After watching this little waspish encounter with Tom Bradby, that would be my advice.
Showing posts with label House of Commons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Commons. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Black-balled Bercow
Oh joy! What a pleasure to see Cameron, applauding Bercow, and looking as if he (Cameron) had swallowed a wasp. All those Tories with their arms folded. And Alan Duncan on BBC Breakfast managed only to bring himself to say that Bercow is "capable" and that the position of Speaker should be "respected".
But Bercow is, at least, a moderate break with the Gentlemen's Club tradition.
Sir George Young, patrician Eton-educated baronet - now he would have been the "Club" choice. What sort of message would that have given the country?
But Bercow? He's the son of a taxi driver! Dear, dear. Bought his own furniture. From MFI. Definitely a chap who would be serially black-balled.
It's just not on.
But Bercow is, at least, a moderate break with the Gentlemen's Club tradition.
Sir George Young, patrician Eton-educated baronet - now he would have been the "Club" choice. What sort of message would that have given the country?
But Bercow? He's the son of a taxi driver! Dear, dear. Bought his own furniture. From MFI. Definitely a chap who would be serially black-balled.
It's just not on.
Monday, June 22, 2009
MPs use STV with extra flock instinct and faff
Despite opposing such a system for their own election, I note that MPs are using, essentially, Single Transferable Vote for the election of their new Speaker. OK. It's not STV. But it's sort of STV with flock instinct and extra faffing about thrown in.
Goodness knows why they don't just go the whole hog and use STV. But no, they have to have rounds and physical eliminations and print new ballot papers and spend hours doing it with the electorate walking in and out several times. What numpties! The only reason I can see to do the vote in rounds rather than just doing STV in the first place, is that it allows a "flock instinct" to enter the contest. MPs can see who others voted for as first preference before deciding their second preference or changing their first preference. One might call it "Grandiose STV".
With advance apologies to STV-nuts who will no doubt soak me in adverse comments.
Goodness knows why they don't just go the whole hog and use STV. But no, they have to have rounds and physical eliminations and print new ballot papers and spend hours doing it with the electorate walking in and out several times. What numpties! The only reason I can see to do the vote in rounds rather than just doing STV in the first place, is that it allows a "flock instinct" to enter the contest. MPs can see who others voted for as first preference before deciding their second preference or changing their first preference. One might call it "Grandiose STV".
With advance apologies to STV-nuts who will no doubt soak me in adverse comments.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The camp-bed MP
When I was trawling through the Telegraph's summaries of MPs' expensegates, my eye was caught by Laura Moffat, MP for Crawley, who now sleeps on a camp-bed in her office when she can't get home at a reasonable hour. There all sorts of critical comments under the story - proving that at the moment, as an MP, you can't do anything right. But I think this lady deserves some praise. The spirit of David Penhaligon (sleeping arrangements section only) lives on?
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Journalists not declaring their interests
Pot/Kettle department. The Feral Beast column in the Independent on Sunday has run a couple of pieces highlighting Westminster lobby journalists who have failed to fully declare their interests, as they are required to do. Apparently, passes may be withdrawn....
Last week:
Much talk of MPs failing to declare their interests – but do parliamentary journalists?
In the latest Register of Journalists' Interests, Fraser Nelson declares himself as a commentator for The Spectator, forgetting his lucrative News of the World column; Andrew Neil, calls himself publisher of The Business, even though it no longer exists, and omits to mention his many other jobs; Andrew Gimson doesn't say he is Boris Johnson's biographer; Robin Oakley and Melissa Kite fail to declare their columns for The Spectator;...All are breaking parliamentary rules. Can't they get their house in order?
And this week:
After my revelation that several lobby journalists have failed to declare extra incomes on the register of parliamentary interests, the Commons registrar tells me the offence could lead to the withdrawal of their passes. None of those named and shamed last week, including Andrew Neil, Robin Oakley, Melissa Kite and Andrew Gimson, has yet corrected their entries, nor has any yet been punished.
Last week:
Much talk of MPs failing to declare their interests – but do parliamentary journalists?
In the latest Register of Journalists' Interests, Fraser Nelson declares himself as a commentator for The Spectator, forgetting his lucrative News of the World column; Andrew Neil, calls himself publisher of The Business, even though it no longer exists, and omits to mention his many other jobs; Andrew Gimson doesn't say he is Boris Johnson's biographer; Robin Oakley and Melissa Kite fail to declare their columns for The Spectator;...All are breaking parliamentary rules. Can't they get their house in order?
And this week:
After my revelation that several lobby journalists have failed to declare extra incomes on the register of parliamentary interests, the Commons registrar tells me the offence could lead to the withdrawal of their passes. None of those named and shamed last week, including Andrew Neil, Robin Oakley, Melissa Kite and Andrew Gimson, has yet corrected their entries, nor has any yet been punished.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Half of all MPs will be swept away at next election - Times
There's an interesting piece in the Times tomorrow. As the suggestion of a regular commenter, I ran a poll a week or so ago asking how many MPs would be left in the House of Commons after the next election. The top choice was 300-400 with 31%, followed by 200-300 with 22%.
The Times says that 325 MPs will be "swept away" at the next election either by standing down prior to it, deselection or simply ejection by the voters.
As many as 30 will be forced to resign directly because of the expenses scandal, while whips expect more than 200 to quit because they are unable to cope with continued public anger. Up to 90 MPs will be voted out in the election.
Research conducted by The Sunday Times and Professor Colin Rallings, director of the elections centre at Plymouth University, suggests that about 170 Labour MPs will not defend their seats while 55 Conservatives are also expected to retire.
Dozens more MPs from all parties are likely to lose their seats as voters kick out incumbents, accused of profiting from their allowances.
Rallings said: “If, as the current polls suggest, the Conservatives were to win the general election with an overall majority of 80 seats, it is likely that fully half of MPs in the new House of Commons will be new, a product both of incumbents being defeated and MPs retiring. It would be without parallel since 1945.”
...The Liberal Democrats expect about five departures...
The Times says that 325 MPs will be "swept away" at the next election either by standing down prior to it, deselection or simply ejection by the voters.
As many as 30 will be forced to resign directly because of the expenses scandal, while whips expect more than 200 to quit because they are unable to cope with continued public anger. Up to 90 MPs will be voted out in the election.
Research conducted by The Sunday Times and Professor Colin Rallings, director of the elections centre at Plymouth University, suggests that about 170 Labour MPs will not defend their seats while 55 Conservatives are also expected to retire.
Dozens more MPs from all parties are likely to lose their seats as voters kick out incumbents, accused of profiting from their allowances.
Rallings said: “If, as the current polls suggest, the Conservatives were to win the general election with an overall majority of 80 seats, it is likely that fully half of MPs in the new House of Commons will be new, a product both of incumbents being defeated and MPs retiring. It would be without parallel since 1945.”
...The Liberal Democrats expect about five departures...
Malcolm Bruce in the Telegraph.....and?
Malcolm Bruce's expenses/allowances are covered by the Telegraph tomorrow. I've read through the piece. His wife, who works for him, uses part of their home as an office and that is claimed for. He's done nothing wrong. I'm not sure where the Telegraph are going with a lot of this stuff.
A side note to the Telegraph "Keeping it in the family" special: One of the provisions passed through the Commons a couple of weeks ago was for MPs' employees to be employed by the Commons authorities instead of the MPs themselves. This should have come in ages ago, but ho-hum.
A side note to the Telegraph "Keeping it in the family" special: One of the provisions passed through the Commons a couple of weeks ago was for MPs' employees to be employed by the Commons authorities instead of the MPs themselves. This should have come in ages ago, but ho-hum.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Hurrah! - Backing for publicly owned MPs' accommodation
After posting twice about this, I'm very relieved to, at last, find some backing for publicly owned MPs' accommodation. A clear majority of the PoliticsHome panel have backed the proposal:
The solution to MPs' need for two homes if their constituency is outside London lies in adopting a model similar to the Swedish system, where a publicly owned and maintained house or flat is provided if necessary.
