Speaker Bercow is a deeply satisfying result.
Many Tories were spitting feathers tonight. 
They feel cheated because of John Bercows political conversion to left wing causes. He is a still a Tory MP and it was the Tory's turn.
He has been viciously attacked by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. Their over-the-top venom helped to win him support from all sections of the House. John Bercow made the best speech starting with an anecdote that we all recognised starred Tory grandee Peter Tapsell. Although Peter disagreed.
John is a great mimic and he does a wonderful Ken Clarke. The joke relaxed the House and it was receptive to his plea that he does not want to become something he wanted to do something. Regular readers of the blog will know that I have been banging on about Speaker Bercow for weeks. It was right to sack Michael Martin. It is better to appoint Speaker Bercow.
Now for the reforms.
Drivel blog
I have lifted this exchange of piffle and facts from the site of rhe South Wales Argus. I know the person who calls himself papa. He is the only person to have made thataccusation against my splendid staff in the past 22 years. It was in response to the story about my defence costs. There is, of course, no truth is the claim that I or any of my staff ever refused to deal with a constituent's problem. My present home is smaller that the previous two I had before I was an MP. Nor am I a lifetime politician. I was 52 when I first elected. People write such drivel.
But it's very encouraging that unknown people have leapt to my defence.
claims for defence cotspapa, Newport says...
3:21pm Sat 20 Jun 09
He may have legally claimed these expenses but it was morally wrong and morally fraud.
Paul Flynn dropped himself into the shyte and expects Joe Public to bail him out, he wrote and said a libellous statement, not one other person in the world did and he expects us to bare that debt, all costs relating to that law suite should be borne by him and him alone.
How on earth can any MP claim £140,961 in expenses for one year?, obviously Paul Flynn is useing the gravy train for his own pocket.
I thought MP's salaries were about £30,000 and if so look at the amount claimed for one year by Paul Flynn. That figure can never be justified.
Paul Flynn dropped himself into the shyte and expects Joe Public to bail him out, he wrote and said a libellous statement, not one other person in the world did and he expects us to bare that debt, all costs relating to that law suite should be borne by him and him alone.
How on earth can any MP claim £140,961 in expenses for one year?, obviously Paul Flynn is useing the gravy train for his own pocket.
I thought MP's salaries were about £30,000 and if so look at the amount claimed for one year by Paul Flynn. That figure can never be justified.
Gareth, Newport says...
10:21am Sun 21 Jun 09
£30k wages? nah, you're way out: it's about £65k.
do i want my MP to work for £30k? no way. that is middle-management salary here; and the sort of money first-job graduates in london walk into.
yes, i can imagine a lot of people who are doing low-paid jobs (or unemployed) will scream: "i'll do it for 30k!", and if they have the core skills and experience of representation, teamwork, law, building/developing relationships with peers, running an office and the rest of it... then go for it.
but in the real world, people with those core skills are earning far more than £30k, and are not going to take a pay cut.
do i want my MP to work for £30k? no way. that is middle-management salary here; and the sort of money first-job graduates in london walk into.
yes, i can imagine a lot of people who are doing low-paid jobs (or unemployed) will scream: "i'll do it for 30k!", and if they have the core skills and experience of representation, teamwork, law, building/developing relationships with peers, running an office and the rest of it... then go for it.
but in the real world, people with those core skills are earning far more than £30k, and are not going to take a pay cut.
papa, Newport says...
11:07am Sun 21 Jun 09
Well even at 65k he's tripled his income with that massive expenses claim, no wonder he can afford to live in the Fields Park area and the poor suckers like us are paying for it.
It wouldn't be so bad if he actually done something for someone or Newport instead of trying to be the MP voted with the best web site on which he spends all his time and does sod all for his constituants!
It wouldn't be so bad if he actually done something for someone or Newport instead of trying to be the MP voted with the best web site on which he spends all his time and does sod all for his constituants!
Gareth, Newport says...
