After the year from hell, we in the Labour Party will take comfort from any source.
It's a telling lesson that today's poll showing Labour six points ahead is a great boost. It means my seat in Newport West is relatively safe. It has been won twice before with similar figures. Nationally it could be a hung parliament.
The Tories needs five points more than Labour to secure more MPs than Labour. This is an unfairness in the electoral system. It was no surprise when John Major gave evidence to PASC, the top reform on his wish list was to re-arrange constituency boundaries. David Cameron's plans to reduce the number of Welsh seats will also benefit the Tories.
We would take their demands for democratic reforms more seriously if they did not have the stamp of self-interest gerrymandering about them.
It may be a fluke poll today. But it's nice while it lasts.
Transformed
It was one of the ugliest building in London. It stood at the exit of the Waterloo Eurostar station near St Thomas's hospital. It was a dreadful example of the concrete brutalism architecture of the sixties. It had stood empty and derelict for a decade. I suggested once that it was one of the few buildings in the country, the appearance of which was improved by flyposting.
It has now gone and been replaced by this sparkling example of current building fashion. It's certainly a great improvement. I pass it on my way to parliament from Vauxhall every morning. It raises my spirits.
Another fine sight is the glittering Big Ben. We take this wonder for granted. It's a fantastic piece of Victorian extravagant decoration.
A curiosity on my route is a building with a ship emerging from it. Was it once a decoration for a merchant navy head quarters? There is no sign of any link now with the sea.
Pontoons?
There was an answer in the war to fallen bridges.
the army were quickly on the scene to erect temporary pontoon bridges in their places. Do they still exist?
Im not sure I'm standing in judgement here but what I would say is that if I had tried to claim expenses for my work in the way a number of MP's has done
a) I would have been fired
b) I would have been prosecuted with no option to pay it back
So even if people have done cash in hand deals they know that there is a risk of being caught - a very small risk for most things but there is a risk
And from a previous experience dealing with HMRC after my employer make an underpayement on tax they came looking for me - and I had two weeks to pay or I would have been taken to court
So the leaders of our nation possibly should set an example in the way they behave? I think so
Posted by: Tony | November 24, 2009 at 08:47 AM
I am sympathetic with that Patrick. I wonder how many of those satnding in judgement have ever paid 'cash in hand' for something.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM
It is an intrinsic part of human nature to be selfish, greedy and corrupt.
Parliament can only ever reflect the society it is made up from.
The biggest shock regarding expenses is that people are.
Posted by: Patrick | November 23, 2009 at 09:15 PM
I also never said you had - but there seems to have a complete failure of moral compass (to paraphrase GB) here and the reason I think that the Telegraph published the details of Dinsmore is that he was put on a committee looking after this whole issue for MP's- now thats either very dumb or very arrogant ..
I think you do understand the anger at this whole affair but I think a large number of curent MP's don't, and come the election they are going to get a nasty shock
Posted by: Tony | November 23, 2009 at 08:48 PM
"I have NOT flipped or claimed for two London homes"
Didn't say you had. Just that the "within the rules" defence we've come to hear tiresomely from those who have is bogus.
Posted by: Kay Tie | November 23, 2009 at 01:25 PM
I have NOT flipped or claimed for two London homes Kay Tie but Andrew Dismore is not alone. About 150 MPs did. Neither Legg or Kelly has asked them to pay back. They were encouraged to do it. Andrew Dismore is one a parliaments most active and effective MPs. In the six year period he was entitled to claim £120,000 on this allowance. His claims were smaller, I believe, than the average London MPs. the Telegraph are having a go at him because he is on the Standards Committee.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | November 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
"I know what the rules said"
Actually, the rules say:
"Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else"
So it's utter bollocks to say "within the rules" as a defence against flipping and fiddling.
Posted by: Kay Tie | November 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM
On the question of the Dismore (and Curry ..)
As I understand it both homes are in London - so why is it, that regardless if what the flipping rules were, he thought it right that the public should fund two houses for someone who lived within 10 miles of parliament - I know what the rules said but somewhere do you wonder if the idea might have flickered 'is it right for me to claim like this' ?
This just perpetuates the MP's expenses problems, doing further damage all the time and in the end threatens our democracy because you will turn people off because they will have little or no respect
Posted by: Tony | November 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM