If Cameron, Hague and Osborne are all clean, the Tories are in the clear

BrianSJ

Possibly true. Depends on the influence of the Ministry of Information. Given the 'Save Labour' campaign being run by the BBC, they may go all-out on 'Tory sleaze' to appease Downing St. What impact would that have?

Richard Abbot

It's the quality of the claims as well as their monetary value which really sticks in peoples throat. 2 bog seats for Prescott in 2 years just makes him look even more foolish, while a new boiler for Murphy because the waters too hot is far more damaging than flipping your second home status.
So long as no senior Tories have been up to this kind of nonsense AND there is no sense of triumphalism or taking the voters for granted, then yes, the Tories are home and dry.

Bruce, UK

The People (remember them?) mght be winners if all of these thieves are hounded from office and prosecuted for the theft of our money.

Alex

I'd add Ken Clarke to that list.

Mrs B

On the BBC this morning Fraser was repeating the line that "it's within the rules". But it's NOT within the rules if the Green Book states that the expenses must be “wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties". Some politicians have clearly fiddled their expenses. Any ordinary person doing this would be sacked. And this isn't just small amounts - just look at the property portfolios that some of these Ministers have built up. They are nothing but a bunch of thieving bas*****. So, please stop agreeing with them that "it's within the rules".

Dan Brusca

I think Ken Clarke might have greater name recognition than all of them...

Andy

James, I accept your premise but I'd add Michael Gove to the list. He's not in their league but it would be a huge blow to lose him, given how crucial education reform is to Cameron's plans.

Ivan D

In what sense does what we already know - Osborne and Cameron's mortgage claims - not stink? But I'm willing to make an educated guess about the shadow cabinet member whose claims will turn out to pong as much as any cabinet member's.

George Laird

Dear James

“If Cameron, Hague and Osborne are all clean, the Tories are in the clear”.

I had to laugh at this notion, so if a couple of people at the top cover the rest of the Tories then wide scale abuse is okay?

The reason put forward as the rational is that the rest are not well known, beggar’s belief.

In the movie Casino; the mob had someone fronting the Casino to look legit too, while others were skimming the place dry.

Should you be allowed to rip of the taxpayer if you are not a well known Tory?

Why do the government charge benefit thieves then?

These people aren’t well known.

Cameron, Hague and Osborne have other problems that the public are very much aware of.

Cameron’s lack of judgement is the elephant in the room. Brown hit the nail on the head that Cameron has no answers or questions during PMQ’s. Cameron’s whole strategy is to make Brown look stupid, although that plays for a while, it gets boring and tired very quickly.

There are no Tory policies of note, nothing but a few bits of window dressing.

As to Hague the full time paid MP; I can’t remember anything he has said or produced on foreign policy. I see him and I think, after dinner speaker raking in huge fees. He talks and nothing comes out but platitudes.

Osborne; the ineptness has already been demonstrated by his Russian yacht adventure. In his entire time he managed only to stumble on one gimmick, raising the inheritance threshold. That is his one and only claim to fame, if Labour hadn’t bit, it would have been forgotten.

Osborne is a loser.

As we all wait for the Tories to be put on the rack, we should remember people like Spelman, Pickles and Conway, each in their own way raise a few eyebrows.

With regard to Malcolm Rifkind; he represents Kensington & Chelsea, a London constituency; a few miles from Westminister and the Taxpayer is paying for him to fly to Edinburgh because Rifkind has a property there. Travel expenses such as flights should be for MPs who represent constituencies outside London not were an MP has property.

Although Rifkind is claiming within the rules; I suspect that this type of behaviour leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. Rifkind has held several senior government posts and is well known.

Finally; Cameron, Hague and Osborne two Bullingdon boys and a man who looks like he is running a cottage industry talkshop.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Fraser Nelson

@Mrs B, the Fees Office decide what's the rules or not and they reject what isn't - they raise 10 objections a week. My point is this that any talk of rules is a red herring. There is a gap between the rules and what the public find acceptable, and MPs are falling down this gap.

London Calling

Whether its the three amigos or the dirty dozen, If it transpires that members of the Tory party are also guilty I hope they receive the same pounding here, It would be wrong to do otherwise and excuse one group and not the other.

Remember the best is always saved until last...is that the sound of a private helicopter I can hear or the flies around Westminster?

Hope you enjoyed your supper, hope it wasn’t your last :0

The Milky Bars are on me...

John Adams

Do you not think Ken Clarke or David Davies are well-known?

And I'll bet a good majority of people couldn't pick Osbourne out of a line-up.

WhatDoIKnow

I said in 1997 that they would lose five elections in a row. The Tories are finished. When the extent of their misdemeanours is revealed, the one phrase echoing in voter minds will be 'Tory sleaze' and Labour errors will be forgotten. Whoops; think I might have slipped into a multiverse there.

Verity

Agree with the poster above who noted that Ken Clarke has greater name recognition - in that he is more sharply etched in people's minds - than any of the others.

Frankly, except for Clarke and Hague, there's an ephemeral air about the Shadow Cabinet.

Carrie

Alex, having seen Ken Clarkes house when he was being interviewed on Marr on some other programme, I don't think he has been feathering his nest. Looked like it was stiil the same as in the 1970's haha!

London Calling

Whether its the three amigos or the dirty dozen, If it transpires that members of the Tory party are also guilty I hope they receive the same pounding here, It would be wrong to do otherwise and excuse one group and not the other.

Remember the best is always saved until last...is that the sound of a private helicopter I can hear or the flies around Westminster?

Hope you enjoyed your supper, hope it wasn’t your last :0

The Milky Bars are on me...

Hereford

Eric Pickles

John Lea

George Laird: I think you're wrong to dismiss Hague, who is a formidable politician and an excellent speaker. But yes, I agree with your general point: while the Tories have Pickles, Maude and Spelman in their ranks, they cannot take the moral highground on this issue. I think Speccie readers/bloggers need to be as aggressive in their condemnation of Tory freeloaders as they are of Labour, because it's OUR money they are all syphoning at the end of the day.

Kevyn Bodman

I both agree and disagree with Andy at 1.50pm.
Michael Gove has been impressive on Education so far.
But if he were to be found to have had his snout in the trough then he would be no loss at all.
The policy could continue without him.

And London Calling has it right; if members of the Tory party are also guilty they deserve a pounding too.

Norwegian Referee

Your argument entirely depends on the depravity of the claims. If we discover that the Tory backbenches are full of MPs using the expenses system self-interest and malpractice, then we'll soon have plenty of Tories with very strong name recognition. The more audacious their claims the more memorable they will be.

Remember the Hamiltons?

David Ossitt

James you write: -
"I fear that the only winners from the disgraceful behaviour of so many MPs will be the extremists"

I am of the opinion that this might not be a bad thing; in fact it could be a very good thing, if it has the effect of waking David Cameron up to the fact that a great many Tory voters think that he is not representing the opinions of the majority of those who are members of the conservative party.

David Ossitt

WhatDoIKnow
May 8th, 2009 2:42pm

I suspect that you do not know very much; what counted as sleaze in the John Major government pales into insignificant when compared with the totally corrupt malign shower of incompetent bastards that have desecrated every single thing that they have touched in the last twelve years.

You write that labours errors will be forgotten; what errors? the evil that they have done has in the main been deliberate or what is even worse the result of unintended consequences.

This shower of sh*t will never be forgotten; they will be remembered as the worst government that this country has ever had.

AndyLeeds

The Tories would be well advised to just publish their claims NOW. Sod waiting for the Telegraph to 'spin' the story to the advantage of 'Gordon the Moron' which is what is really happening. So PUBLISH and let us have done with it.

Verity

John Adams - David Davies removed himself from the Shadow Cabinet, if you recall. This increasingly looks like a prescient move.

And I am one of the people you refer to who couldn't pick Osborne out of a line-up.

WhatDoIKnow 2:42 pm - Judging from your post, not much.

peter

As if we ll ever find out.

Remind us who pays Cameron's mortgage?

andy

Hang on - I thought those three were all millionaires anyway?

Chuck Unsworth

As I keep saying, it's nothing to do with 'rules' - it's everything to do with personal standards and integrity. Or do we now live in a society which accepts that if it's not specifically written down somewhere then anything goes? Anyway the fact is that the 'rules' clearly identify that these 'expenses' must be solely related to the requirements of parliamentary business, yet the list of purchases clearly show otherwise.

And now these monsters have called in the cops to find the whistleblower....

David

"I had to laugh at this notion, so if a couple of people at the top cover the rest of the Tories then wide scale abuse is okay?"

Er, no. Read what he's said. it's a question of public impact, not whether it's okay or not.

Glasgow uni's clearly not what it used to be, to paraphrase Ms Mountford.......

sinosimon

Frazer,why do you meekly accept the lie that 'its all within the rules'?
The claims for cleaning, cat food, pot plants, patio heaters, barbecues......NONE of them are within the rules because they are not related to the MP's function.....unless I've missed St Jacqui griddling burgers at the despatch box during home office questions.....?

