CentreRight

Re: UKIP's flaw

JP,

I'm not particularly interested in a debate over the UKIP, but your case against pulling out of the European Union seems flawed.  This section is critical, as it is your empirical case that the EU will act against its economic interests and stop free trade between the EU and an independent UK:

"No, posturing against us would be the logical outcome of us pulling out.  Look at how they reacted to the Lisbon Treaty referenda.  Look at how they react to the Conservatives’ pulling out of the EPP.  Not conciliatory.  Not in their own economic interest."

In neither of those cases was there a significant economic interest at stake.  No one is going to lose their job because Barroso condemned the Conservatives leaving the EPP, or thanks to the eurocrats contempt for the views of Irish voters.

Of course, countries can act against their economic interests for the sake of some political goal.  However, if the UK were to leave, what would the political interest in attacking us be?

Our scepticism would no longer be a threat to ever greater union, and there would therefore no longer be a reason to punish it.  If they wanted us to return to the EU, the very worst thing the remaining EU members could do would be to lash out at the British public.

So your case, essentially, comes down to the idea that the remaining members would be stupid enough to lash out, in pride, at us, despite that being entirely counterproductive.  And, that they could sustain that position despite it adding to their already high levels of unemployment and making a lot of valuable voters poorer.

If you really think that the EU will act in that way.  I'm surprised you are willing to have anything to do with such an institution.  Surely that level of blind stupidity will also render them deaf to any calls for reform?

UKIP's flaw

UKIP’s flaw is the belief that EU countries will be queuing up to give us free trade access to their markets if we pull out.  I believe they would do quite the opposite. If we pull out they are very likely to start posturing and to refuse us free access.  Finding an enemy – perfidious Albion – would be a perfect deflection from their own economic failure.

The usual reply to this argument is that “it is in the EU countries’ own interest” to have free trade relations with us.  Their balance of trade with us is positive.  But that reply omits one crucial fact: continental Europe has not acted in the best economic interest of its citizens for the last fifty years.  Why would they start doing so now?  Because we ask them to?   

No, posturing against us would be the logical outcome of us pulling out.  Look at how they reacted to the Lisbon Treaty referenda.  Look at how they react to the Conservatives’ pulling out of the EPP.  Not conciliatory.  Not in their own economic interest.  For them unlike for us, the EU is a political project, not an economical one.

The Conservative position is a far more effective one than UKIP’s – while not risking to lose free trade if we achieve it.  If we can force a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, we all know how it will go.  That would stop the European superstate in its tracks.  Then we have the leverage to demand the repatriation of powers – such as social and employment legislation.  This has never been tried before.  Why risk 50% of our exports if we can achieve our goals in a much saner way?

The seductive Pythagorean madness of Proportional Representation

So, the seductive whispering of Fair Votes (I want to write Fair Votessssss) is upon the heavy summer air once more. What is Fair Votes? It's the disingenuous phrase developed by those in favour of replacing First Past The Post (FPTP; another stupid name) elections with those conducted under one of the myriad forms of proportional representation (PR). When the proponents of an argument make up a name for it, such that the name carries a sense of goodness in its English meaning, you have to be worried. Cf Human Rights Act. What sort of monster could be against rights for human beings? Or, indeed, votes which are fair? Grrrr [that's me being a monster]. One of the least-remarked upon streaks of intellectual dishonesty, taking place just now, is that the Fair Vote Advocators are taking advantage of anger with MPs to push their historically unpopular little agenda. If we are not careful we will find ourselves in a cultural position whereby opposition to PR is 'felt' - without the requirement to be spelled out, in black and white - to be a subliminal support for the current unethical system of expenses. 

Of course there's the irony, which would be delicious were its likely outcome not so horrendous, that the key advocators of PR are among the set of people who are now living in fear that the BNP will gain representation in the Euro Parliament, an outcome which, should it happen, would occur almost entirely as a result of the system of PR being used in those elections, a system which was inflicted on us by those same key advocators of PR. This is an unpleasant irony, though in and of itself is obviously not a reason to be for or against PR.

Underneath the smart suit is the same extreme message

I've written for the Yorkshire Post today about the NothingBritish.com campaign about the BNP:

"Lots of Britons are genuinely concerned about immigration. They are concerned that the Government has lost control of our borders. I share those concerns. I would vote for policies that deliver much stricter immigration controls but I'd never support the BNP. There is an ocean of difference between the perfectly respectable view that immigration is too high and the BNP's hateful view that non-whites should be shown the door regardless of how long they have lived here."