11:28am Sun 21 Jun 09
taking into account these amounts for our local MPs include the running of their london/constituency offices/staff, i think the figures are actually quite low!
i mean, my office costs that much to run on its own, BEFORE we get to my business-related expenses!
i mean, my office costs that much to run on its own, BEFORE we get to my business-related expenses!
Stuck, In the mouth of madness says...
3:48pm Sun 21 Jun 09
I am not normally one to defend MPs but Mr Flynn is a good man who I was fortunate to have as my MP when I lived in Newport West. Mr Flynn replied so quickly to a question I had made, I can understand why his costs are such. It is Mr Flynns job to ask difficult questions and if that leads to court action then it is right that his employer helps out. Mr Flynn lives in a half decent part of Newport, as he is a very experienced man who has a wealth of knowledge, I think he is entitled to it.Mr Flynn could make far more if he worked in the private sector. I believe that Mr Flynn also drove a nissan micra, hardly the ride of the elite and Fields Park is hardly Belgravia. Paul Flynn is not in the same hemisphere as the con men and charlatans who have dragged us through the dirt and he does not deserve any animosity. That is all!
papa, Newport says...
9:25pm Sun 21 Jun 09
Seems like there are two Paul Flynn's MP and the one you are talking about cannot be the same one I know.
The one I know well won't dirty his hands with helping the working class living on council estates and I personally know a number that have asked for his help and have been refused by him.
Obviously Paul Flyn will suck up to business people like yourself Gareth because he has forgotten his working class roots, if he had any and wehat the Labour movement originally stood for and I won't repeat what one County Councillor, a lay preacher said about him when he was a county councillor.
Paul Flynn is only out for his own ends and nobody elses!!!
I can assure you I am not alone in those views.
The one I know well won't dirty his hands with helping the working class living on council estates and I personally know a number that have asked for his help and have been refused by him.
Obviously Paul Flyn will suck up to business people like yourself Gareth because he has forgotten his working class roots, if he had any and wehat the Labour movement originally stood for and I won't repeat what one County Councillor, a lay preacher said about him when he was a county councillor.
Paul Flynn is only out for his own ends and nobody elses!!!
I can assure you I am not alone in those views.
Gareth, Newport says...
9:32am Mon 22 Jun 09
i obviously do not know Paul as well as you do, papa. though our political views differ, but he seems a decent enough chap to me, and he does have pretty convictions.papa wrote:
Seems like there are two Paul Flynn's MP and the one you are talking about cannot be the same one I know.
The one I know well won't dirty his hands with helping the working class living on council estates and I personally know a number that have asked for his help and have been refused by him.
Obviously Paul Flyn will suck up to business people like yourself Gareth because he has forgotten his working class roots, if he had any and wehat the Labour movement originally stood for and I won't repeat what one County Councillor, a lay preacher said about him when he was a county councillor.
Paul Flynn is only out for his own ends and nobody elses!!!
I can assure you I am not alone in those views.
you mentioned him forgetting his roots because he may talk to businessmen - like they must be two different types of people.
i consider myself a working class businessman, papa. and remember that these guys in suits are the ones that generate jobs and wealth for others - surely that is exactly the type of person paul should be talking to!
as for his house: no, he doesn't live in a slum on a council estate, but his semi up on edward 7th isn't exactly palacial!
i also enjoy his blog, and would far rather him spend a few grand a year keeping me updated with his actions, than spend nothing and take a kicking for not keeping his constituents in the loop.
that said, like the rest of us, there will be people who like him and those that don't. the proof comes at election time, and the fact that he has been the people's choice for as long as i can remember maybe means he has far more supporters than detractors!
westsi1983, Newport says...
1:02pm Mon 22 Jun 09
Mr Flynn (along with many more of his compadres in Westminster) is a Career politician, he has spent his life in politics. Politics is not, and should not be regarded as, a career!
Politicians should be paid either expenses OR salaried, NOT both.
Career politicians are self-serving individuals who would not know or understand an honest days work!! You only need look at people like David Cameron, Neil Kinnock, Boris Johnson and Gordon Brown to see precisely why career politicians are bad for this country. Of course some people might see massive differences, all I can see is an amorphous waste of oxygen!
Flynn included, politicians need to have a maximum shelf-life of 2 or 3 terms before they are replaced by newer fresher thoughts and ideas. I don't care for party politics, that's not democratic, its a cunningly-disguised method of enforcing a set of views upon the masses, and with such narrow differences between the main parties, its little wonder that 65% of the population did not vote for the government we have...
Should the tax-payer have reimbursed his legal expenses? No. He said it, he should pay for it. The problem with this would be that we would breed a group of politicians who are afraid to challenge practices which are morally wrong...
Must laugh at that last one - glass houses and stones come straight to mind...
Politicians should be paid either expenses OR salaried, NOT both.
Career politicians are self-serving individuals who would not know or understand an honest days work!! You only need look at people like David Cameron, Neil Kinnock, Boris Johnson and Gordon Brown to see precisely why career politicians are bad for this country. Of course some people might see massive differences, all I can see is an amorphous waste of oxygen!
Flynn included, politicians need to have a maximum shelf-life of 2 or 3 terms before they are replaced by newer fresher thoughts and ideas. I don't care for party politics, that's not democratic, its a cunningly-disguised method of enforcing a set of views upon the masses, and with such narrow differences between the main parties, its little wonder that 65% of the population did not vote for the government we have...
Should the tax-payer have reimbursed his legal expenses? No. He said it, he should pay for it. The problem with this would be that we would breed a group of politicians who are afraid to challenge practices which are morally wrong...
Must laugh at that last one - glass houses and stones come straight to mind...
freetheleighthamstowone, Newport says...
4:06pm Mon 22 Jun 09
Actually if you read about the case you'll see that the problem was something that a third party wrote. Since when did we want our representatives to not point out the shark practices of some financial businesses? This seems to be what you want, only you don't want it to cost you anything? Some would say in light of recent events we need more courage not less when dealing with the financial sector. In this case the small legal fund provided seems reasonable since the vast majority of the costs came from Mr. Flynns own pocket I would say he did step up to the plate and put his own financial security at risk for what he believed was in the public interest. Perhaps you could direct me to the campaign you are currently running on these issues so I can see you putting your money where your mouth is and not just indulging in rhetoric?
Also Paul Flynn used to work at Llanwern so not quite the "career politician" you suggest.
On a final point, I agree with you that democracy is a terrible system as it means neither you nor I get to choose who is elected. However we must concede Churchills point that its the best we've come up with yet.
Also Paul Flynn used to work at Llanwern so not quite the "career politician" you suggest.
On a final point, I agree with you that democracy is a terrible system as it means neither you nor I get to choose who is elected. However we must concede Churchills point that its the best we've come up with yet.
davewales, newport says...
5:31pm Mon 22 Jun 09
i condemed paul flynn when i first heard of the claim and challenged paul on this issue,i am not a friend of paul flynn but give the man a chance he takes critism and will answer your emails etc.paul is a maverick mp and doesnt follow the pack but he will put his head on the block and does fight for newport.it just isnt written about in the argus.
the problem with challenging wealthy or legal practices is they will keep the matter right or wrong in the courts.do you keep paying legal fees even though your right or stop any legal actions and pay court and libel costs.
i have asked the argus to give paul flynn a page in the argus to answer his constituents questions,explain what he is up to and take any critisisms.
paul flynn wrote this explination on his blog.
My campaign was against companies popularly known as ambulance chasers. They offer advice to assist claims of compensation. When the claims are successful they charge anything from 10% to 50% of the compensation as their fee. I was campaigning in parliament against firms who I was convinced were making unjustified charges that denied claimants their full compensation. Charges of up to 15% were defined as reasonable by Which? The companies I criticised charged between 20% and 50% for advice much of which is freely available from Which? and the FSA.
In the past, I have campaigned against rip-offs in the financial world including endowment mortgages, pensions miss-selling and debt bundling frauds. While I was fire-proof in what I said in parliament, I was open to a libel cases for what I said outside. A comment attributed to me in a specialist newspaper with a tiny circulation of about 5,000 was the alleged libel. The firm involved c claimed that a general accurate comment I made about 'firms charging up to 50%' applied to them. They charged about 25%.
I knew I had done nothing wrong. For months I refused to back down. In my judgment, this was an attempt to kill a wholly justified campaign against the exploitation of those who are financially unsophisticated. I was advised that I had an 80% chance of winning if the case went to court. But there was no guarantee. It depended on the disposition of the judge and other uncontrollable factors. I could lose. The costs that I could pay, if the case went to court, were estimated at between half a million and a million pounds. I am not a gambler. The costs were being racked up at a rate of £thousands every week.
the problem with challenging wealthy or legal practices is they will keep the matter right or wrong in the courts.do you keep paying legal fees even though your right or stop any legal actions and pay court and libel costs.
i have asked the argus to give paul flynn a page in the argus to answer his constituents questions,explain what he is up to and take any critisisms.
paul flynn wrote this explination on his blog.
My campaign was against companies popularly known as ambulance chasers. They offer advice to assist claims of compensation. When the claims are successful they charge anything from 10% to 50% of the compensation as their fee. I was campaigning in parliament against firms who I was convinced were making unjustified charges that denied claimants their full compensation. Charges of up to 15% were defined as reasonable by Which? The companies I criticised charged between 20% and 50% for advice much of which is freely available from Which? and the FSA.
In the past, I have campaigned against rip-offs in the financial world including endowment mortgages, pensions miss-selling and debt bundling frauds. While I was fire-proof in what I said in parliament, I was open to a libel cases for what I said outside. A comment attributed to me in a specialist newspaper with a tiny circulation of about 5,000 was the alleged libel. The firm involved c claimed that a general accurate comment I made about 'firms charging up to 50%' applied to them. They charged about 25%.
I knew I had done nothing wrong. For months I refused to back down. In my judgment, this was an attempt to kill a wholly justified campaign against the exploitation of those who are financially unsophisticated. I was advised that I had an 80% chance of winning if the case went to court. But there was no guarantee. It depended on the disposition of the judge and other uncontrollable factors. I could lose. The costs that I could pay, if the case went to court, were estimated at between half a million and a million pounds. I am not a gambler. The costs were being racked up at a rate of £thousands every week.
davewales, newport says...
5:38pm Mon 22 Jun 09
I threw in the towel when the cost reached £44,000. It was the only way of ending the nightmare. Of course there was no significant damage to the company although there initial claim was for £300,000. The sum they finally agreed in damages was a relatively trivial £1,000. I believe it was my silence they were seeking. This was pressure by costs. Mine were £10,000. Theirs were £34,000. That was a total bill for me of £45,000.
I had some protection in the Commons but it did not run to £45,000 and certainly not to a million pounds. The Commons Authorities and the Inland Revenue accepted fully that my campaign was wholly in line with my parliamentary campaigning. That paid my defence costs. It did not help with the damages and the company's costs. I have never regretted my stand although I will handle it in a different way next time. These risks go with the parliamentary territory. I had been burnt but I am proud of the stand I took.
I had some protection in the Commons but it did not run to £45,000 and certainly not to a million pounds. The Commons Authorities and the Inland Revenue accepted fully that my campaign was wholly in line with my parliamentary campaigning. That paid my defence costs. It did not help with the damages and the company's costs. I have never regretted my stand although I will handle it in a different way next time. These risks go with the parliamentary territory. I had been burnt but I am proud of the stand I took.
davewales, newport says...
5:53pm Mon 22 Jun 09
regards paul flynn expenses,they are online and you will see he claimed very little compared to other mps in wales and england.
£90,000 he spent on office staff wages out of the 140,000
i didnt like certain things he claimed for and i have made my feelings known too paul
a kitchen,bathroom,fur
niture,deoderising carpets,flooring,pai
nter & decorators,builders,
soap holder.all are in the expenses available online.
