|
|
« January 2008 |
Main
| March 2008 »
Field’s Manifesto for Democratizing Government
'Freedland's determination [to] have separate elections for the legislature and executive might also appeal to some admirers of the US democracy but, given the already impressive focus of Labour on constitutional reform since 1997, such a geological shift is not even a remote possibility.'
Posted by skipper on February 27 at 11:34am
The Cleveland debate
'Clinton and Obama both did well. I wouldn't say there was a clear winner, or that anything in the debate was likely to change anybody's mind--despite good probing questions from Russert and Williams. Hillary came across as the more forceful and dominating of the two, as usual, and Obama the more flexible and reflective. They engaged with no issues of substance that have not already been flogged to death, as far as I could see.'
Posted by Clive Crook at The Atlantic on February 26 at 11:20pm
The Government Gamble On Super Casinos
I've said it before on Super Casinos, but I'll say it again, well done Gordon Brown on scrapping this proposal.
My partner currently lives and studies in Manchester, so I see a lot of the city. I know many locally are disappointed with the decision but I agree totally with the comments of Salford MP Hazel Blears today when she points out that what is actually needed is regeneration in the area - and that does not necessarily have to be tied to the building of a massive gambling centre.
Posted by Kerron Cross on February 26 at 4:26pm
Tories label Holocaust education as a "gimmick"
David Cameron's attempt to score cheap political points by denegrating the important of educating young people about the Holocaust is showing no sign of wearing off - not least because he is refusing to apologise.
Posted by Ridiculous Politics on February 25
I don't know about you but I have always felt it wrong that hospitals charge visitors and patients to park their cars in their car parks. The BMA has today called for such schemes to be scrapped (at Welsh hospitals) claiming they are "a tax on the sick". Welsh Assembly Government figures show NHS trusts took £5.4m from car parking charges last year alone. The latest UK wide figure is that £95 million was raised by such schemes nation wide.
Government guidelines on car parking charges "strongly recommended" that NHS bodies introduce some kind of "season ticket" arrangement and allow free or reduced-price parking for patients with a long-term illness or those with serious conditions who require daily or regular treatment, and their prime visitors. The government has also suggested a weekly cap on parking charges at hospitals.
One option that needs urgently to be looked at is the provision of free hospital parking and help with travel costs for all cancer patients. The other option is to scrap the charges completely!
Last week The Rt. Hon Ed Miliband M.P. Minister of the Cabinet Office, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told 650 people I smoked. My humiliation knows no bounds. Ed also said, he respected and trusted our sector he wanted government and the Third Sector to be partners in change and encouraged us to “bite the hand that feeds us”. Frankly all things considered I don’t care about that, the man told 650 of I hope my peers that I smoked.
Despite my ritual humiliation, the NCVO conference on Civil Society last week should be a major wake-up call for the Third Sector. The Conference gave me great hope for the future and a sense that if the Third Sector play our cards right, at last our sector will join the top table.
Ed Miliband’s keynote and Oliver Letwin’s closing speech at the NCVO conference left me in no doubt that the Labour and Conservative Parties view our sectors potential relationship with them quite differently.
As a Minister, Ed is a thoughtful, compelling and honest advocate for the Third Sector. The chap gets us. Mr Miliband spoke of The Government and the Third Sector being partners and not rivals, that our relationship should be founded on mutual respect and the challenges we will be facing concerning social justice. It seems to me that Ed is justifiably challenged by many of the most pressing social issues of this country and in intellectual and policy terms, is genuinely seeking to re-define the relationship Government has with our sector. Ed in my opinion is a big time supporter of devolved, grass roots interventions, putting it crudely a power to the people sort of guy. A Government of facilitators and of funders, working to encourage social change. But most importantly a Government charged with creating the political and policy catalysts that will tackle so many of our quintessentially 21st Century problems. Social Change by citizens for citizens sort of thing.
Being frank, Oliver Letwin also seems to mean business. The Conservatives are searching for a new philosophical framework to build what they consider a new social consensus. Three times over the last month I have heard senior Tories talk about Edmond Burke. David Cameron told a room full of journalists two weeks ago that he “travels back to Burke” when searching for the politics of social change. Some may consider this the same old same old from the Tories, Burke being the Father of Modern Conservatism and all that. The Conservatives however are thinking big, their social consensus agenda will go big on personal liberty and will I should imagine focus on the tyranny of the “brutal mob” (those that are perceived to be perpetrating anti-social behaviour) and how the a Tory government and its authority / authorities can turn back the tide.
These are two very different views of the world; one of these views will dominate the next 10 years of the Third Sectors existence. We do have a trump card though as I hope very senior politicians such as Ed Miliband and Letwin understand that without the Third Sector the social fabric of this nation would disintegrate. It would leave The Government, any Government bewildered and pretty much impotent. Knowing this to be true, what power our sector could wield if only we acted in unison.
Ed as you are writing the Labour manifestos for the next election and you turned up and so eloquently set out your stall, please expect a rush of expectation from the Sector and rightly so, for decades, indeed centuries, this sector has done what I heard one delegate call “our nation’s dirty work”. Toiled to carve out a good society, a civilised society, we are the backbone of this nation’s civil society.
To the Third Sector, we must set out our stall and that stall must be a united stall. On that note I am off for a cigarette!
Courtesy of my colleague Malcolm Clark:
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog/.
Quick, somebody send Harriet Harman a copy of her Government's review of electoral systems. For she appears either not to have read it; or to have misunderstood what she's read; or at worst to be wilfully misrepresenting what the report concluded. And given the review was done from an academic, non-judgemental viewpoint, that's a serious matter.
In answer to a well put reader's question (by Ruth Coleman) in today's Independent on "you have spoken in the past about boosting democracy. So how can you be against proportional representation?"
Harriet responded:
"We have introduced proportional representation in European elections, Scottish council elections and London Assembly elections. We'll shortly be publishing a review of how the new systems worked. But the evidence suggested is that it doesn't boost turnout and people find it complicated."
In contrast, the review itself concluded:
We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.” (para 6.170)
Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems. (para 7.97)
As an addendum to that final point, it should be noted that since none of the elections included in the review were conducted under First-Past-the-Post before they changed to a form of PR, no easy comparisons of turnout can be made. However, the Scottish Local Elections in 2007 under STV did see a reasonable increase in the total number of votes cast compared with under FPTP; partly as a result of many more seats being competitive and some in rural areas being contested for virtually the first time.
Northern Rock: History will vindicate Darling
The Tories have been crying wolf about this and everything else. The world can now see that. The counter proposal to have let the thing go bump immediately was (a) not what they said at the time and (b) not in the tax payers, depositors, borrowers or workers interests. How would that have benefitted shareholders.
Posted by Chris Paul, February 19 at 3:46pm
The politics of Northern Rock
Clearly it’s taken a long time getting to this point, during which many people (including the Lib Dems) have been calling for more speed. The Government has spent months casting around for a suitable private buyer – and failing to find one. You might well call this dithering, but given that, you can’t also say that they’re eager to take Britain “back to the 1970s”.
Posted by Tom Freeman on Freemania, February 18 at 3:40pm
Bye, bye Castro
Is it too much to hope that the people of Cuba might be given a vote in a free election to decide who now leads their country? Maybe the Communists would win, but personally I hope Cubans would choose a third way which kept Cuba's commitment to free healthcare and education whilst bringing in freedom of speech, political pluralism and an end to the command economy.
Posted by Luke Akehurst, February 19 at 12:06pm
Further nail in coffin of Respect
Anyone following this blog, my Tribune columns and other web outpourings will know I’m parti-pris when it comes to Respect (can’t stand them) so I was amused to see that another of their councillors in their Tower Hamlets powerbase has defected. This one has not “come home to Labour” but done a political somersault to join the Tories, after it seems having a few wobblies on the way.
Posted by Rupa Huq, February 17
Daily Mail’s true colours
The Daily Mail has a reputation for insidious racism and xenophobic propaganda, however, this leaked email from features writer Diana Appleyard illustrates the extent of the Mail's cynicism.
Posted by Alex Hilton at Labour Home, February 16 at 9:57am
If you thought Ken and Boris were a bit weird, some of the other, more minor candidates are worth investigating. If only as a study in the pathology of what it takes to be a mayoral candidate. As Tony Travers argued when discussing the possibility of a Boris mayorality, in a piece for the New Statesman entitled 'The joke': 'There is
always a possibility that the capital's voters will favour political
independence, eccentricity and "having a bit of a laugh" over
seriousness.'