Open Field in the Speaker campaign

As I said last week, the way in which candidates for Speaker conduct their campaigns will speak volumes about their suitability for the job. Although MPs are the only electors in that vote it is imperative that candidates run their campaigns in the open, and make themselves and their ideas available for public scrutiny and support.

At that stage, Frank Field had already started to set out his stall and had announced his intention to publish his ideas. John Bercow published pieces in the Independent and Guardian the following day outlining his thoughts thus far. Ann Widdecombe is apparently prepared to be a temporary Speaker for the rest of this Parliament (she is due to retire then).  Nothing has been heard from any other potential prospects, so far as I am aware.

As he promised, Frank Field has now started to lay out his plans in more detail, with posts on his blog yesterday and today. Do read them: they are well-considered and radical, and have the potential to transform the power of our Parliament. Highlights include:

• Setting up a Government Budget Select Committee, with equal weight to the Public Accounts Committee. This is explicitly aimed at debt reduction.
• Establishing a House of Commons Business Committee to produce less but better legislation
• Requiring all non-emergency legislation to be preceded by a Green Paper, before presenting a draft Bill (by which time it is often too late to make significant changes), explaining why new legislation is required, identifying the costs it will impose, and inviting Select Committee involvement in drafting the Bill
• Devoting "what perhaps might be one or two days a week, to debating, deliberating, changing, and if need be, rejecting European legislation"
• Widespread use of open primaries to select candidates.

His whole approach shows that Frank Field has grasped the way in which this scandal is changing politics and must change Parliament. He wants, and deserves, to be our Speaker, not just the Speaker of the House of Commons. We should let our elected representatives know who we want.

Italians don't implement government regulation shocker

I've just returned from Rome and the Champions League Final.  CentreRight is not a blog about football so I won't say anything about the football except to congratulate Barcelona for a very well deserved win.

What I will say, however, is that the much publicised ban on alcohol by the Italian authorities was a complete failure.  I joined four others for lunch yesterday and the wine flowed.  Lager was being sold at the UEFA football festival sites.  Becks was being sold in caravans by the Olympic Stadium.  The bridges across the Tiber were full of enterprising Italians selling beer from ice boxes.  Back at the hotel I was offered a glass of champagne by celebrating Spaniards.

There remains a Messi-sized gap between what the Italian state decrees and what the Italian people do.  But, I guess, all ConHome readers knew that already.

President Obama should not be be criticising America's past actions

By Sally McNamara

In terms of heavyweight battles, political bouts come no bigger than former US Vice President Dick Cheney taking on President Barack Obama in Washington last week, with regard to national security issues. In a piece or pure political theatre, President Obama gave a lengthy speech at the National Archives in Washington DC, followed mere moments later by Vice President Cheney speaking at a downtown Washington think-tank in answer to the young President. The topic du jour was Guantanamo Bay, and chiefly, Obama’s claim that the Cuban prison and other Bush-Administration policies have left America less safe.

Among Obama’s earliest Presidential promises were pledges to close Guantanamo and end harsh interrogation practices. He has selectively released Bush-era memos detailing CIA interrogation tactics and banished the phrase “War on Terror” (in favour of “Overseas Contingency Operation.”) So far, the charismatic Obama has had it all his own way, but the straight-talking former Vice President responded with a no-nonsense appraisal of what the Bush administration did in the wake of 9/11 and why.

He detailed their strategic actions post 9/11, without apology, and said that he would not hesitate to take the same steps again. Even though his speech was distributed to the audience before Obama had delivered his, it provided an uncanny point-by-point answer to President Obama’s litany of criticisms and liberal hand-wringing.

For anyone who (contrary to all good sense) still needs convincing on how badly we need to renegotiate our relationship with the EU

... have a look at this.  The strap line says it all really:

The European Commission has seized on the financial crisis to bring the City under closer EU control and clip the wings of Britain's Financial Services Authority, unveiling far-reaching plans for a new EU regulatory machinery with binding powers.

In the maelstrom of expenses, we run the risk of missing stuff like this.