That's the view of of the PHI100, the UK's leading survey of political expert and inside opinion. A sixty eight per cent majority of the panel - which includes MPs and peers, senior journalists, party strategists and policy experts - call for a Swedish style system. That opinion is shared by the majority of both right- (eighty one percent) and left-leaning panellists (sixty seven percent). Most Liberal Democrat panellists (forty three percent) also take this stance.
Clear majorities of media panellists, strategists, and thought leaders back the Swedish system - but parliamentarians are split down the middle.
One objection I'd like to knock on the head is this: One LibDem MP is quoted as saying that there's no suitable building (except 'Wormwood Scrubs'). Der. It doesn't have to be one building! It can be a mix of accommodation spread over a relatively large area.
The solution to MPs' need for two homes if their constituency is outside London lies in adopting a model similar to the Swedish system, where a publicly owned and maintained house or flat is provided if necessary.
That's the view of of the PHI100, the UK's leading survey of political expert and inside opinion. A sixty eight per cent majority of the panel - which includes MPs and peers, senior journalists, party strategists and policy experts - call for a Swedish style system. That opinion is shared by the majority of both right- (eighty one percent) and left-leaning panellists (sixty seven percent). Most Liberal Democrat panellists (forty three percent) also take this stance.
Clear majorities of media panellists, strategists, and thought leaders back the Swedish system - but parliamentarians are split down the middle.
One objection I'd like to knock on the head is this: One LibDem MP is quoted as saying that there's no suitable building (except 'Wormwood Scrubs'). Der. It doesn't have to be one building! It can be a mix of accommodation spread over a relatively large area.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Go Sir Alan Beith!
Cometh the hour, cometh the man! Over at LibDem Voice, I have voted for Sir Alan Beith to be the next Speaker. He has the right no-nonsense eloquence and a thoroughly reforming mind. He also used to chair the Commons Administration commitee so has experience of cross-party co-operation in the House.
A fortnight ago I would have voted for Sir Menzies Campbell. However, he has tainted himself, albeit very mildly. I don't think it is right to have someone as Speaker, who, in the eyes of the country, has a inflated sense of MPs' rights to reimbursement.
Otherwise Frank Field or Dr Roger Taylor would be good candidates in my view.
A fortnight ago I would have voted for Sir Menzies Campbell. However, he has tainted himself, albeit very mildly. I don't think it is right to have someone as Speaker, who, in the eyes of the country, has a inflated sense of MPs' rights to reimbursement.
Otherwise Frank Field or Dr Roger Taylor would be good candidates in my view.
Speaker to stand down - let joy be unconfined!!!!!
STV say that the Speaker will stand down. Sky also say that "sources" tell them this will happen!
Commons Speaker Michael Martin will resign over the MPs' expenses scandal this afternoon, according to Sky sources.
He is expected to make an announcement at 2:30pm.
Mr Martin is due to meet party leaders to discuss reform of MPs' expenses at 4pm.
Sky's political correspondent Joey Jones said: "I think the likelihood is that friends of Michael Martin will have told him to think about the situation and to consider the events of yesterday, when he had no control of the House of Commons.
"He will have reflected on that overnight.
"I am sure that he will have taken counsel from his fellow MPs, perhaps particularly among the Scottish MPs, and decided that this was the time to go."
Hallejujah! Let the church bells ring out! Let there be dancing in the street!
But, of course, he is not a scapegoat (of course) and will only be replaced by Buggins, so remember the old Chinese proverb - 'Be Careful what you wish for - you might get it'.
But, for now, in the words of Mrs Thatcher: "Rejoice! Rejoice!"
Monday, May 18, 2009
Speaker apologises - then nosedives
Michael Martin has apologised for his role in reducing the reputation of the House of Commons.
Er, that's it.
He's setting up a meeting. All very bureaucratic. That's just what will calm the public: Meetings and talk from him of "substantive motions".
And several MPs expressed their unhappiness with him.