But, even then, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Some of the candidates make Boris look like William Gladstone. Take Winston McKenzie, an independent candidate who Johnson beat to the Tory nomination. The former boxer-turned-hairdresser from Croydon has also been a member of Labour, UKIP and Robert Kilroy-Silk's Veritas. You'll see from YouTube that he has a taste for Al Capone-style headgear and rapping (watch to end for his Ken impersonation ... ).
The One London candidate, Damian Hockney, was Kilroy's most loyal footsoldier in his UKIP and Veritas days. If that's not damning enough, Hockney is a former Tory with an apparent obsession with plastic surgery and unsuccessfully tried to become the British entrant in the Eurovision song contest.
Far be it from me to deride 'colourful' candidates in the era of the grey, technocratic automaton-politician. But it's difficult to get over the sheer lack of self-awareness of these people. You might say it was 'ever thus' - at least Lord Sutch was joking.
Why are there no regional parliamentary select committees? We now have regional Ministers but to whom are they accountable? How is their work scrutinised? I think the creation of regional select committees would go along way in helping to promote regional politics and in holding regional bodies (PCTs, Regional development agencies, LSCs etc) and regional Government offices to account.
So I ask again - why are there no regional parliamentary select committees?
Last week a question was raised about whether it was ever right for lawyers to be bugged. Well, the answer must be yes if the online views of a Lincoln's Inn barrister are to be taken literally. Blogging under the name of Geek Lawyer, this distinguished judicial person ended a typical anti-Blair rant with the words:
“Why oh why oh why oh why can’t the useless rag-head pillocks in Al Queda assassinate him? It would be great PR for them: many of us would revise our low opinion of them if they could do us this one small service. Their ineptness is proof that the terrorism ‘threat’ is laughable.”
As can be imagined, this incendiary remark by a person of the law has caused quite a furore on the internet, especially amongst those who don't buy in to the idea that Tony Blair is the Devil incarnate who deserves all the abuse that can be heaped upon him (click here)
Of course, when Mr Big Mouth was confronted with the possibility of being prosecuted under the anti-terrorism laws or of being referred to the Bar Council his acolytes leaped to his defence on the basis that his words were just meant to be "humorous" or "satirical".
However, as I pointed out to them in a website debate, calling for the assassination of a public figure in these dangerous times is well beyond a joke or even just bad taste. Free speech never encompassed the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre for fun. Nor should it encompass the right to publically goad AL Qaeda into murdering an ex-Prime Minister even, if it is done in jest.
The Geek Lawyer Blog site that started all this has now mysteriously closed down although the owner is continuing his blatherings in other quarters. In a post to a pro-Blair site he wrote "I do of course very much wish that someone, somewhere, someday kills Blair. I am however not inciting it or encouraging it, nor would I assist or cooperate in it".
No doubt there will be those who will argue that what is being said by this loopy lawyer is no big deal. Comments of this sort are appearing all the time on the internet and a free society should be strong enough to accommodate them. I beg to differ. Quite apart from the incitement to terrorism aspects even jocular demands for the death of public figures coarsens the nature of political debate and corrodes those civilised values that hold our society together.
This is something that should be stopped, now.
A triple whammy of losses - in Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC - last night leaves Hillary Clinton's bid for the Democrat nomination looking a little shaky. As the Guardian's Michael Tomasky suggests, pundits on US TV have even begun to speculate that the former First Lady has the air of one-time Republican frontrunner Rudy Guiliani about her.
It's true that losing major states like Virginia and Maryland - the latter reliably Democrat; the former a state in which the blue tide has been rising in recent years - cannot be easily dismissed. Barack Obama's victories here cannot be written-off in the manner in which his wins in states like Alaska, Utah and Idaho - hardly key parts of the Democratic coalition or vital swing states - were. Moreover, exit polls suggest that the Illinois senator has begun to make in-roads into some of the key groups - Hispanics, white women and low-income voters - which have rallied to Clinton so far.