Hat tip: MCFLR

No more cuddly capitalism

If, like me,you didn't have the appetite to read about Julie's home life in today's Times, you might have turned to Carl Mortished's explanation of why it's all over for corporate social responsibility - as well as profligate government spending. In the age of austerity, he argues, newly-assertive shareholders demand a return on their investment and don't want their businesses spending money on environmental and diversity initiatives. The new imperative is to stay slim and efficient. It sounds tough, but it's a change in culture that might be welcomed by Britain's engines of growth: the small businesses and new start-ups who don't have the resources to pay for these kind of extras. A point picked up by that scourge of CSR, Irwin Stelzer in today's FT, who detects a shift in US policy away from protecting the big corporations and towards tougher anti-trust enforcement. As Stelzer has long argued, big business can live with heavy regulatory burdens, but if we want innovators to succeed, we have to give them a break or two. And surely the same goes for our public services - if we want to encourage innovative schools and healthcare providers then we mustn't saddle them with pointless bureaucracy and box-ticking. Lean doesn't have to be mean - in business or in government.

Lies on Lib Dem election literature

Here are extracts from two Lib Dem leaflets being distributed for the European elections. Exhibit A (in colour) is being delivered to homes in the East of England and Exhibit B (in black and white) is hitting the doormats of North Southwark and Bermondsey in London.

What they both show is that despite the elections being fought on a version of the Lib Dems' much loved proportional representation - where there is supposedly no such thing as a wasted vote - the Lib Dems are still trying to categorise the contests as two horse races.

Support a new online campaign for Aung San Suu Kyi

Today, Aung San Suu Kyi’s period of house arrest expires. The UN has already ruled that her continued detention violates both international and Burmese law. Yet instead of being freed, Burma’s democracy leader and Nobel Laureate is in prison, on completely false charges. She is nearing the end of a trial, the outcome of which has almost certainly been pre-determined by Burma’s ruling Generals. It is up to us to change that determination.

A major new online campaign went live today, to highlight Aung San Suu Kyi’s plight. It will run until 19 June, her 64th birthday, and is a campaign in which celebrities, politicians and members of the public – absolutely anyone – can post messages of support, 64 words long. People can also twitter 64 characters, or post a youtube message of 64 words. The website is www.64forsuu.org

The campaign has already received endorsements from the Prime Minister, and from top Conservatives. David Cameron posted a message saying:

“Aung San Suu Kyi is an inspiration to her country and to the world. Her plight symbolises the suffering of the people of Burma. For over 13 years, she has been unjustly imprisoned despite winning the elections in 1990. So as she marks her 64th birthday I call on Burma's Generals to release her, and to give the Burmese people the freedom they deserve.”

Shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell wrote:

“Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the most courageous and inspiring leaders in the world. We have a responsibility to do everything we can to ensure she is freed to play a part in Burma's future. She has a vital contribution to make to peace and reconciliation in Burma. The Generals must release her immediately, and engage in a meaningful process of dialogue.”

Support has also been received from numerous other high-profile individuals including George Clooney, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Vaclav Havel, David Beckham and Daniel Craig.

The campaign is backed by a coalition of organisations, including Burma Campaign UK, Amnesty International, the Trades Union Congress, Not On Our Watch, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Open Society Institute, Avaaz, English Pen and US Campaign For Burma.

Take a few minutes to post a message, a you-tube video or to twitter a “64” message, and let us hope that Aung San Suu Kyi will be given the freedom she deserves before her 64th birthday.

In BBC-land David Cameron is already Prime Minister

Over the past couple of weeks, David Cameron has been seizing the initiative in reacting to the MPs' expenses scandal and sounding more Prime Ministerial by the day.

And it would seem that the idea of David Cameron wielding the levers of power from Number Ten is already ingrained in the BBC psyche. The following excerpt appeared on a story on the BBC website about David Cameron's proposed parliamentary and constitutional reforms:

Douglas Carswell on defence

Speaking at a Reform 'Back to black' seminar today, Douglas Carswell MP discussed how to ensure that we get better value from our defence budet.  He explained how current procurement policy is failing our armed forces, and why we need more "off the shelf" procurement".

Watch Douglas argue that if there was only one chain of restaurants you would expect bad service and overcharging - the same applies for defence procurement:

He explains that defence procurement is not a suitable method of preserving jobs and claims it would have been cheaper to pay every Briton involved in building the new Apache helicopter a million pounds:

Hitting the Bottle

As weekends go, this Bank Holiday wasn’t the hottest on record.  But with temperatures soaring on Sunday beer sales will have shot up leaving many supermarket shelves empty…….and A&E departments overstretched as an ever growing number of patients were admitted to hospital with alcohol intoxication. 

