Lack of Zac Answering Hack

I have spent a lot of time in Richmond Park and Kingston North, being a Kingston graduate I actually did a training run around the Park for a start.

Of course at the local MP recently became the billionaire Zac Goldsmith. He has questions to answer about his expenses in the 23 days before the campaign. So he came into Channel 4 News studio to answer those questions. It appears that he spend all this time merely asking why he wasn't allowed in to the studio earlier. Not getting on to the questions that are the height of the issue.

It is absolutely car crash TV. It is the absolute avoidance of the issue. It is a sham there clearly is something there to hide because he spends so much time talking over Jon Snow. The fact is that he doesn't even know the difference between the long and the short campaign.



BTW standard across the country for council and general election campaigns on the same day is two sided posters one side for the GE candidate one for the council candidate.

Also the jackets are a capital cost brought in for this campaign. Yes if they get used in further campaigns there is a usage cost entailed, but that is for future campaigns and only if said items get used (for example Corex posters). All of that is very clear in the guidelines and only becomes complicated when people try to hide election costs.

See also Alex Folkes asks some pertinent questions about the rants about re-use.

As for the Trikes apparently "they cost 2p a mile, they can take passengers, carry leaflets and they are surprisingly fast." They were also embossed in Back Zac and Tory. How do I know? Zac told us here. So surely if they are doing all that there has to be some cost involved not none.
Also if they are so good at delivering leaflets it seems a shame that so many were wasted doing away all the greeness of their use.

***BREAKING*** Could Eric Ilsley Prove the First Subject of Recall

When the Liberal Conservative Government actually gets down to making new acts they will include the one that enables the right to recall an MP who has been proven of wrong doing.

This morning's news makes one wonder if Barnsley Central MP Eric Ilsley may be the unfortunate to make the history books as the first MP to face the public's right to recall. He has been called before Westminster Magistrates Court just like his former Labour colleagues Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Elliot Morely along with Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield on the 17 June for dishonestly claiming council tax and other household bills on his second home in London.

An SNP MP Will Cut Your Local Voice

The SNP are standing as they say at this election your local champions, saying that more Nats will get a stronger voice in Westminster. However, one of the answers from our local SNP candidate throws serious doubt on their ability to achieve that.

One of the questions asked at the Linlithgow hustings last night was is £180,000 in expenses an appropriate amount for an MP. This was £7,000 short of the greatest amount our Labour MP had claimed when he was the UKs most expensive member.

As I pointed out none of the four of us sat at the table would have a say in what was the appropriate limits of your MP's expenses from now on, or on their salaries, this was a matter for an independent commission.

Before me however Tam Smith plucked a figure of £60,000 out of the air. He was going to save money by not running a local constituency office and only holding one surgery a week. It would also appear from that amount that he would be hard pressed to employ more than one member of staff whether that was at Westminster or locally to help him out. He had already agreed with me that answering all the election correspondence by yourself was a time consuming matter, so one wonders just how he would survive on such a tight self imposed restriction.

There are ways to save money under the independent expenses cap and I will be aiming to do that. Booking travel tickets well in advance to save money. Looking for London accommodation that is accessible from Westminster but not necessarily within walking distance of the Commons where rents*are extortionate. So that would be somewhere that is within cycling distance, having cycled in London as a student I know that things have improved since then. I'll also use panniers to carry my papers etc not a chauffeur driven car like David Cameron.

Yes there is a limit, but that is not what you should spend to. You can be frugal within the rules and within the limits and that is what I aim to do if elected. But you also need to provide a suitable level of service to your constituents.

That is why if I am elected on May 6th I will also run a local office. Just the one mind, I don't agree with Michael Connarty that you need two to be able to deal with two different council areas, two health boards, two police authorities etc. You merely need staff that are able to pinpoint which part of the constituency someone is in and deal with the correct authority. I think it is important to have a staffed local office so that local constituents do not have to call a London or mobile phone number to get hold of you during working hours.

What Tam is looking to do is cut the service you would receive from an MP if he were elected, rather than aim to give you value for money. He is also going to be cutting the effective voice of local people.

* Yes under the new rules I would have to rent once elected, no more buying of second homes.

Legal Aid for MP Fraudsters - They 'Aving a Laff

I just cannot believe the audacity of Livingston's Jim Devine, Scunthorpe's Elliot Morley and Bury North's David Chaytor. Not only are they still saying that their fraudulent accounting on their expenses is above the law of the land but on their salariesthey will be claiming legal aid to take the hearing through the magistrates court about why they shouldn't be tried in a court in what are expected to be the days before and of the General Election 4-6 May.

The MPs' QC is apparently charging 150 hours at £250 an hour and £1000 a day for the days in court, just for the hearing where they claim that they should not be tried in a court at all. That is a total of £40,500 or £13,500 each or the equivalent of 21% of their gross salary. In terms of someone on a minimum wage working a 37.5 hr week that is the equivalent of £2428.34 in court costs, if say they were caught fraudulently claiming benefits whilst holding down that job.

Legal Aid is there to help the poor deal with cases they need. This case is raised by the MPs to try and avoid a further court case looking at the actual crime itself being heard in the courts of the land. This money is being spent by them to try and prove that they are above the law. A defence that has sounded hollow since it was first issued from their lips.

They surely have got to be having a laugh, only please don't do so at the tax payers expense, you've tried that once and have been caught out.

MPs' Day In Court

Today is the day that Jim Devine, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield are meant to walk around the corner from the Palace of Westminster to Westminster Magistrates Court to answer charges of false accounting relating to their expenses. I say meant to because Devine was too ill according to his doctor to appear before an employment tribunial yesterday.

It comes the day after it was announced that another Labour MP Harry Cohen is also to be investigated further by the police. The four appearing today The face charges of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum sentance for such an offence is 7 years in prision.

MPs Can Travel by First Class Rail...

If Sir Nicholas Winterton wants to travel up to Macclesfield in a first class carriage he is more than entitled to do so. This is after all a free country and we protect people's liberties. Of course the fact that "They are a totally different type of people" would not entirely endear him to the masses of potential voters who inhabit standard seats, or the future voters running up and down the aisle, who will all still be children when Sir Nicholas retires this year.

Of course some of his other arguments for coming down from Macclesfield do not make a lot of sense, so maybe he really is out of touch. I didn't for example realise that the greater Macclesfield metropolis extended far enough for local councillors to have the option to travel first class between their ward and the council offices. I really must try and stay awake next time I travel through on the train, I've clearly missed vast swathes of Macclesfield, and another mainline station.

He can overcome the being unable to get a seat by that wonderful convenience of a reservation, it is small extra amount he'd have to pay to guarantee the seat of his choosing, then he would "always get a seat" in standard if he wanted. I believe this reservation system has been around almost since the advent of the first steam trains. Wonderful what you can do these days.

As for peace and quiet I believe there is a quiet coach in standard on the Macclesfield to London trains so he could reserve a seat in there if he wishes. Just woe betide him if he starts up him laptop not in quiet mode and the Microsoft ident whistles out around the coach.

Although as I said should he, or any other MP, still be desirous to travel by first class they should be allowed to do so. Buy a standard ticket, and keep the receipt, and then purchase the upgrade that many of he rest of us do if we are a particular long journey.

As I said we live in a free country and the option is there for them to do so, just don't expect us to pick up the tab for that desire to be a class apart.

This Letter Will Never Be Writ

Inspired by this comment on Brian Taylor's blog but I don't think we'll see this letter on Holyrood headed paper anytime soon at all.

Mr James Devine

I refer to my above named constituent and the case brought against his for theft by false accounting.

I have been aware of Mr Devine's case since May 2009 when he sought assistance from me after a publication of his shelving requirements was published in the Daily Telegraph. It was clear at the time that he recognised the serious nature of the matter he was facing and that it would be necessary to report himself to the police to prove his innocence, and that he had not obtained the money unlawfully.

For a number of years Mr Devine has suffered from low self-esteem mainly associated with his predecessor; he has a office staff, including a job under five years old; and he is heavily involved in the community. All of these aspects of his life have been significantly impacted upon by the mistake he has made.

Mr Devine has denied his wrongdoing and has experienced the consequences of through the loss of his job and withholding of his severance pay, the distress caused to his office staff and his standing in his community. He has advised me that he was merely shifting the £5,500 from his stationary account to his staffing account and has said, since he first sought my advice, that he will sell his interest in his property in London to settle back in Scotland.

He and his, well ok maybe not his office staff, are anxious that a custodial sentence may be imposed by the court and of the further affect this will have on Mr Devine's wealth and the impact on his personal life. I would appeal to the court to take the points raised here into account and consider alternatives to a custodial sentence.

Yours faithfully,

Angela Constance MSP
Member for Livingston

Dave Yor're Part of the Institution Too

David Cameron launched an attack on Gordon Brown yesterday that may well be misconceived; He said:

"There is no chance Gordon Brown will do what is right and put the public interest before his own political interests. He cannot reform the institution because he is the institution: he made it. The character of his Government — secretive, power-hoarding, controlling — is his character.

"For the health of our democracy it is now essential that this shameless defender of the old elite goes as soon as possible."

Of course given the chance to vote on expenses reforms in 2008 twenty one of his own MPs voted against such reform. As Mark Pack points out their excesses were above the average for Westminster.

Only one party in 2008 voted for radical reform. Only one party said that the institutions were wrong and needed changing. It wasn't the Tories either it was the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives and David Cameron have hopped unto the bandwagon only because they have been caught with their fingers in the till. While the Liberal Democrats saw that the temptation was there and too great for some and wanted to take the sweetie jar away and make it more transparent just what was being claimed for and why.

You only have to look at David Cameron's promises on inheritance tax, he promises to provide free personal care if you can afford £8,000 on retirement to enter his insurance scheme, to see that he is as much part of the institution as he claims Gordon is. In his case it is pandering to the elite but it still part of the machine that has existed for too long.

Busy Week in Court for Devine

Earlier this week it was announced that on 11 March Livingston Jim Devine will have to appear in Westminster Magistrates Court to make his initial appearance over his alleged expenses theft. However, from the Daily Record 8-10 March he will be in Court in Edinburgh for a review of the unfair dismissal case against him from his former office manager Marion Kinley.

The initial finding over unfair dismissal found that Devine had failed to file forms correctly. There does appear to be a trend there for his week in court. Ms Kinley who was the MPs between June 2006 and October 2008 claimed she only received £60 petrol money for the two years that she drove Devine around the constituency, his expense claims show he received more from the Fees Office. Devine himself had asked for the review just as he himself referred his expenses to the police.

So Devine will go from facing allegations of harassment and bullying from his former employee one day to claims about his expenses the next. Not necessarily going to be a good week for the former psychiatric nurse. Certainly going to be a stressful and full on though.

Meanwhile the latest defence from Devine over his expenses is that he was moving money between his various accounts. He said:

"The false receipt would be if the £5,500 was going into my pocket. It was about moving money about in my accounts. In my innocence, I was told that was acceptable."

"The stationery was for paying for leaflets and moving money from one account to another. We had run out of money in the staffing account and had a lot of money in the communications account.

"We have four separate accounts – London living allowance, a staffing allowance, a communication budget and an office budget – and you can move money around these accounts.

"We were moving money from the communications budget to the staffing budget."

"I was advised by a whip that I could do this … an individual in the whip's (office] who said you could move money about like this. I was told that was acceptable. Nobody queried it."

Now a former local party treasurer running multiple accounts I have never heard the need to claim a receipt from a third party to move funds, especially as the receipt was to gain money from another third party, the fees office. All you have to do is keep a track of the transfer of money between accounts for the annual returns under PPERA 2000 requirements.

What he has just admitted to is that you had run out of money in the staffing account and therefore were using another part of Government allowance to cover the short fall. Devine therefore has paid out more in staff allowances than he is allowed too, apparently claimed falsely in a separate area in which he can claim.

He is also admitted to paying for leaflets out of his communications allowance. Now his annual report would have been covered under such an allowance but electioneering leaflets would not have been a legitimate claim under his communications allowance. If he has misspoken on what he was claiming for and it was his annual report, maybe Devine should learn to keep his mouth shut. However, if it was a slip from the facade of being doing things by the book he continues to open up whole other cans of worms with every defence he throws out into the public domain.

Hat tip to Jonathan Calder at Liberal England.

Clegg and Cameron Say No Privilege Defence: Brown Silent

Nick Clegg and David Cameron, leaders of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties respectively, have agreed that the three MPs facing criminal charges over their expenses should not claim privilege as a defence. Cameron said he was disgusted and Clegg that the public would be outraged if Elliot Morely, David Chaytor and Jim Devine used their stated 1689 Bill of Rights defence of privilege.

While Cameron is saying he will say more at a press conference on Monday Nick Clegg speaking at the Welsh Lib Dem conference said:

"Lawmakers shouldn't be above the law and they should not be invoking 17th century conventions in order to avoid paying their expenses".

However, the Prime Minister has been quiet on the specifics neither distance himself from the individuals or offering support. He been talking generically:

"We have taken the action necessary to clean up politics, but I am determined now to reconnect Parliament and the public, to bring politics back to the people. It's their Parliament, not ours.

"This expenses scandal has been a scar on democracy and has done great damage to the reputation of parliament. We are putting the discredited old system behind us and I want to see the new system in place as soon as possible."

He went on to talk about his Alternative Vote proposal as his trump card to clean up this mess. The fact that he is having a daily attendance allowance rather than an itemised, individual, receipt based expenses system shows that he has failed to understand the public's desire for transparency for their MPs.

As Mark Thompson pointed out our electoral system does appear to have some contribution to play in these scandals, he's also pointed how how disproportional AV is and would actually have returned Labour a bigger majority in 1997. Hardly a way to replace a discredited system with one that can be manipulated just as much by the party machinery to get their way.

MPs, the Law and a Thin Privileged Line

In their statement yesterday MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine said:

"We maintain that this is an issue that should be resolved by the parliamentary commissioner, who is there to enforce any breach of the rules."

However, the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided they they should be charged under the 1968 Theft Act. Keir Starmer in his statement said:

"We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court."

So what is it that the court feel they can do that the MPs are saying is protected by Parliamentary Privilege in the 1689 Bill of Rights?

First all the charges made against them are for the crime of gaining money/property by deception. What is the issue is that they appear to have claimed payments under false documentation. Morely was claiming for a mortgage on a property that the mortgage was already fully paid, Chaytor rent on a property he owned and rent on a property from his mother. Chaytor and Devine also used false receipts to claim services.

Should such claims be protected by the same right that gives MPs the freedom of speech to say what they need to in the Chamber of the House of Commons without fear of prosecution to do the job they are responsible for? Hugh Tomlinson QC, at Matrix chambers thinks not saying:

"MPs don't enjoy any kind of immunity from the ordinary criminal law. It seems to me that any privilege arguments are unlikely to be successful because the alleged offences are in substance just ordinary criminal offences. They are no different from the kind of offences any member of the public could also be accused of through their work."

Tomlinson acted in the 2008 case where MPs failed to prevent information about their expenses being released under Freedom of Information legislation. He added:

"Once legislation which applies to parliament has been enacted, MPs cannot and could not reasonably expect to contract out of compliance with it, or exempt themselves, or be exempted from its ambit."

That ruling looked at the Bill of Rights element on privilege "for words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in parliament". It decided that privilege serves to "avoid any risk of interference with free speech in parliament" and also preserves "the principle of the separation of powers, which … requires the judiciary not to interfere with, or to criticise, the proceedings of the legislature".

But this is not the proceedings of the legislature that is the issue, this is the dealings of individuals. As Tomlinson said this comes under the remit of ordinary criminal law.

If that is the case why weren't warrants issued, the MPs and Peer taking to their local police station read their charges, finger printed and DNA profiled like common criminals? Instead they were (at least Devine was) appearing on every TV station possible claiming his innocence. Yesterday's inaction may turn out to be the full extent of the Parliamentary privilege that they end up receiving.

The Not Given Interview from Jim Devine

At the end of their joint statement moments after the charges against them were announced the three Labour MPs Jim Devine, Elliot Morley and David Chaytor said they would not be available for media interviews.

However, that must mean that Devine's interviews with Sky News and the BBC didn't happen. So people didn't hear this

"I'm absolutely distraught and astonished at the decision that has been taken today. It is noticeable that there's no reference to shelving, there's no reference to mileage ... and some two new charges have been brought, both of which ... I will explain in court.

"I have just learnt two minutes ago what the allegation is. I think it is bizarre that I have been treated in this way. Tactically I've probably made a mistake because at the very beginning I referred myself to the police. The police have been through every single one of my receipts. In the Legg report yesterday other people have paid money back. If there is a problem – and I don't think there is a problem – why wasn't I given the opportunity to pay back?

"It's striking that the main allegations that were made against me were ones that I referred myself to the police for; they are not the ones that I'm being charged with."

What does strike me is Jim's pointed comment that there was no reference to shelving and no reference to mileage. Is that therefore an admission of guilt on the part of the disgraced Livingston MP? Don't worry I'm sure his Labour replacement as candidate Graeme Morrice will come up with something about Jim having to be in residential streets during the working day clearing this dirt from his name and not on the major locations doing the work for as many of Livingston as possible.

Also see: Still not not-giving interviews, Jim Devine appeared on Channel 4 News this evening, see it courtesy of Rantin Rab.

From Astonished to Devastated

Jim Devine, Livingston's soon to be ex-MP foretold he would be 'astonished' is he faced criminal charges. After the event he actually says he is 'absolutely devastated'. His is accused of "dishonestly claiming" money for cleaning services and for stationery using false invoices.

Maybe he should put that crystal ball about his own reactions back on the shelf. If only he can find it....the shelf that is.

This post has been sent via email therefore spacing and fonts may not appear at my usual standard. Also there may be links to other relevant blog entries or other content added later today along with adding the correct tagging.

***Breaking*** 'Astonished' Livingston MP Jim Devine Facing Criminal Charges

Earlier today Livingston MP Jim Devine (pictured left) said he would be "astonished" if he were to face criminal charges from the Criminal Prosecution Service over his expenses.

Well to his astonishment but not many of his constituents that is just what has been announced. Along with Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield he is being charged under the Theft Act.

Director of Public Prosecution Karl Starmer said:

"In four cases, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges and that it is in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned.

"Accordingly, summonses in these cases have been obtained from the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court and will now be served on the individuals in question."

I will return to this story through the day as the news unravels.

UPDATE: See more here and here.

Goldie Fingers

She wants public sector workers who earn over £18,000 to have their pay frozen.

She wants government agencies to cut back on "non-essential" spending.

Yet she has been claiming £10,000 in first class travel between Edinburgh and Bishopton in Renfrewshire

Of course she doesn't really care what you think saying that David Cameron can get by without support in Scotland.

Step forward Annabel Goldfingers.

Parliamentary Privilege v Freedom of Information

The latest ploy by three disgraced MPs is to claim that their expenses claims over which they are facing prosecution are protected under Parliamentary Privilege under the 1689 Bill of Rights. Not surprising amongst there number if Livingston MP Jim Devine as well as Elliot Morley and David Chaytor.

The heart of their claim is that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is "privileged" and shouldn't be open to scrutiny of the courts. The sad thing is that the three of these MPs using this argument just shows the people that MPs are trying to hide behind ancient rights instead of being open to public scrutiny, the end result being that they appear privileged in the wrong way as people who think they can spend what they want, without being subject to what they end up claiming.

Under the Freedom of Information Act which supersedes the Bill of Rights surely the releasing of MPs expenses comes under this. However, the three of them are retaining the Labour party's solicitors Steel & Shamash at their own expense. The firm have confirmed that they have instructed the QCs Nigel Pleming and Edward Fitzgerald to consider whether Morley, Chaytor and Devine should be protected by parliamentary privilege.

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker says however:

"Parliamentary privilege exists to safeguard democracy, not to subvert it.

"It certainly does not exist to allow MPs to rip off the taxpayer with impunity. Whether or not these MPs have committed a crime, they should not be allowed to subvert the court process with arcane technicalities that threaten further to undermine the standing of parliament."

The article of the Bill of Rights that the MPs are attempting to use in their case is that "Proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court." Their QCs are claiming that this definition of proceedings applies to the "green book" of rules on expenses, and by extension to the expenses claims themselves.