But just as predictions of inevitability have proved misplaced so far, it's worth pausing before accepting the conventional wisdom that Obama has the nomination all wrapped up. As Slate's John Dickerson notes, officially becoming the frontrunner is not without its downsides. Plus we should not under-estimate the strength of the 'cynics for Clinton' bloc: Obama can stir a crowd of 20,000, but it's the Clinton team that can
make the insider case. For example, when Clinton talks about being able
to fight the Republican attack machine, party insiders who have seen
the combat up close may be apt to buy the argument that despite Obama's
inspiring language, only the Clintons understand what's necessary to
combat the GOP.
Perhaps more crucially, Jay Cost's detailed analysis for RealClearPolitics suggests that Clinton's hopes of revitalising her bid when the race moves to Texas and Ohio next month and Pennsylvania at the end of April are not entirely misplaced. His analysis of the primary and caucus voting so far suggests that Obama's current run of victories are not necessarily based on him attracting new supporters. Instead, the demographic make-up of the states which have voted since last week's Super Tuesday - when, it shouldn't be forgotten, Clinton narrowly beat the Illinois senator in the overall popular vote - simply happen to be those in which Obama has, since the start of the race last month, already shown widespread appeal. In short, yesterday's 'Potomac Primaries' point to Obama's enduring resilience in this race - which may well carry him to the nomination and beyond. But they don't yet tell us that all's over for Hillary Clinton. For a real sense of whether she can still win, we've got several weeks still to wait.
If you believe the opinion polls, Ken Livingstone's chances of a third term as Mayor of London face the greatest threat to date in the shape of Boris Johnson. Under the rules of the Supplementary Vote system used for these elections (an oddly curtailed version of the Alternative Vote, although still fairer than a straight First-Past-the-Post contest), if the candidate with the most votes has less than 50% then all but the two leading contenders are knocked out and the ballot moves into a second and final round.
Here, voters for eliminated candidates who nominated a second preference for one or other remaining candidate get their votes transferred across to their respective totals. This means that - as the polls stand - people who choose to vote for the LIb Dem, the Green, Respect (SWP or Gallowayite), UKIP etc., will need to use their second cross for either Ken or Boris if they want a say in who gets to take up office in City Hall. Seems fairly clear?
Well now is perhaps time to reach for the anorak! The 2 round limit could distort the outcome somewhat, and even be decisive in the final outcome. Take a Green voter who also wants to register a protest, say about ID cards, and opts to give the second vote to the Lib Dems. It is entirely feasible that this voter might have ultimately preffered Ken over Boris, but the artificial "supplementary" vote which is not fully transferable could deprive them of making this count. So votes interchanging between lesser parties could, potentially, hand the job to Boris. Aaargh!
Rowan’s defence
‘With no irony, those who have knowingly said that "Rowan's problem is that he is not media-savvy enough", "Rowan must talk in sound-bites" or "Rowan must have known how this would be received" are the very same who then distort, rip out of context, clear the front pages for and set alight the Archbishop's words.’
Posted by James Macintyre at Open House on February 11 at 8:24pm
On race cards and all that
'It really makes me sad to see so many people get played by the media
on this. If you prefer Obama, fine — but the evil, race-card-playing
Clinton campaign is no more real than Al Gore’s claim that he invented
the Internet. And to Obama supporters, just remember: these people are
not your friends. After they take down Hillary Clinton, if they can,
your man will be next.'
Posted by Paul Crugman at The Conscience of a Liberal on February 11 at 2:53pm
Andy Burnham hits the co-op ground running
‘Although he's been Culture and Sports Secretary for just a few weeks, Andy Burnham seems to have inspired a sea change in thinking on public participation in the arts and sports. Having been a founding figure in Supporters Direct which has created over 100 co-ops of football fans, he thinks "a fan should sit on the board of every football club while actors, artists and musicians should be drafted in to help run Britain's arts institutions."’
Posted by Mat Croydon at Politics for People on February 11 at 9:32am
No rolling stones in Ancram’s gardens
‘While most MPs spend their allowances on mortgages or rent, Mr Ancram admits not a penny of the £89,927 he has claimed since 2001 has gone on mortgage payments. The money was spent on running his country home, including repainting its walls and removing moss from the extensive garden…’
Posted by ridiculous politics on February 11
George Osborne, private schools and progressive politics
‘The really disappointing aspect of George Osborne’s decision not to send his children to his local state primary school (which in an interview for the Independent he said that he did) is the undeserved damage such a decision can make to the reputation of the state system.’