Our report, Hitting the Bottle, estimates that alcohol excess this May Day Bank Holiday weekend cost the NHS £25 million and identifies alcohol misuse as one of the major public health epidemics of the 21^st century.  The scale of the problem is huge: 7.6 million people in England are drinking at hazardous levels; 2.9 million are showing evidence of harm to their own health, including 1.1 million people who have a level of alcohol addiction. Between 2001 and 2007, the direct costs to the NHS nearly doubled, increasing from £1.47 to £2.7 billion.  So what’s to be done?

 Well, first we need to recognise that people buy and consume alcohol in standard measures of drinks – pints and cans, bottles and glasses - and not by counting units displayed on packaging or calculated on a website.  If the ferociously complicated UK alcohol duty regime made this connection too then a reduction in overall alcohol consumption, and therefore alcohol-related harm, could be achieved with little or no detrimental effect to the profitability of the ‘drinks industry’.  Include in this phrase your favorite pub struggling to stay open in a recession.  

 We have proposed that duty should be cut on beer and cider where the alcoholic strength is less than, or equal to, 2 units per pint whereas duty should be raised for beer and cider where the alcoholic strength exceeds 2.5 units per pint.  If this simple measure could achieve a 1% abv reduction in the strength of the average pint of beer this  would reduce total pure alcohol consumption by about 10%.  Although it should be stressed that the complexity of the UK duty system is matched only by the EU drinks directive which hampers any form of progressive structure across all alcoholic products.

 But tackling alcohol misuse needs more than just re-thinking and re-structuring the (EU) duty system.  It needs better enforcement of existing legislation.  Our analysis shows that more people suffering with alcohol excess are now admitted to hospital than are dealt with by the police. That can’t be right.  So we’d also like to see more cautions and fines issued to those that are excessively drunk – to help prevent them turning up at accident & emergency later in the night - and then feed these people into ‘brief intervention’ alcohol education and awareness courses, as currently happens with speeding tickets.

There will inevitably be a small number of people that are admitted to hospital because they’re simply too drunk – because they’re abandoned face down in the gutter - and often they’re released home later the same day.  We believe these people should be charged the NHS tariff cost of their admission – as currently happens with road traffic accidents – but offered a reduced fee to cover the costs of participating in an alcohol education and awareness course.   Such ‘brief interventions’ are proven to reduce both alcohol consumption and future healthcare costs.  

Henry Featherstone is Head of Health & Social Care at Policy Exchange.

Will the Conservatives hold a retrospective referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

In his speech this morning, David Cameron said that:

"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending."

The pledge to hold a referendum wasn't accompanied by the qualification that such a referendum will only occur if the treaty is not already in place. That is quite an omission and, in such an important speech, a strange thing to leave out by mistake or to save time.

Is the Conservative Party moving towards a more robust opposition to the Lisbon Treaty? Are they committing themselves to a retrospective referendum on the Treaty, just like Harold Wilson held a retrospective referendum on Common Market membership?

MPs Expenses in the Light of History

If anyone was to ask what the defining political debate of the moment is, it would be hard for them to answer anything other than MP's expenses.

Personally, I am not in favour of larger salaries and an end to expenses. I think we need more openness, but the need for a second home is fundamentally sound and there should be an allowance for it. However, this has been abused by some and they should be punished for doing so. 

But others have said this already. The truth is that, sadly for bloggers and pundits of all types, there is not much new to be said after two and a half weeks of coverage, beyond yet more expressions of astonishment at the crassness of some of our elected representatives.

Elsewhere on ConHome, today, Tim Montgomerie has written on Michael Gove's desire to see more children learn British history in our schools. I read history at university and believe it to be invaluable in applying the lessons of the past to the present. By chance, an email arrived in my inbox over the weekend concerning Oliver Cromwell, that united these two strands of thought on MP's expenses and the light that history can shine.

Oliver Cromwell, like me, used to live in Ely. Unlike me, he had something new to say when faced with the sight of MP's gorging themselves on the contents of the public purse.

Oliver Cromwell's Speech on the Dissolution of the Long Parliament
Given to the House of Commons
20 April 1653

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? 

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!

So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

Disappearing for 48 hours

Jonathan is now in charge of ConHome for 48 hours. Please email him with any business.  I'm not even going to look at this website for 48 hours. The last time I completely left things behind was in 2007!  I'm off to Rome for the Champions League Final courtesy of the most expensive EasyJet air ticket in world history.  It's the Vatican tomorrow morning, a lunch feast with some fellow supporters and then it's off to the Man Utd v Barcelona match.  Manchester United have never lost when I've worn my lucky shoes and so I'm predicting victory.  See you on Friday!