£90,000 he spent on office staff wages out of the 140,000
i didnt like certain things he claimed for and i have made my feelings known too paul
a kitchen,bathroom,fur
niture,deoderising carpets,flooring,pai
nter & decorators,builders,
soap holder.all are in the expenses available online.
Gareth, Newport says...
5:55pm Mon 22 Jun 09
MPs are not going to pay their business costs out of their salaries. i don't and no other employer or employee does either. that would just create horrendous tax and revenue implications.
for the sake of argument, if that ever does happen, then you will have to take into account the cost of both their current salary plus the cost of offices, staff pay, travel, comms, VAT, business and personal taxes, NI, employers insurance and the rest of it.
what are we looking at there: £300k-£400k?
for the sake of argument, if that ever does happen, then you will have to take into account the cost of both their current salary plus the cost of offices, staff pay, travel, comms, VAT, business and personal taxes, NI, employers insurance and the rest of it.
what are we looking at there: £300k-£400k?
I'm a tory, much to the dismay of my trade unionist grandfather and socialist grandmother, but they have lost faith in the Labour Party - actually New Labour.
However I have much admiration for good politicians, whether it be Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner or Margaret Thatcher and Patrick Cormack. So yes I would love a debate Chris, when are you available in Starbucks? ;)
BTW, I am not so fond of the new Conservative party, and David Cameron has yet to gain my full support. Quite frankly I think he is another Blair, all talk no action.
Paul, I just realised that you may well know my grandparents they owned the video shop in Pontfaen about 20 years ago. Their names are John and Janet Tutt.
Cheers Grant.
Posted by: Grant T | June 24, 2009 at 01:22 AM
Thankyou Paul,
Grant if you're hoping for a debate you can be sure I'll give you one :), do you mind if I ask you if your leaning left or right Grant?
Posted by: Chris Carter | June 23, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Thanks Grant T. I appreciate your comments. Chris Carter, recently pictured here is 17 and a student at Bassaleg. There are youn people in the Labour Party. He is a splendid example.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | June 23, 2009 at 03:56 PM
I was tempted to show John Bercow your e-mail, KayTie, when I received it this afternoon on my Blackberry inthe Chamber. As he had introduced a fair number of innovations in his first hour, I had second thought. I will give at least a few more days to see how it goes.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | June 23, 2009 at 03:53 PM
"John Bercow will prove them wrong and become unassailable"
Shall we see whether he reprimands Gordon Brown for announcing Parliamentary reform on Radio 4's World At One today rather than coming to the House and telling the people directly affected by his proposals? You know, the very thing that John Bercow promised he'd stamp out?
If he gives Gordon a dressing down, compelling TV. If he doesn't, watch his new authority ebb before it had a chance to flow.
Posted by: Kay Tie | June 23, 2009 at 03:14 PM
I believe it's unprecedented for a large group of MPs to plot the downfall of a Speaker immediately after his election. This is what the Tories, the Mail and Telegraph are doing. John Bercow will prove them wrong and become unassailable
Posted by: Paul Flynn | June 23, 2009 at 07:47 AM
I can't believe the Mail and Telegraph and making such a fuss out of this. It doesn't matter what his political allegiences are, this role is above party politics, it's explicitally non-political. John Bercow, I am sure will make a fine speaker and it will be nice to see a fresh face in the Speakers chair. Lets hope he can rekindle some of the old fieriness of the chair, like Betty Bothroyd use to.
As for your expenses any normal honourable man or woman can see they are perfectly legit and you have done nothing wrong. The kind of people like "papa", are the last few workers at the telegraph expenses office, they have run out of all the big stories so are trying to make mountains out of molehills. Its as simple as that.
Posted by: Grant T | June 23, 2009 at 01:54 AM
"Now for the reforms."
Aye. Decision made. Let's see what happens. I hope it's some taming of the executive. Giving power to select committees. And making the Prime Minister answer questions at Prime Minister's Questions.
Posted by: Kay Tie | June 23, 2009 at 12:47 AM