Posted by Mike Ion on February 8
The day after Super Tuesday, a panel of sleep-deprived but distinguished speakers gathered in Parliament to discuss the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House in what all agreed is the most captivating US election contest for decades.
Rachelle Valladeres, the former international chair of Democrats Abroad, opened by citing the New York Times' headline of that morning - 'Clinton/Obama trade victories' - demonstrating just how close the race is for the Democrat nomination. Valladeres, who has not yet disclosed publicly which candidate she is backing, argued that it is good for the party to have a contested election for its nomination since it engages party members who feel their votes are making a difference.
Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala summed up the general mood of pundits by stating that 'nobody knows anything' about the outcome of the Democratic contest. With strong positions on key issues such as the economy and healthcare, the Democrats could by all means win power again, said Katwala, but history shows that the party has a habit of losing elections it should win.
Katwala added that the likely prospect of McCain snapping up the Republican nomination was bad news for Democrats since he was clearly the most electable of candidates on the right. Nevertheless, he added that there were still massive dividing lines between the two parties, notably on national security, healthcare and the role of government.
Time Magazine's London bureau chief, Catherine Mayer, told the audience she had been up all night covering the Super Tuesday votes. 'What's keeping me awake is the excitement around the election,' she said, locating the cause of such excitement in the strength of candidates on offer. Interest in the race had gone way beyond the Westminster bubble, she claimed, citing a visit to an east London comprehensive school at which a teenager had told her he was supporting Obama.
However, Mayer warned of the risk of a potentially destructive rancour developing between the Clinton and Obama camps, saying that they should redirect their ferocity away from each other and towards the real opposition - the Republicans.
Mayer agreed that McCain is the Republican candidate who would prove most palatable on a national level and therefore the most difficult to beat. While there is clear water between McCain and the Democrats, said Mayer, the water is not as clear as it might be, noting the 71-year-old's more liberal stance on issues such as climate change and torture. She added the depressing but realistic possibility that being a white male might also work to McCain's advantage electorally, appealing to a section of middle America that might not be ready to put a woman or an African American in the White House.
Dr Niall Palmer, a leading expert on American politics at Brunel University, agreed with the other speakers that this was the most interesting race in years, although dissented from the view that McCain's nomination was a foregone conclusion, pointing out the level of ill-feeling directed towards him in parts of the Republican camp.
Palmer offered an analysis of what the race said about the political psychologies of the respective parties. 'The Republicans may be embarking on a period of inner soul-searching and coming to terms with the fact it is not a united party,' he said. 'Splits could open up and become very serious.'
On the Democrat side, Palmer emphasised that, despite the Obama/Clinton rivalry, the party is displaying a unity of purpose he hadn't seen for some time, as well as greater freedom to speak in progressive terms. 'There is a willingness to say things that 15 or 20 years ago candidates wouldn't dare to for fear of being branded too liberal,' he noted.
Denis McShane expressed skepticism about Obama, saying he did not know what the Illinois senator stood for. He echoed Mayer's point about the impact that the prejudices of some segments of America could have on his electability. 'Hilary does well with the white working class. Is your average mid-westerner in a pick up truck ready to vote black?'
McShane was particularly unimpressed by the Democrat candidates' foreign policy positions, citing their 'vacuous policy statements' in this area. On a more optimistic note, the former foreign office minister emphasized that a new incumbent in the White House would present 'a fantastic opportunity' for Europe to forge a new partnership with the US.
A member of the audience asked how likely it is that the loser of Democratic race will become vice-presidential candidate. Valladeres reminded the audience that who becomes the vice-presidential candidate is strictly the choice of the presidential candidate but said she would be surprised if Obama or Clinton chose each other. Mayer said she was not convinced that Obama and Clinton running together would be a dream ticket, saying that there would be a strategic benefit in picking a running mate who would appeal to the aforementioned pickup driver demographic.
Asked to predict the outcome of both the nomination contests and the final election, the panel were divided. McShane and Palmer both predicted a McCain vs Clinton contest with the Democratic candidate winning while Mayer thought it would be the same race but with McCain emerging victorious. Valladeres predicted a democrat would win the White House, but wouldn't say which, while Katwala did not want to write off Obama just yet.