However, as this latest claim and the MPs failure to co-operate with the police investigations until the matter is resolved raises another far more tricky dilemma. These three MPs are delaying the issuing of charges against them even further by the complex legal argument. One MP says:

"If we get to the election and they have still not been charged, there is no way under employment law that we could prevent them getting the [severance] payments, which will amount to up to a year’s money."

So are these potentially to be charge with fraud members holding proceedings up so that they can fleece a whole extra years pay out of their privilege, surely that cannot be allowed to happen.

See also: Dizzy Thinks, Tom Freeman, The Lone Voice, Ellee Seymour, Steve Beasant, Neil Herron, Goodnight Vienna @ Calling England and gmb45 @ Digital Kaos

Dave Leads by Chasing Down a Bolted Bandwagon

The man widely tipped as the next Prime Minister has yet again shown his lack of 'leadership' by following Nick Clegg's attack on the Labour publicising Queen's speech that I gave an alternative for yesterday.

Mind you Cameron's posturing is also just that, he says "What we need is radicalism and the Conservatives have proved that we are the only party to possess it."His radicalism is aimed at conquering the recession, social problems and the political system.

However, look at some of that radicalism, on the national debt, they are revisiting the child credit on the highest paid, good so are the Lib Dems. Yet they are also looking to reward the highest paid with perks in inheritance tax. They are looking to freeze public sector pay, the Lib Dems have also promised that for the top end jobs. The conservatives have promised to do so for all but the lowest paid 1 million, that is all the public sector workers paid under £18,000. It may be radical but is hardly improving the lot of social problems, especially for the low paid public servants who have to work in London.

On our broken society Cameron admits that his triumvirate teenage pregnancy, addiction and crime won't be fixed overnight. Strange that he is attacking Labour of bringing things they won't have time to achieve by offering up an alternative that is also unachievable. However, they are saying that any suitably qualified organisation can set up a new school anywhere they wished. Those that mean Ronald McDonald or Disney High Schools, after all those these multinationals have educational programmes within their corporate structure, indeed for that matter so do most multi-nationals.

If these qualified organisations can set up a school anywhere they want, surely won't they be looking for where they may most benefit to the organisation? Surely these will not be set up where the new school is most needed. Yes Cameron then mentions his pupil premium to encourage schools to take on pupils from less advantaged backgrounds, but what if these new schools are getting set up too far away to be of use?

As for Parliamentary reform he says he will cut ministers’ salaries by 5 per cent, scrap the perks and subsidies of parliamentary life, reign in the quango state and give power to local government, communities, families and individuals.

Ok the first is in line with Public Service restructuring the Lib Dems have proposed. But just what does Cameron mean by the perks and subsidies of parliamentary life? How far reaching those that stretch into necessary expenses to ensure that being a Member of Parliament isn't just a job for the well off, as it was in the 19th century? We've already seen that some of their radical reforms will hurt aspirant MPs from less well off situations, potentially losing a level of representative and experience to the House.

Unlike Nick who yesterday gave a number of concrete proposals to make real change is giving power to the people Cameron is (as the Tories have so long) being vague of the specifics. You really must wonder just when anything concrete, and fair, will actually come from the Tories rather than homilies and aspirational words on this.

Make It So - The Reforming Queen's Speech

The Labour Pre-Manifesto Queen's speech is being attacked in today's Independent by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg as a "waste of everyone's time" over the next 70 days of Government sitting before a General Election is called. Merely acting as window dressing for a lot of what Labour want to do beyond the date of the poll.

Here then is what Nick and the people want want to hear when she takes her speech out of the pouch on the throne in the Lords on Wednesday.

My Government would like to apologise to the my subjects for the way it has flagrantly mistreated them, and their money, over their expenses claims. They have listened to One's subjects are will be putting together a programme of wide sweeping reform to remedy this lack of trust, accountability and transparency before they come to One ready to go to the people in the spring.

Over the next seventy days my Government will start by enacting all the proposals of the Kelly Commission without exception. (gasps from those standing at the rear of the chamber). Oh yes you will. (aside: Can One still send them to the Tower?) As many as can be will be in place immediately shall be, the remainder will be enabled ready to come into effect on the resumption of the next Parliamentary session.