So why, why is nobody of the people who are supposed to be our representatives in the MSM asking the right questions......they all signed declarations that the expenses were incurred solely in the necessary performance of their parliamentary duties.....so how did those pots plants help? Did the cat do constituency work? How did the fact that your microwave was sparkling aid you in your fight for social justice Prime Minister?

If Gordon Brown doesn't really want to put the domestos down his own toilet, or wipe the sink clean at the end of the day he has my wholehearted sympathy. Neither do I. But whether these mundane tasks are performed or not has NO bearing on his doing his job as an MP or PM. He pays someone else to do it, fine. But it is fraud to claim that back from the taxpayer under the rules, pure and simple.

Your acquiescence shows you to either be as out of touch or as morally bankrupt as the politicos.

TGF UKIP

There are very probably some Tory MPs who would be quite upset if they discovered they had been "outsleazed" by their Labour colleagues.

Moreover, looking at the shadowy, venal bunch of part-timers who comprise the Shadow Cabinet, I'd bet on the Tory Front Bench reaching new highs/lows when its their turn in the Browngraph.

I really am looking forward to Dave and Boy Georges exes though and most of all to see if the unctuous bastard charged us for those windmills.

George Laird

Dear John Lea

“I think you're wrong to dismiss Hague, who is a formidable politician and an excellent speaker”.

I take nothing away from his ability on the political stage and totally agree; he is an excellent speaker.

The perception I have of Hague is that his use of being an MP is as a vehicle for his public image as an after dinner speaker. He rakes in a fair few quid on the circuit.

I was looking at the Register of Interests and found this;

Parliamentary adviser to the JCB Group. (£45,001-£50,000)

Member of the Political Council of Terra Firma Capital Partners. (£25,001-£30,000)

Parliamentary adviser to Dunalastair Ireland Ltd. (£10,001-£15,000)

From June 2005, fourth 6 month contract to supply articles for the News of the World. (£95,001-£100,000)

1 March 2007, speech in London at the annual dinner of Insight Investment. (£10,001-£15,000) (Registered 3 May 2007)

22 March, speech in Sussex at the annual conference of Invista Real Estate. (£10,001-£15,000) (Registered 3 May 2007)

21 April 2007, speech in London for Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. (£20,001-£25,000) (Registered 3 May 2007)

4 July 2007, speech in Monaco at the 17th Annual Fund Forum. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 7 August 2007)

6 September 2007, speech in London at a dinner hosted by the Royal Bank of Scotland. (£10,001-£15,000) (Registered 11 October 2007)

19 September 2007, speech in London at the British Retail Consortium Annual Dinner. (£10,001-£15,000) (Registered 11 October 2007)

27 September 2007, speech in Geneva at a dinner hosted by CB Richard Ellis. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 13 November 2007)

11 October 2007, speech in London at a conference of the Young Presidents' Organisation. (£10,001-£15,000) (Registered 13 November 2007)

1 November 2007, speech in Brighton at a dinner hosted by the Royal Bank of Scotland. (£10,001-£15,000) (Registered 10 December 2007)

9 November 2007, speech in Brighton at a dinner for the South East Society of Chartered Accountants. (£10,001-£15,000) (Registered 10 December 2007)

30 January 2008, hosted the European Venture Capital Journal Awards in London. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 21 February 2008)

7 February 2008, hosted the Legal Business Awards in London. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 21 February 2008)

Does this look like the pattern of a hard working MP serving his consistency? This looks to me like a man who has set himself up as a cottage industry. I struggle to remember anything he has produced as a foreign policy.

“But yes, I agree with your general point: while the Tories have Pickles, Maude and Spelman in their ranks, they cannot take the moral highground on this issue. I think Speccie readers/bloggers need to be as aggressive in their condemnation of Tory freeloaders as they are of Labour, because it's OUR money they are all syphoning at the end of the day”.

I would also say that Tories have to start to condemn those in senior positions who are paid full time and act part time. As much as the expenses issues are hugely embarrassing for all political parties, people need to look at those at the other end of the spectrum. The argument put forward is that Tories need to understand business is a point, but my point in reply is if you want to learn about what is going on in the business sector why accept money?

Wouldn’t business allow MPs to attend meetings without getting paid and still allow them to offer advice?

We see the expenses scandal doesn’t wash but batting the ball over to the other side of the financial tennis court neither does MPs running little cottage industries.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Richard Abbot

hahaha, so its not all over at all. This is very much game on - all the pieces of the jogsaw are up in the air. Expect some serious tactical voting in the coming GE to oust the worst culprits. I'll go for Con Largest Pary