One shaft of light: The Early Day motion declaring no confidence in Michael Martin obviously does nothing procedurally - it is so much confetti. A substantive motion is needed, as Martin said. It seems that the government will not let in such a motion. But under close questioning from Susan Kramer it was apparent that an Opposition Day could be used for such a motion to be debated and voted on.
Bring it on! Martin needed to stand up and say something radical like: "No more allowances and MPs expenses will be paid to MPs until there is a new system - and the new system should only give MPs expenses for receipted travel. From the start of the next parliament Second homes will be funded directly by the government with the government owning them."
That's the sort of radical statement he needed to make but instead we got bureaucratic waffle, a refusal to even take responsibility for setting a debate on him (he should have asked the government beforehand to set one up).
Martin should certainly not be made a scapegoat. All MPs are responsible in some way for this mess. But until he goes there can be no proper reform and certainly no start to rebuilding public confidence in the Commons.
Er, that's it.
He's setting up a meeting. All very bureaucratic. That's just what will calm the public: Meetings and talk from him of "substantive motions".
And several MPs expressed their unhappiness with him.
One shaft of light: The Early Day motion declaring no confidence in Michael Martin obviously does nothing procedurally - it is so much confetti. A substantive motion is needed, as Martin said. It seems that the government will not let in such a motion. But under close questioning from Susan Kramer it was apparent that an Opposition Day could be used for such a motion to be debated and voted on.
Bring it on! Martin needed to stand up and say something radical like: "No more allowances and MPs expenses will be paid to MPs until there is a new system - and the new system should only give MPs expenses for receipted travel. From the start of the next parliament Second homes will be funded directly by the government with the government owning them."
That's the sort of radical statement he needed to make but instead we got bureaucratic waffle, a refusal to even take responsibility for setting a debate on him (he should have asked the government beforehand to set one up).
Martin should certainly not be made a scapegoat. All MPs are responsible in some way for this mess. But until he goes there can be no proper reform and certainly no start to rebuilding public confidence in the Commons.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Ancram, Conway and Flint all in second homes hot water
It's all kicking off on the "sleaze" front today. "Bearwood Corporate Services" donations to be formally investigated. Chris Grayling in expenses row.
And the News of the World unearths (or perhaps "recycles") a trio of second homes issues:
-Derek Conway's £85,000 claim for his "second home" which he had before he was re-elected to parliament in 2001 and which is just 14 miles from his other home.
-Michael Ancram is the 13th Marquess of Lothian and Earl of Ancram, has an inherited Wiltshire pile with no mortgage on it, plus his 3-times the national average wage plus expenses and allowances. And still he gets £50,000 on top of all that from the taxpayer for repairs to his inherited family home, including money for the removal of moss from a wall.
-Caroline Flint is accused of something I can't understand.
This drip-drip of revelations has been going on for years now. None of these characters will be found to have broken the rules because the rules are written on one piece of A4 with a .48 font. "Brief" in other words.
Once again, it is urgent that the whole second homes allowance is radically reformed. There are no other professions I can think of where you receive a second home allowance. Certainly not an allowance for repairs or furnishings. It would be far simpler to simply require MPs to pay for such things out of their salaries with, perhaps. a bog standard second homes pay-out for constituencies beyond a defined radius of Westminster.
And the News of the World unearths (or perhaps "recycles") a trio of second homes issues:
-Derek Conway's £85,000 claim for his "second home" which he had before he was re-elected to parliament in 2001 and which is just 14 miles from his other home.
-Michael Ancram is the 13th Marquess of Lothian and Earl of Ancram, has an inherited Wiltshire pile with no mortgage on it, plus his 3-times the national average wage plus expenses and allowances. And still he gets £50,000 on top of all that from the taxpayer for repairs to his inherited family home, including money for the removal of moss from a wall.
-Caroline Flint is accused of something I can't understand.
This drip-drip of revelations has been going on for years now. None of these characters will be found to have broken the rules because the rules are written on one piece of A4 with a .48 font. "Brief" in other words.
