'PR brought us Hitler' and 'we can't throw the buggers out under PR'. You might as well say the Tories brought Hitler to power because it was the German Conservatives that backed Hitler and gave him his majority. PR held Hitler back. The Nazis got 40% of the vote and 40% of the seats. Under our system they would have won every seat in parliament. Under PR they needed the backing of the German Conservative party to form a government.

What about their rapid rise from minor party to major party, did PR assist this? Once again, it did not. These were turbulent times of depression with hyper inflation and mass unemployment stirring up movements all over the world. In the UK, it was the Labour party who grew from obscurity to government in little over a decade under a first-past-the-post system. Germany had it worse with their added grievance at heavy war reparations, this and the backing of US banks and the German upper classes fearing the spread of communism, helped the Nazi rise in a similar period to the rise of the Labour party in Britain. The electoral system was coincidental in both cases, in fact under first-past-the-post the Nazis might have attained power even quicker.

To the 60% of voters who consistently voted against the 18 long years of Thatcherism, the idea that it is 'easy to throw the buggers out' under our present system is laughable. It took absolute univeral loathing of the Tories and near 70% voting against them to finally get rid of them. In 2005, 65% of voters voted against new Labour and yet they got a healthy majority in parliament. Isn't it just better to have the government the majority votes for? Time for PR.

"Most Voters Don't Read Manifestos And Have Only A Hazy Idea Of Party Policies"

Polly Toynbee has been attacked for saying this by some commenters who say she insults our intelligence.

But this is not about voters intelligence, this quote is just a statement of fact from Polly - people do not read manifestos, they have little interest in the detail of politics whatever their intelligence. So is the following;

"Most voters can't name their MPs or their councillors: they vote the national ticket".

There have been surveys showing how little voters know of their MPs and nothing demonstrates this 'vote for national ticket' more than the latest opinion polls, which still show Labour and Tory garnering 62% of those intending to vote - only about 10% of voters (mostly Labour supporters) have deserted them for minor parties despite the supposed universal disgust at their exorbitant expenses. Most voters cannot abandon their party loyalty no matter what the provocation.

There is now a large pool of 40% of the electorate who do not vote and this will only increase as more than 60% of 18-24 year olds do not vote. Politicians in safe seats are safer still when voters fail to punish them at the ballot box. The poor and the young can be safely ignored when they do not vote. If only these voters were motivated enough to cast their vote en masse for minor parties would the fatcats in parliament sit up and listen.

Polly once again hits on the three main things that need to be done to make our democracy better - proportional elections to Westminster both for the lower house and the unelected upper house and state funding of parties and limits on organisations and individual donations who buy influence over the head of voters.

As Polly points out Gordon has to go and Alan Johnson might just be able to finally honour Labour's pledge for a referendum on electing MPs. Too late to be implemented but a binding referendum would at least present the incoming Tories with a dilemma - ignore the public or honour their wishes. It would be sweet to see them try and wriggle out of that one.

The Tories had their spin ready for the expenses scandal - it seems no coincidence that the details were leaked to the Tory house magazine - the Telegraph, who have carefully picked over the details to hit Labour harder than the Tories. The tactic has clearly been to present Cameron as Mr Clean despite his MPs extravagance and his 20k mortgage interest at taxpayers expense. In truth the Tory claims have been far more outrageous (and costly to the taxpayer - quarter million pound fiddles to Labour MPs thousands and Libs hundreds) than Labours. If Tory voters really did care about taxpayers money being wasted they wouldn't vote Tory again.

Also has anyone noticed how Yougov polls in the Mail and Telegraph are keeping secret the rising Green vote - they don't mind bigging up the UKIP vote (who are just a bunch of ex-Tories) but not the Greens. This is ironic as the Greens are probably the one party who are free of expense scandals - UKIP have had MEPs sent to jail over it.

I'll finish with this quote from a commenter to Polly's article which sums up our dim future.

"There are some good ideas in this, but when I look at them my heart just sinks. The problem is that we have a prime minister who is an arrogant cretin. We need PR now, or our thoroughly rancid electoral system is going to hand a landslide to a conservative party few people really want to see in government. Now's Gordon's chance to lead the way to real reform. But he won't. He's too stupid. How on earth did this utter cretin ever get into office?"