While the panel were optimistic that a Democrat could win back the White House, it would be fair to say the majority were lukewarm towards Obama. Palmer perhaps summed up this mood, comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter whose 1976 campaign focused on himself as the embodiment of hope but did not deliver once elected. 'There is a danger that people buy the Obama rhetoric and then find out what's there,' he said. 'With Hilary, we know what's there, she's more of a known quantity. I'd be unwilling to entrust the immediate post-Bush epoch to a hope.'
The Howard League for Penal Reform has published the latest edition of its quarterly newspaper, The Howard. Visit the Howard League's website to download a copy and read the latest news in criminal justice and penal reform.
Join Progress this coming Wednesday to debate 'Can the Democrats win back the White House?'
But we still don't know whether Super-Duper Tuesday - despite its immense significance - will be decisive for either the Democrats or Republicans. And, beyond this, debate continues to rage about which candidate from either side is likely to win a head-to-head against the other party.
One pointer is candidates' popularity among independent voters. Obama and McCain are widely seen as having the edge in this department, having polled particularly well among non-aligned voters (where the latter were allowed to vote) in party primaries and caucuses. And head-to-head polling shows McCain beating Clinton, but more or less tied with Obama.
However, it's the party electorates which will have their say tomorrow. On the Democrat side, the race remains so close that most conceivable results - barring large Clinton wins in states such as California - will leave the race still essentially level. Recent polls show Obama catching up fast both nationally and in the Sunshine State. Although around three-quarters of the Democratic delegates are being chosen, this is often through complex forms of PR - mitigating against an 'outright winner' tomorrow night.
It's more likely the Republican race will be over by Wednesday morning, with Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney splitting the extreme right-wing, anti-McCain vote to such an extent that it clearly crowns the Arizona senator the winner. And more states are 'winner takes all' than for the Dems. As likely, though, is that Romney's deep pockets will combine with Republican resentment of McCain to sustain the race on this side, too.
Whatever happens, there'll be plenty to chew over in Committee Room 16 on Wednesday. Should be fascinating!
Agreeing with Jackie Ashley
We do need new ideas - probably lots of small ones - to respond to the way society is changing. But I don't think we lack a "big idea". The core vision of what a Labour Government should be about is adequately described in one sentence on the recruitment page of the Party website.
Posted by Luke Akehurst, February 4 at 11:59am
Opinion polls: Cameron vs Kinnock
The Tories’ poll leads have been dropping recently (one poll last week even put Labour ahead), and of course there’s much media comment on whether and why David Cameron’s efforts are stalling. I’ve also seen several pundits remark that Labour’s poll leads while in opposition were much more impressive.
Posted by Tom Freeman on Freemania, February 4 at 9:36am
Dig up, man, dig up!
However, the vast majority of people I have come into contact with through being involved in politics don't give a damn about the money, and many have slaved away for hours on end in local government, way before anyone decided 'allowances' should be paid.
Posted by Bob Piper, February 3 at 12:00am
Bedside manner needs work
Ah, the British Medical Association. Is it a union? A club? A whinge-chamber? And how does it continue to exist, given that its single historic achievement was a failed attempt to prevent the creation of the National Health Service, which we're continually told is Cherished By All Of Us?
Posted by Lloyd Shepherd on Westmonster, February 4 at 8:48am
Apparently the Conservatives are considering proposals to stop children of MPs from being paid public funds to work for them, but this really misses the point. The issue shouldn't be about who MPs choose to do their legwork (or not do the work as in this case...) but about whether the employment of staff with public funds is transparent and legal. If Derek Conway had been forced to declare how much he paid his family staff members and who they were, it wouldn't have taken a Sunday newspaper to dish the dirt - the fact would already have been in the public domain.
It would be more in the public interest if the salaries of staff working for MPs and peers were annually listed in bands of pay and that all familial relations were declared too. When the list of special advisers is declared their pay is divided into bands so that the ballpark figure is known, but not the exact total. This seems like a sensible way forward. Why penalise sons and daughters who could make perfectly competent researchers or caseworkers because of one dodgy MP who tried to bend the rules under the convenient cloak of 'honourability'? It's time that we got rid of this antiquated way of thinking about MPs, and forced them to instead to be open about who they employ and how much of our money is going into MPs' staff costs. Typical of the Tories to arrive at the wrong answer when faced with sleaze allegations.
|
|