Once again, it is urgent that the whole second homes allowance is radically reformed. There are no other professions I can think of where you receive a second home allowance. Certainly not an allowance for repairs or furnishings. It would be far simpler to simply require MPs to pay for such things out of their salaries with, perhaps. a bog standard second homes pay-out for constituencies beyond a defined radius of Westminster.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Scandal of four MPs' second homes
The Sunday Telegraph has listed four MPs who have homes in their constituencies which are within reasonable travelling distance to Westminster.
However, these four MPs have used their ACA (Additional Cost Allowance) within the "letter" (if not the spirit) of the House of Commons expense rules, to use taxpayers' money to fund second homes in places further away from Westminster and nowhere near their constituency. It's incredible!
MP: Bob Neill
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: Bromley and Chiselhurst
Distance from Westminster: 12 miles
Second home funded by taxpayer: Southend-on-Sea, Essex (where else? It's lovely at this time of year and has the longest pier in the world)
Distance from Westminster: 44 miles
MP: Harry Cohen
Party: Labour
Constituency home: Leyton and Wanstead
Distance from Westminster: 10 miles
Second home funded by taxpayer: Colchester, Essex
Distance from Westminster: 70 miles
MP: Jacqui Lait
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: Beckenham
Distance from Westminster: 10
Second home funded by taxpayer: Rye, Sussex
Distance from Westminster: 76
MP: Anne Main
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: St Albans
Distance from Westminster: 26
Second home funded by taxpayer: Beaconsfield
Distance from Westminster: 31
Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton lives in his constituency and commutes to Westminster. He is entitled to use the same "letter" of the rules to claim the ACA but does not, despite also bearing the cost of a second home in Dorset with his wife. He said:
To use the ACA in this way is incredible. It may be within the law, but it's like people doing dodgy tax deals which are just about legal but go against the spirit of the tax legislation. MPs should not just play within the letter of the law but also within the spirit of the law. The people opposing reform of this system are bringing democracy and Parliament into disrepute.
However, these four MPs have used their ACA (Additional Cost Allowance) within the "letter" (if not the spirit) of the House of Commons expense rules, to use taxpayers' money to fund second homes in places further away from Westminster and nowhere near their constituency. It's incredible!
MP: Bob Neill
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: Bromley and Chiselhurst
Distance from Westminster: 12 miles
Second home funded by taxpayer: Southend-on-Sea, Essex (where else? It's lovely at this time of year and has the longest pier in the world)
Distance from Westminster: 44 miles
MP: Harry Cohen
Party: Labour
Constituency home: Leyton and Wanstead
Distance from Westminster: 10 miles
Second home funded by taxpayer: Colchester, Essex
Distance from Westminster: 70 miles
MP: Jacqui Lait
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: Beckenham
Distance from Westminster: 10
Second home funded by taxpayer: Rye, Sussex
Distance from Westminster: 76
MP: Anne Main
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: St Albans
Distance from Westminster: 26
Second home funded by taxpayer: Beaconsfield
Distance from Westminster: 31
Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton lives in his constituency and commutes to Westminster. He is entitled to use the same "letter" of the rules to claim the ACA but does not, despite also bearing the cost of a second home in Dorset with his wife. He said:
To use the ACA in this way is incredible. It may be within the law, but it's like people doing dodgy tax deals which are just about legal but go against the spirit of the tax legislation. MPs should not just play within the letter of the law but also within the spirit of the law. The people opposing reform of this system are bringing democracy and Parliament into disrepute.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
MP's second homes legal fight - adding insult to injury
We've been here before. It happened in connection with publication of detailed MP's travel expense claims. Good old Norman Baker fought to have them released. The reactionary drag on progress which is the Speaker's office, in cahoots with the worst of the MPs, fought to keep them covered up. They were released.
Now the same thing is happening with MP's second homes' expense details.
I am just flabbergasted that there should be any attempt not to publish this information. The public has been paying these expenses into MPs pockets, so the public has every right to know how much was paid out for what items.
To think that the public is now paying to fund a legal action, on behalf of the speaker, to stop publication of the details is a classic case of "adding insult to injury". It is just breathtaking.
Now the same thing is happening with MP's second homes' expense details.
I am just flabbergasted that there should be any attempt not to publish this information. The public has been paying these expenses into MPs pockets, so the public has every right to know how much was paid out for what items.
To think that the public is now paying to fund a legal action, on behalf of the speaker, to stop publication of the details is a classic case of "adding insult to injury". It is just breathtaking.
Friday, March 21, 2008
An utter disgrace - House of Commons expenses "system"
It was, I suppose, depressingly predictable.
The House of Commons expense "system" is such a pathetic shambles that the police can't prosecute Derek Conway. There is such an appalling lack of framework to the expenses "regime" that you can do anything you like, basically.
So, stick your son on the pay roll with a nice fat bonus and let him do his full time studies while getting a full time salary from the taxpayer. Yes, he might have strolled into Newcastle University library and cut out the odd newspaper clipping and sent it to Daddy, but apart from that there is no evidence of his "work": no emails, no Word documents, no remaining clippings and sonny didn't even know the name of Daddy's secretary.
But that's OK, because the House of Commons expenses "rules" are basically a blank sheet of paper. There are no rules to break, effectively.
It is an utter disgrace.
Well done to Nick Clegg for highlighting the need for a fundamental reform of the House of Commons expenses system and for Duncan Borrowman for raising Conway's case with the police in the first place:
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said:"The public have the right to expect that their money is being properly accounted for. The Speaker's review of expenses must provide the basis for fundamental changes to the system of MPs' allowances."
The Met started an investigation after receiving a letter from Duncan Borrowman, who is the prospective Lib Dem candidate for Mr Conway's Old Bexley and Sidcup seat.
Mr Borrowman, who asked officers to examine whether a fraud had been committed and said he was "disappointed" the inquiry was not pursued further.
In February, I highlighted the highly dangerous position of Nick Harvey as frontman for the House of Commons administration. I agree with James Graham that it is now time for Nick to disassociate himself from this utter disgrace by resigning from his "spokeperson" role for the House of Commons Commission.
The House of Commons expense "system" is such a pathetic shambles that the police can't prosecute Derek Conway. There is such an appalling lack of framework to the expenses "regime" that you can do anything you like, basically.
So, stick your son on the pay roll with a nice fat bonus and let him do his full time studies while getting a full time salary from the taxpayer. Yes, he might have strolled into Newcastle University library and cut out the odd newspaper clipping and sent it to Daddy, but apart from that there is no evidence of his "work": no emails, no Word documents, no remaining clippings and sonny didn't even know the name of Daddy's secretary.
But that's OK, because the House of Commons expenses "rules" are basically a blank sheet of paper. There are no rules to break, effectively.
It is an utter disgrace.
Well done to Nick Clegg for highlighting the need for a fundamental reform of the House of Commons expenses system and for Duncan Borrowman for raising Conway's case with the police in the first place:
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said:"The public have the right to expect that their money is being properly accounted for. The Speaker's review of expenses must provide the basis for fundamental changes to the system of MPs' allowances."
The Met started an investigation after receiving a letter from Duncan Borrowman, who is the prospective Lib Dem candidate for Mr Conway's Old Bexley and Sidcup seat.
Mr Borrowman, who asked officers to examine whether a fraud had been committed and said he was "disappointed" the inquiry was not pursued further.
In February, I highlighted the highly dangerous position of Nick Harvey as frontman for the House of Commons administration. I agree with James Graham that it is now time for Nick to disassociate himself from this utter disgrace by resigning from his "spokeperson" role for the House of Commons Commission.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Well done Jo Swinson !
I thought I would do my bit in preparation for International Women's Day on March 8th by watching some of the debate in parliament about the event. Jo Swinson is giving a remarkably articulate and engaging speech. For the youngest member of the House of Commons, she is a far far more skilled speaker than many people who have been there for donkeys' years.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Pressure on Speaker to resign
Why would someone (i.e. Mike Granatt) resign because they had been misled? Surely you resign if you misled someone...not the other way round...