North Korea’s latest nuclear test is a desperate act designed for domestic appeasement

North Korea’s latest nuclear test is a desperate act designed for domestic appeasement rather than foreign belligerence. There are a number of factors essential to the stability of the regime and all have contributed directly or indirectly to the decision to conduct a second nuclear test:

Uncertainty in the search for a successor to Kim Jong-il (The Dear Leader)

In August 2008 Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke and was not seen in public for six months. When he re-appeared the fact that Kim had visibly lost weight and looked frail and this will have led to concerns in the upper echelons of the North Korean leadership that he may be perceived domestically and internationally as weak. Weakness would be seen as a serious threat to continuity of the regime. There are clear signs that this is leading to a vigorous internal power struggle between Kim Jong-il and the military.

Kim Jong-il may seeking to position one of his two eldest sons as successor, whilst the establishment favourite remains Jang Song-taek, Kim Jong-il’s brother-in-law.  In January there was a major re-shuffle with at least nine cabinet ministers replaced. Last week Choe Sung-chol, a senior figure in North Korea's Workers Party of Korea, was executed for promoting better relations with South Korea--all signs that hardliners are consolidating their grip.

An honest BNP leaflet

Last week Danny Finkelstein exposed how a BNP leaflet portraying "typical Britons" was in reality a leaflet full of foreign actors. Daily Bread has turned the leaflet into something more honest. Click on the image to enlarge...

Ex / pensive

You know that common-place assertion that one of the remarkable features of Jane Austen's novels is their failure to mention the Napoleonic wars? I read an essay by, I think, Margaret Atwood, which made the compelling point that Austen's failure to mention any political fallout of the tumultuous upset on the continent, other than by featuring a succession of military officers in romantic roles, is one of the keys to understanding her essentially Tory worldview. Well maybe.

I've been meaning to post onto CentreRight for days now, my head is full of stuff: about the Kirk in Scotland; about a book I've just re-read and what its author says about love; about a random act of beauty witnessed in the London Fields park on a sunny Friday afternoon, shortly before a random act of violence at the edge of the same park led to the death of another Hackney child in the early hours of Saturday morning. But any points to be made about any of these matters must, it strikes me, be of almost no general interest at the moment, as is the case for any political topic which isn't directly to do with the revolution sweeping the House of Commons.

If you were ever kind enough to be mildly curious about why I'm so grateful to be allowed to write here, it's because I think it may be important to try to shine a small light onto the politics of the everyday. I confess to no grand theory (other than love) and in fact distrust those who claim to have such a bigger picture, a phrase I detest. But the light from my shaky, amateur torch cannot begin to compete with the black hole of the Westminster carcrash, which is sucking every other story into its maw. Once light enters a black hole, of course, it never again escapes, and I wonder just how many topics, of perhaps national import, are being sucked in too, never to be seen again; topics, perhaps, which are being aired now precisely because their authors feel that they will escape proper public attention. 

Sir Simon

Watching ITV's Britain's Got Talent last night, I was confirmed in my view that Simon Cowell should be regarded as providing a vital public service. He should even be accorded the status of national treasure.

During this time of political and economic crisis, this show is the most effective booster of national morale we have. The clue is in the title: Britain. The set is unashamed in its use of the Union flag. The prize for the winning act is the chance to sing in front of the Queen. It has the feel of an old-fashioned variety show, and generates a warm kind of patriotism. The participants are young and old, black, white and Asian. It is inclusive. It shows people trying and maybe failing, but it is mostly good-natured. It showcases odd little skills that people have mastered, as well as fruitcakes. Choirs and groups of dancing mini-majorettes remind one that round the country, people put in time to go to practise classes to perfect activities which often go unnoticed. And thank God, there is no overlay of distancing irony. It is, right now,  the most important use of culture in its widest sense. The arts establishment, so exercised now by the need to show the importance of culture in a recession, must look on with a bit of envy, and wonder how they do it.

There is something else too. Cowell is regularly reviled for the supposedly heartless way in which he punctures the illusions of the hundreds of contestants who come before his various panels, convinced that their God-given creativity is going to take them to the top. But he should instead be congratulated for his refusal to ingratiate and patronise.

Nadine Dorries

I was simply aghast as I read the comments on Tim's post over on ToryDiary about the Telegraph's battle with Nadine Dorries.  I wrote the following as a comment there, and I repeat it here for those followers of CentreRight who might not have scrolled through the tons of posts there.