My Government realises though that the Kelly Commission report is merely a way of capturing the horse after it has bolted, so is proposing with the rest of Parliaments time to shore up the stable and paddock as well, so that the temptation or ability to bolt in this way is not presentable again to its members.

Therefore My Government will bring to both Houses legislation to curb the power of the whips offices, enabling more power to be placed in the hands of back bench MPs and therefore those of One's subjects whom they represent. Further to this they will present a Bill to set the length of each subsequent Parliament Term to occur on the first Thursday of may every four years thereafter, thus removing the ability of my Government to benefit from a favourable mood in the nation, something which their monarch has never had the ability so to do.

Legislation will also be brought before both Houses to install a Member's code of conduct, including an independent commission to adjudicate on members maintaining of said code. They will then also move a Bill that any Member in serious breach of the code, can when one in ten of their electorate deem fit face a recall election, in which they are entitled to stand either with the backing of their party, or falling that as an independent and any who choose to challenge them on their record.

This brings my Government to the part of how such elections will be carried out. Firstly by the end of this session my Government will pass a Bill to fully elect the House of Lords. The current Life Peers will take on the title of Working Peers. Each party representation will decide amongst their current Membership, by lot, three thirds measures of their membership. Their representation will be distributed evenly dependent on electorate across geographical areas in line with the European Election regions. The first third will present themselves to the public in 2012, for election for six years, the subsequent thirds in 2014 and 2016. The same rules of Code of Conduct and for procedure when they are breached shall also apply to One's Working Peers.

Finally my Government proposes to bring legislation to this place and the other place that all elections to seats in this Palace will be contested by proportional representation, using a Single Transferable Vote, for multi-member wards. The first for working peers will be in place in 2012, and the Boundary Commission with draw up 5-6 members constituencies for the lower chamber in time for the election that shall occur on the first day of May in the year of our Lord 2014 D.V. which may be the sixty-second year of One's reign if One is spared.

All this shall come to be for the sake of One's subjects, for sake of restoring trust in My Government and My Opposition and all who deem to represent the people of this United Kingdom in these places.

(At the point Her Majesty adjusted the royal robes, leaned forward slightly in the throne and looked down the chamber to where the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, Rt. Hon. David Cameron, Rt. Hon Nick Clegg and other leaders were standing. Looking them in the eye she raised her right hand and pointed the four fingers in their direction) Make it so, number ones.

Update: See also Stephen Tall's reflections at Lib Dem Voice.

Remember, Remember the 4th of November

Remember when Parliament ran into the expenses crisis there was a hope, Sir Christopher Kelly's report.

All the party leaders have spoken in favour of accepting the recommendations Nick Clegg, David Cameron even Gordon Brown made a Commons statement stressing that all party's had agreed accept the further Kelly recommendations providing they 'meet the tests of increased transparency, accountability and reduced costs for the taxpayer'. However, now it appears that Harriet Harman is preparing to water the proposals down.

The areas they are looking to water down are some of the most abused and some of those where tough changes in the rules are most needed. The second homes profiteering, the employee of family members not all able to give the time they were paid for, the commutable second home claimants. The last of these is of course something that all the Greater London Lib Dem MPs have shown is not only doable but achievable. Like many other London employees even those that work long hours they know they can get home at the end of the day.

So why the stalling, why the change of tack. Are the proposals Harman is objecting to any less transparent, accountable or reducing tax payers expenses? The only one that may reduce costs is paying second home mortgage payments rather than rental value. However, when it comes to transparency and accountability even this scores high as it shows that MPs will not be profiting at tax payers expenses on their London, or elsewhere property portfolio.

Kelly reports officially on Wednesday, though there have been leaks, so I feel there may be a need for new verse coming along to a famous poem.

So remember, remember the fourth of November,
MPs expenses and plot.
I know of no reason,
Why Kelly's propositions,
Should not ahead as report'd.

Well Said Cardiff Blogger

You know sometimes I can agree with sentiments expressed by some Conservatives. Step forward Ben Austwick (aka Cardiff Blogger) for this comment about David Wilshire MP.