Friday, February 22, 2008
Is a Liberal Democrat MP the front man for profligacy at the House of Commons ?
It seems that the only time a Liberal Democrat answers questions about spending decisions is when Nick Harvey MP acts as spokesman for the Commons Commission. I realise that this body is cross-party in composition and is chaired by the Speaker. But my unease is increasing at having a Liberal Democrat giving answers which reveal what might easily be perceived to be a less than a stringent approach to spending public money by the commission.
In its "Called to ordure" column, the latest Private Eye lists a whole catalogue of answers which Nick Harvey has given over the last year. I realise that these Private Eye "cut and paste" jobs are a bit of stitch-up. But the list of seemingly less than stingy expenditure at least demands some defence to be given to prevent the House of Commons getting an even worse name than it already has.
Here are some of the highlights from Private Eye's list:
-£234 million was spent on Portcullis House but £5.4 million a year is still going on extra offices for MPs.
-Repairs etc came to £24.7 million last year.
-£422,000 spent on a short glass walkway to stop MPs getting wet after parking their cars
-£327,000 to install "motion-sensitive" to a small escalator serving Portcullis House
-The commission employs 85 people on salaties of more than £60,000
-£188,124 spent largely on buying artwork from the estate of the late Tony Banks.
-£1.25 million spent on legal fees since 2003
-£10 million spent last year on "library services" for MPs - five times what was spent in 1987.
-£11.2 million to be spent on the new Visitor Reception building
-£1 million will be spent on "reviewing the lessons learnt" (Nick Harvey's words) from the "cock-up" (Private Eye's words).
-9 press officers are now employed, compared to just one part-timer in 2001.
£1 million to be spent on "reviwing lessons learnt" from a "cock-up" on controlling costs in a building project - that takes the biscuit! The project started off with an estimated price tag of £8.7 million and then this rocketed to £11.2 million because of "technical difficulties" and they are spending £1 million to 'review the lessons learnt' ! If it wasn't Lent, I'd have a stiff Single Malt to recover from that.
It would be nice to hear some defence of this seemingly profliate spending picture.
In its "Called to ordure" column, the latest Private Eye lists a whole catalogue of answers which Nick Harvey has given over the last year. I realise that these Private Eye "cut and paste" jobs are a bit of stitch-up. But the list of seemingly less than stingy expenditure at least demands some defence to be given to prevent the House of Commons getting an even worse name than it already has.
Here are some of the highlights from Private Eye's list:
-£234 million was spent on Portcullis House but £5.4 million a year is still going on extra offices for MPs.
-Repairs etc came to £24.7 million last year.
-£422,000 spent on a short glass walkway to stop MPs getting wet after parking their cars
-£327,000 to install "motion-sensitive" to a small escalator serving Portcullis House
-The commission employs 85 people on salaties of more than £60,000
-£188,124 spent largely on buying artwork from the estate of the late Tony Banks.
-£1.25 million spent on legal fees since 2003
-£10 million spent last year on "library services" for MPs - five times what was spent in 1987.
-£11.2 million to be spent on the new Visitor Reception building
-£1 million will be spent on "reviewing the lessons learnt" (Nick Harvey's words) from the "cock-up" (Private Eye's words).
-9 press officers are now employed, compared to just one part-timer in 2001.
£1 million to be spent on "reviwing lessons learnt" from a "cock-up" on controlling costs in a building project - that takes the biscuit! The project started off with an estimated price tag of £8.7 million and then this rocketed to £11.2 million because of "technical difficulties" and they are spending £1 million to 'review the lessons learnt' ! If it wasn't Lent, I'd have a stiff Single Malt to recover from that.
It would be nice to hear some defence of this seemingly profliate spending picture.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Conway loses his £13,000 bonus
After much comment about this yesterday, Derek Conway has been stripped of his £13,000 a year place on the Commons Chairmen's Panel.
Good. It seems Michael Martin is learning after all...
Good. It seems Michael Martin is learning after all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