A Message To Ellie Reeves and Ann Black.

Ann Black will be chairing the NEC meeting on Tuesday to decide whether Labour MPs should be open to a new selection procedure. As a first step I say they should, and any deemed to have made excessive expense claims can be de-selected.

But the real problem (as ever), if that we live in a partial democracy. Until we reform our 19th century system for electing MPs we will never be able to hold them properly accountable - although it is no accident that these expenses claims have come to light during a Labour government, would the Tories ever have passed a freedom of information Act? We will see in 2010 if this is one of the first things they abolish, along with the minimum wage and the hunting ban.

If we are to persevere with the present system of first-past-the-post which gives us government the majority actually voted against, the least we can do is stipulate by law that ALL the parties including the Tories have proper internal democracy so members can decide their parliamentary candidates and therefore influence policy direction.

There has been a collapse in party membership and both Labour and the Tories strictly limit the power of members. In the Tory case, their members have no say over policy and only a choice of two that the parliamentary party put in front of them for choice of leader. Labour conferences at least allow some debate about policy even if members are mostly ignored, Tory conferences have always been Nuremberg rallies - pure spin for the press.

On Tuesday the NEC should re-open the selection procedure for all sitting MPs, but more than that they need to make it clear that a mere change of rules at the fees office and deselection of a few MPs who have made exorbitant claims will not be enough.

The present system gives too many MPs jobs for life in safe seats and is bound to breed corrupt and inept politicians - just as local government has failed to provide decent calibre councillors when they know they can be in power for decades whatever they do.

The churn of politician is much more widespread under PR, it is not just limited to the 20% or so of seats that are marginal. Even in areas where a party is dominant, PR makes established politicians fight for their seats and sometimes lose them. Only this competition will improve the quality of our MP.

The most obvious example where PR gives more choice is the Single Transferable Vote, which allows choice between members of a party as well as between parties. But open PR also allows the whole electorate to decide who is elected rather than a closed system which gives power to the party. In any closed system internal party democracy is essential. First-past-the-post is an effective closed system in over 2/3 of the seats, but worse than closed PR because even in the marginals it rarely gives more than a choice of Labour and Tory. A closed PR system at least allows people to reject parties that are undemocratic and unaccountable. Even if it doesn't allow specific selection of party candidates there is a pressure applied to parties operating under closed PR to improve their internal democracy. So even a closed PR system that we use in the European elections is an improvement on what we have now. But of course, PR systems can be completely open, like they are in most Scandanavian countries and some German states. Only then can we truly get the representatives we vote for and clean up politics properly.

Do The Tories Really Deserve A 152 Seat Majority Over ALL Other Parties When They Have Had Their Fingers In The Till Just As Much (If Not More)?

Thirty something percent of the vote, less than 1 in 5 of the electorate and the Tories are heading for over 60% of the seats.

No wonder the Tories love the present system of electing MPs. Who needs to attract majority support when all you have to do is split the opposition.

It seems Labour voters are more disgusted by this expenses scandal - probably because most Labour voters have never been able to claim them. Tory voters in contrast are probably much more sympathetic having accountants to flip their earnings to avoid tax and spicing up their expenses claims is a part of their lives too.

If you really want to show MPs of all parties on June 4th, we need you Tories to vote UKIP - you will get a nice right-wing MEP and as a bonus one who probably shares your hatred of the EU. Come on, us Labour supporters are deserting Labour, we need you Tory supporters to show you hate piggy cash troughing MPs as well. Otherwise we can assume you only want to save taxpayers money when it is spent on the working classes. Show us you care.

The Safer The Seat, The More They Fiddle Their Expenses.

This blogger has crunched the numbers - since under our present Westminster system about 2/3 of seats are safe, this has serious implications.

Time for PR me thinks.

Sun Hide Green Vote

Interestingly the Sun leave unpublished a missing 30% of support in their latest poll. I wonder why? A Very Public Sociologist has a suggestion

Prime Ministerial, My Ar**!

