Cameron needs to tackle the expenses scandal head on

Chris

I think you'll find that it's a mere doff of the hat - although it used to be though ill-bread not to dough one's hat to a lady, of course.

Chris

Oops, 'thought,' not 'though.' Muphry's Law strikes again.

Vulture

So what do you suggest he does about it? Since his close cabinet chums Francis Maude and Michael Gove were among the Tory troughers he can't do a lot beyond mouthing a few platitudes (that shouldn't be hard for a silvertongue like Dave) can he?

Ken

Muphry's eh?

Doug

This is completely unfair criticism. And it's the standard media concocting a story. Who has been the point man on the expenses scandal? David Cameron. Does David Cameron give a speech early in the week? No. And all the media know that. They have a day or two drum an invented story before Cameron has the opportunity to take to the lectern. Pathetic.

Fatbloke on tour

You want to know why people are now reluctant to talk about the expenses issue because while no one wants to pick at an open sore there are still a few un-answered questions regarding the source of the story and the way it was handled.

Start at the top, published in a chip wrapper owned by two tax dodging ne'er do wells with their own island of the coast of France.

The irony of the situation cannot be quantified.

Then we have the selctive disclosure, the timing and detail offered against the chosen few who got done first. No ryhme nor reason to it apart from the maximum damage it would do to the government.

And yet the media took it in, no questions asked.

Then we have the allegations that those and such as those got early warnings of the evidence and were given time to come up with a plan to save their reputation.

Scratchy, I am talking about you.

Then we come to the source, that useful juxtaposition of political greed and military necessity.

Aye right, just a bit to clever by half. It's a wonder that their wives weren't out banging saucepan lids in Parliament Square.

The episode is straight out of the reactionary counter revolution handbook. And we are supposed to take it in as if a great service was being carried out in the name of transparency and decency?

Again, aye right!

The coincidences are just too good to be true, just as they were in the Fuel Protests of 2000, soft hearted truckers rushing to support poor down trodden farmers or the attempt to blame the British Army catering for the 2001 F+M outbreak.

The expenses issue has now done its job and can safely be put to bed. Bigger fish to fry like public sector pensions and wages.

The public are being taken for a ride.
Played like an old violin by a bunch of spivs.

James W

Doug take your pills!

It isn't unfair criticism - it is something that Cameron will need to get used to.

The expenses issue was not one that burned brightly and then disappeared - the stories may have lost their shock value - but the deep-rooted anger at politicians remains. This is an opportunity for Cameron to demonstrate change - but as with some of the other comments - it could also be problematic.

Fatbloke on tour

Ugly Scabby burd / aka Larkin Lover

Where's your homework?

Colin

So, where does this leave Gove?

Perhaps he'll work like a Trojan in the run up to the election, then do the decent thing and stand down.

Then again, perhaps not...

David Blackburn

Chris,

Thanks very much, what a silly gaffe! Written without my much needed cup of coffee this morning.

Sean Haffey

The expenses issue will resurface come the next election: there are too many angry members of public.

However, most of the MPs being characterised as "troughers" claimed things they genuinely thought were acceptable. Whether their voters feel the same way will be seen. Most will get re-elected, but some may get a fright.

Chris

Ken - yes, Muphry's Law, which states that 'any attempt to make a pedantic correction will contain a greater error than the one corrected.' Your comment on my comment is, of course, an outstanding example.

Simon Stephenson

Earlier this week, Fraser Nelson included this in a column on this site:-

"When you get on a train on a Sunday and find First Class is more full than the cheap seats, it can only mean one thing: a political party conference is starting."

and I think, in a nutshell, that this captures the problem. There is no doubt that it is sometimes advantageous for someone to travel First Class where there's preparatory work to be done, or where a quieter atmosphere is essential for other reasons. In other words, where the additional cost of First Class is justified by the fact that it enables constructive activity that would otherwise be impossible. But 95% of First Class travel doesn't happen for this reason. It happens because the grade of employment entitles the reclaiming of the cost of First Class travel. How many of those travelling First Class to the Manchester conference were actually paying for this out of their own pocket? And, if they were, how many of them would actually choose to go First Class irrespective of this? The answer to both questions is "very few of them".

Expenses as perks or entitlements is the culture that could very successfully be challenged. I look forward to seeing some sign that the Conservatives doing this in a way that means more than just grabbing a headline.

Ken

Got in none eh Chris.

Never mind the expenses issue is of more import.

So, notwithstanding the beliefs of the conspiracy theory commenter, I think the parties could restore voter faith by taking forceful and fearless action against all scandal-tainted MPs, and then cap their return to grace with even tougher action against the gilded bonus-takers and cohorts (politicos included) at the top of the global financial tree who have so hideously crashed us into the buffers.

Twin-track redemption!

David Bouvier

Or the people in First Class on a Sunday, have bought WEEKEND First Class upgrades from for an extra £10-15.

Roy Simpson

The one change that our politics needs more than any other is that parliamentary candidates (independents excepted), should be selected at every election using a primary.

Further, the whipping system and the ability of each front bench to de-select an MP should be removed, allowing an individual to vote using his or her conscience. They would only then be answerable, in the first instance, to their party's selection committee, before facing their electorate once again via an primary.

At a stroke the government would be answerable to parliament, (instead of as now the other way round), and the majority of constituents would then have a member, in the main, representative of their views.