 ---

To me, it is quite unbelievable that people with a national newspaper on hand as their voice think it appropriate to react to an online blog in this way. Indeed, their newspaper has, for the last 16 days (and counting) demonstrated the power that it can wield in our political environment. If they feel that they've been wronged, have it out - trying to squash Nadine rather than debate her seems absurdly heavy-handed.

Moreover, I think that there is a great deal to be said for the airing of her comments about this business more generally, for example:

* I'm sure that there IS a "depths of despair" attitude amongst our parliamentarians at present, and I think it useful to have the insights she offers into it.

* I think it right that we should know that MPs think (or at least this MP thinks) that the Fees Office (or whoever) colluded with / encouraged MPs to enter large claims.

* I think it significant that MPs think (or at least this MP thinks) that the media knew about the "it's really just part of our pay" attitude held by many MPs and let it slide.

for these reasons, and for basic (and, it seems from this thread, hitherto undiscussed) reasons of freedom of speech, I deplore the shutting down of this outlet of information. We keep saying we want to know what MPs are thinking - one tells us, and gets shut down - why aren't we up in arms on her behalf?

And finally I have to say that I'm firmly on the side of those who find the online vitriol poured upon this passionate and determined member of our Party quite unbelievable.

MPs must stop the self-justification and focus on reform

Dear Nadine,

I read in your article in The Independent today your reference to a conversation we had earlier in the week. You wrote:

“At a drinks party the other night, I put it to the YouGov founder Stephan Shakespeare that MPs prior to my intake had been told for many years that the ACA was in lieu of pay. ‘Yes, we have all known that,’ said Stephan. ‘The question is how do you move forward, what will be put in its place?’ When Stephan said ‘we all’, what he meant was the political and media establishment. The BBC knew it. Every journalist knew it.”

The impression this gives is that I have sympathy for the use of the ACA as a form of supplementary income. I don’t. I think it should be there to pay for the genuine additional costs of doing the job of an MP, and that’s all. The fact that everyone knew how it was being used doesn’t make it ok. This is what the MPs just don’t seem to be able to understand, and what your article shows you still don’t understand: the public does not think this is right. No amount of self-justification changes this. It’s all very understandable on the human level. Had I been elected an MP when I stood in 1997, I might have done exactly the same. But it’s still wrong.

Perspectives from the frontline

Having just returned from a three day campaign tour of the West Midlands for the upcoming Euro and local elections - visiting a car factory, two mosques, numerous shopping centres, knocking on hundreds of doors and attending campaign meetings with various candidates it has given me fresh perspectives on the current political crisis.

After two weeks of avidly watching the expenses gate saga unfold in the newspapers it was refreshing to get out on the doorsteps and realise that the great British voters hold more nuanced perspectives than the media gives them credit for:

Here are my three reflections from the front line:

1. Voters are very angry but they are also confused - not knowing what to do with their vote.  A protest vote will be uneven and temporary.

Contrary to widespread media speculation - the evidence I found was that alongside the deep anger and frustration with politicians voters are not embracing the minor parties in a consistent way. My impression was that people understand the main three parties are the only conceivable parties of government locally and nationally and they realise  that minor parties do not offer a real solution to the crisis. Yes, they want the mess sorted out; they want to see MPs who have made dodgy claims get their comeuppance but the notion that we will see hundreds of BNP and UKIP Cllrs or MEPs emerging is unlikely - their share of the vote will increase this time but this will be a temporary phenomena.  

This is not to say I think there is room for any complacency. It will be different everywhere but people can see the opportunism of the BNP and UKIP and it is politicians in general they are fed up with - the BNP and UKIP, alongside their obvious substantive flaws on policy , are not perceived to be any better than Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative.

The prescient Mark Field MP

"The constant refrain in newspaper coverage is that “there is no suggestion any rules have been broken”.  This surely is the point – the regulations surrounding payment of allowances and expenses remain far too vague and need transparent tightening."

"A culture of cynicism has grown up with an understanding that some of the burgeoning allowances could be siphoned off as the equivalent of salary."

"The public recognise that these sorts of allowances should be properly designed to cover the additional costs of living in London.  No mortgage interest payments.  No re-mortgaging at will.  No pocketing of capital gains on the sale of a tax-payer funded second home.  No payment of additional monthly grocery and food bill.  All of the aforementioned are surely the purpose of a basic salary."

Mark Field MP didn't write these things yesterday or last month but last July.  Read his full piece here.