The Tory press are trying to big up Mr Cameron as 'prime ministerial' because a couple of his MPs and shadow ministers have promised to pay back a little of what they have robbed from us.

Cameron with his 20k mortgage interest at our expense and his 140k salary at our expense is only looking good in comparison to Gordon Brown who has put in a woeful performance. Cameron is not looking prime ministerial unless to look like a PM you have to be a cocky arrogant git as incompetent as the present incumbent.

All MPs on the scam should not get away with this and that includes slimy Cameron and Osbourne. Why has Julie Kirkbride got away with claiming for a second home her husband also claimed for, for example? QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS this pair of Tory no goods have cost us taxpayers!!

How could cleaning your moat, repairing your tennis courts and swimming pools and sheer tax avoidance ever be 'wholly necessary' for being an MP? Only if you were a crook would it be necessary. In fact does it surprise anyone that on the Labour benches Tony McNulty, Hazel Blears and Gordon Brown are crooks and that Tories like Hogg, Kilbride, Cameron and countless others are crooks. It is always the slimy right wing types in both the Labour and Tory party likely to be on the fiddle. To be fair to the Lib Dems, their dubious claims only involve a few hundred quid not thousands or even millions in some cases.

It is a real shame these expenses claims only go back to 2005 when apparently the 'rules were tightened', god knows what the dodgy Tory ministers were claiming for in the 80s and 90s from when Thatcher changed the rules!! I wonder whether David Mellor would sound so moral on radio 5 if that were known.

The real shame is that we don't have a proportional system which gives power back to voters. Under the present system MPs like Douglas Hogg and his moat will survive while Celia Barlow and Martin Salter - hard working MPs who have not claimed a penny, will lose their seats

No Ifs, No Buts..

I don't see any difference between what MPs have been doing with their expenses claims and benefit fraud.

Do we think someone who was caught overclaiming on their housing benefit could claim it was an 'innocent mistake' and avoid a criminal record? I think not, 'no ifs, no buts' as the advert told us. It is a pity the same rules do not apply to MPs.

For Once, Maybe We Should Listen To Tebbit.

Now I never thought I would say this, but maybe Tebbit is right. Under a proportional system the European Elections on June 4th give people a real chance to say how they feel about the expenses scandal.

If you are angry, do not sit on your hands - non-voting helps the establishment and the BNP because you become irrelevant and they can ignore you. Neither is the BNP the party to vote for, because they are just racist nonsense.

No, if you are really angry, this PR system means you can vote for the minor parties like the Greens and UKIP and know that the bigger parties will be hurt.

Polling Report suggests you might (for once) put your vote where your mouth is. Both the Tories and Labour deserve to do badly. As a Labour party member I am unable to say don't vote Labour, but for once a PR system gives us on the left an electable alternative. If you do not want to vote Labour like you normally do then vote Green, if you do not want to vote Tory like you normally do then vote UKIP. Not voting just helps Tory, Labour and the BNP. Lets really see voters do something useful for once, otherwise the main parties will never learn.

The 'Age Of Austerity' For Tory MPs?

So senior Tories think it fair for the taxpayer to pay for their second homes, furnishing and travel, moats around their castles and fix pipes under their swimming pools, but not to fund social services and public transport for the rest of us. Apparently social services and teachers etc are a waste of money and we need 'efficiency savings' there, but the second home allowance is sacrosanct and necessary.

David Cameron is billed as 'Mr Clean' yet thinks it perfectly reasonable for the taxpayer to pay over £20,000 towards his mortgage on one of his £1m homes. How can we trust these Tories to be fair, when their own expenses seem to come first? None of these expenses will be paid back. This remember is on top of his £140,000 salary from the taxpayer.

David Cameron is transparently a Thatcherite and party tribalist, all of his calls for efficiency for MPs are shallow party political advantage.

Cut the number of MPs to 'save money' he says - it has nothing to do with the fact that larger constituencies will win the Tories more seats, of course not. And where is the efficiency in deciding that adminstrative and geographical boundaries do not matter when deciding where to draw these arbitrary constituencies? This will be more costly, but of course it will result in more Tories being elected so it must be good. So much for the 'constituency link'. Under the Tories the electorate will be even more confused as to who they are voting for. Most are hearing the names of their MPs for the first time by hearing about their fraudulent and extravagant expenses claims.

Now he calls for the communication budget of £10,000 a year (less than 30p per constituent) to be cut - well he would wouldn't he? With Lord Ashcroft pumping millions into the marginals and the Tories owning the local press, they don't have to worry about not being heard by their constituents.

Add in the scrapping of impartiality rules for the broadcast media that Cameron will bring in and it all makes sense - even more Thatcherite broadcasters in the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch mode will suit the Tories very well.

In the midst of all this scandal, the good MPs, Celia Barlow in Hove and Martin Salter in Reading who claim not a penny in second homes are overlooked. Both of these MPs are in severe danger of losing their marginal seats, yet Tory Douglas Hogg and his moat are, ahem, 'safe as houses' in their safe seats. Why? Because disgusted as they are, people cannot bring themselves to vote against their party - especially Tories who will vote blue till the cows come home no matter what - even as the expenses ring loudly in the till for their piggish MPs.

It is a pity these expense details only go back 4 years - it would be very illuminating to hear what the Thatcherite Tory ministers were claiming in the 1980s and early 90s. Remember Thatcher brought in these allowances in the 80s, along with cuts to benefits and wages for the masses.

Just as Thatcherite and Majorite sex scandals put paid to MPs supposed moral authority over our private lives, New Labour's excesses have finished off any moral integrity these fraudulent Ministers and MPs should have over our financial affairs. How can these crooks lecture benefit fraudsters or tax avoiders and have any integrity when they are doing just the same themselves - except they can do it without fear of prosecution. We are in desperate times and as long as most MPs reside in safe seats and can gerrymander their boundaries they know they are safe. The people need to rise up and demand the removal of these MPs, the party pull is too deep to break and the disaffected non-voters can be safely ignored. We need PR and we need people selected by lottery in the house to keep these public school boys and girls in check.

What this expenses scandal has shown is that upper class and middle class people can be just as immoral as anyone else. I am not shocked, but it seems a lot of us are. The next step is to do something about it. Sadly people are being mis-directed to what the problem is, which is a lack of democracy in how we elect our MPs, not a mere change of expenses rules that is needed.

No longer can the right claim that excessive wages in the private sector do not matter (as they did when the Thatcherites deregulated and got us into this depression). Yes we need to reduce inequality in the public sector and increase efficiency, but we also need to open up the books of private companies - as the banking sector has shown, the public either as taxpayers, consumers or both, have to pick up the bill for these excessive wages, bonuses and expenses. The people need equal votes, only then will they have the power to stop the top people taking the piss with our money.

The Best We Can Hope For GB Is That He Becomes Our IDS.

Polly wanted Brown, now she wants Johnson. All I ever wanted was for the membership to have their say. This is where the parliamentary party have gone wrong - New Labour's biggest fault is it's suppression of democracy within the party (and some would say outside of the party as well). Supress internal democracy and it is no wonder you end up with people like Brown and Blears running the show.

I and many others warned that Brown would be an ineffective leader, poor communicator (and communication is essential is this media age) and worst of all, a Stalinist control freak. What I didn't realise was just how indecisive he was - wasting £1.2m on the election that never was exemplifies this.

Yes, the parliamentary party could quickly rally round likeable Alan Johnson, and the people couldn't dislike him more than they dislike Brown so he is bound to save us a few seats, but this would not address the problem - the party needs a proper leadership election and debate to show the country where it is headed, followed quickly by a general election - people would respect that and it would show that Labour's stalinist tendencies were behind it and you never know we might just catch the Tories on the back foot.

For socialism to work it needs democracy, the Soviet Union failed for this reason and so will New Labour, if it doesn't change (and wouldn't it be great if they finally honoured their promise on PR). Sadly I don't hold out much hope.

Proportional Expenses? Are Voters Getting The MPs They Deserve?

We are living in an illusion of democracy. Only part of the battle was won when the vote was extended to everyone over 18. We may have won a vote, but not an equal vote. Under our present system most votes count for little.

Alex Hilton at Labourhome points out that 500 out of 646 MPs in the house can sleep soundly knowing their job is fairly safe despite the expenses profligacy. With de-selections rare, as long as an MP goes through the motions and doesn't upset the party leadership they are safe virtually no matter what they do. Alex makes the argument that this is the perfect time for Labour to offer electoral reform and I agree.

Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling tackles another big fallacy - that MPs are paid too little. At 65k they are in top 3% of earners. If you pay your spouse 30k or more for research as some MPs do, and then add in expenses and they then live in a household in the top 1%. If they can't live on this, how do they expect the average earner to live on 23k?

Even in the landslide election of 1997 only about 150 MPs out of 659 were replaced - about 15%. Crucially it is the same 15% of constituencies - the marginals that change. Because of this most MPs have jobs for life if they want it because voters continue to vote for parties not the person.

Only more choice and more competition will deliver better MPs. That means proportional representation. Without it, the biggest section of the electorate, the non-voters which is bigger than any party support will continue to grow. PR will not solve everything, but giving people more choice will increase turnout.

And for the rest, whether apathetic or alienated, non-voters are currently being ignored and safe seats discourage their turnout. But these non-voters are not saying they want to be ignored, they just don't like the options put in front of them. Maybe this 40% should be represented by people drawn by lot, only then would non-voters be courted and their views properly considered by MPs fearing losing their jobs.

We all have something to hide.

I have thought long and hard about the mantra 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. This is sometimes used by proponents of ID/CCTV/DNA databases etc. It is not something i have ever felt the need to use.

Opponents of databases etc always sneer that the simplicity of this statement shows the simplicity of the proponent's argument and sometimes of the proponent. But this statement is not useless because it is wrong, it is because we ALL DO have something to fear.

It all stems from our deep seated fear of a 'snitch', 'grass', 'do gooder' etc. Even people who argue - both right and left - about the utmost importance of law and order are suspicious of people who 'shop' criminals, even if they recognise it is the correct thing to do.

Opponents prey on this anti-authority streak to advance their cause. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes they throw the baby out with the bathwater - think of Greens and nuclear power and unions who resist new technology and more efficiency. In the end they just hurt their own cause.

I am convinced that NO2ID and opponents of DNA databases ultimately will realise they have unwittingly damaged the cause of liberty and freedom. Deleting innocent people off the DNA database is a backward step when for fairness and accuracy we need to dna everybody. Only then will our justice system be able to become less punitive rather than an unfair hit and miss so called deterrent system.

*update* Jonathan Myerson writes in the Guardian on this very subject.

Antisocial?

New Blog For Angry Cyclists.

Gordon Brown On The Guillotine

"...the people have a wonderful dream - Gordon Brown on the guillotine. When will you die? When will you die?"

Thanks to Morrissey for that song about our beloved Margaret.

Just to clarify, I don't want Gordon to die literally, just metaphorically, whereas I did literally want Margaret Thatcher to die.

Of course if Gordon did die suddenly, of say a heart attack, it would certainly help Labour and the country out of a severe predicament, but I still couldn't wish for it however much I would love to see front bench Tories and Tory bloggers squirm as they try to say how much they loved and respected the man despite calling him variously at times an 'autistic with a kiddie fiddler smile'.

The only thing worse than Gordon Brown as leader is some right-wing Tories back in power, which seems to be where we are headed at the moment.

I don't just blame Gordon Brown for our plight - it is Labour MPs who have got us here by refusing to give members a say in the first place - because of that, Gordon has never had any real legitimacy as PM. Oh, how I wish MPs would finally see sense, maybe this party conference we could install a new leader and then call an immediate general election. Voters are always willing to give new leaders a chance - remember Gordon reached 40% in the polls in Autumn 2007 and almost certainly could have won a general election.

Now, I am not saying we could win at the moment under say, an Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman or David Miliband (or better still Jon Cruddas or John Denham), but could ANYONE be a worse Labour leader and PM than Gordon Brown at the moment? He has lost all credibility, he is hated and we are heading for a massacre.

As MPs only seem to care about their expenses when standing up to Gordon Brown, maybe enough of them will have sense to see that they might just save their seats if they get rid of him. We live in hope - Gordon on the guillotine.