UK

11° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Ten ministers may be gone within days, said one MP

The mood in Westminster

By Steve Richards

Westminster became a different place this week. It was like visiting a once vibrant company on the verge of closure. The same people were still there, taking part in their familiar routines, but the darkened context meant everything had changed.

I became aware of the funereal atmosphere within seconds of arriving on Monday morning when I passed a Conservative MP in a corridor. Normally he stops for a brief gossip about politics and football. This time he had his head down and we did not exchange a word.

A few hours later I passed Hazel Blears on a nearby street. She is always ebulliently solicitous. This time she strode on with that determined smile. Probably she was too busy to stop and talk, but the expenses saga changes assumptions and perceptions. I assumed she had walked on because she was embarrassed at being one of those at the centre of the storm.

This is what happens when a big story engulfs an institution. Everything is viewed through the new prism. I popped into the press gallery on Tuesday to find that only a few MPs were in the chamber, debating earnestly something or other, exchanging words that no one will hear or read unless they turn to the next day's Hansard, the daily parliamentary record.

The House of Commons is often nearly empty, but suddenly the emptiness looked sinister. Where were they all? Quite a lot of them would be busy on other parliamentary business but the rows of empty green seats symbolised a crisis which is partly about the ambiguous role and purpose of MPs. The chamber is supposed to be a focus of their activities, but it rarely is. On the Tuesday it looked as if they had all fled.

When the Chamber was more crowded, their misconduct was the overwhelming theme. Once more the mood was odd as MPs went through acts of self-flagellation. Normally one side jeers at the other. Now they were jeering themselves. The noisy confrontations between the Speaker and two MPs early in the week were symptoms of the nervous edginess. The Speaker's bad-tempered reaction showed a foolish insensitivity to the crisis in a way that meant he became part of the story. But MPs know that his head on a platter will not purge the voters' anger. Like the most compelling dramas, the mood at Prime Minister's Questions avoided easy definition. The main leaders went out of their way to express their outrage at the expenses saga and yet there was no real consensus. Instead, they were in a deranged race to appear more outraged than the others and to offer half-baked populist solutions. A political battle was taking place over an issue that transcends party divisions.

Something else was strange. The Commons was deliberately subdued at PMQs, as it always is in the midst of a crisis, and yet this was their crisis. They were not gathering after the 9/11 terrorist attacks or to debate the collapse of the banks. They were there to debate themselves.

Some of them have retained a sense of humour. On Thursday I bumped into one MP. "How are you?" I asked politely. "I will let you know after I have read the papers tomorrow," he half joked. Another MP told a colleague he had never been so pleased not to have been in the news. This was a week for a low profile.

Some MPs are going to considerable lengths to make sure their profile stays low. One asked the BBC for a taxi from Parliament to a studio nearby. Normally he walked, but this week he did not want to face the angry voters on the streets. This was someone who had not been fingered by The Daily Telegraph. MPs are getting abuse even if they are not one of the ill-defined guilty ones. The Tory MP David Davies told the BBC: "I was at a public meeting last night talking about something completely different, and I thought, 'I wonder how many of these people think I'm some sort of a thief on the make'." He and others are trapped in a story that is reported often without nuance or context. The local newspapers are especially strident. Some are printing the emails they have received over several pages or on their websites. The number of emails and the level of anger are without precedent. A presenter on BBC Radio 5 Live says the same. She tells me she cannot recall a story where public anger of listeners is so intense.

My colleague, the former Conservative MP Michael Brown, met some of his local party canvassers on Wednesday night as he walked back to his flat close to Westminster. "How's it going?" he asked. "Awful," was the response. "They hate us all now." If that was bad for the Tories, try wearing a Labour sticker this weekend in Elliot Morley's seat where the local paper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph, reflects the rage on several pages.

By Thursday the frenzy in the country was heightening a mood of gloomy hysteria at Westminster. One MP told me he thought 10 ministers could be gone by the end of next week. Yesterday, one minister had indeed stepped down. Another predicted that the next few months will be punctuated with sackings and de-selections. I also heard some speculation that the three party leaders will make a move against the Speaker over the next few days. Was such a scenario part of the frenzy or a well-informed prediction? I suspect the former, but it is getting increasingly difficult to tell.

Yesterday, Westminster was virtually empty, at least of politicians, leaving some journalists in the unusual position of discussing with each other whether there are subtleties to this drama that are getting lost as the voters fume. MPs might have left the gloom of Westminster, but they won't get any more comfort in their constituencies this weekend.

Day Eight: And there's no respite

Travel for spouses

Andrew MacKay and his wife, Julie Kirkbride, are the only husband and wife Commons team to claim under the spouses' travel allowance. According to the Telegraph, both MPs claimed under the allowance to allow them to attend functions in their partner's constituency.

Mr MacKay, who resigned as an aide to David Cameron over his use of expenses, represents Bracknell, Berkshire, while Ms Kirkbride's constituency is in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. Ms Kirkbride was handed £1,392 from the taxpayer to fund her husband's travel costs. Mr MacKay claimed £408 for his wife's travel.

Morley & Hogg give a little bit back...

Elliot Morley is the latest MP to repay expenses after he claimed £16,000 over 18 months for a mortgage he no longer had. His local paper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph, carried pages of anger from constituents. The Tory MP Douglas Hogg finally agreed to pay back more than £2,000 for costs said to include the cleaning of his moat. Shahid Malik, who stepped down as a Justice minister after his expenses were leaked, has refused to hand back any money. But he said he will donate £1,050 spent on a television system to good causes in his constituency.

Tory who claimed has portfolio of 24 homes

James Clappison, the Tory MP the MP for Hertsmere, has claimed more than £100,000 under the second homes allowance, despite having 24 properties of his own. His expenses claims show he billed taxpayers for petunias, geraniums and busy lizzies for his "second home" – a £375,000 house in St Albans, Hertfordshire. Since 2001, he has claimed £102,241 under the allowance. His properties include a farmhouse and a village cricket club. Mr Clappison said the fees office ruled his expenses were "not only entirely within the rules but also within the spirit of the rules".

The saints shine out amid the sinners

A few MPs have emerged as the good guys. Some from all three main parties do not claim a second homes allowance, even though they are entitled to do so. Labour MPs Martin Salter, Celia Barlow and Geoffrey Robinson do not claim the allowance. From the Conservatives, Adam Afriyie, Richard Benyon, Philip Dunne, Anne Milton and Rob Wilson turned down the money. On the Liberal Democrat benches, only one member from outside London, Cambridge MP David Howarth, has turned it down. Environment Secretary Hilary Benn claimed only £147.78 a year on food. Ed Miliband claimed only £6,300 to rent a terraced house.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Freedom of Information
[info]jj9876 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 11:59 pm (UTC)
If the Government can advertise on national TV for the public to snitch on benefit cheats, why is the Speaker on a mission to prosecute the mole who leaked the expenses thefts. Surely, the mole was simply responding to the Government ad campaign.

If it ever did get to court, no jury in the land would find the mole guilty. The Speaker has really failed to think this through to its logical conclusion. The Mole should be knighted for services rendered in support of the Freedom of Information Act.
Re: Freedom of Information
[info]sobatai wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 12:51 am (UTC)
Which is probably why they'd rather like to do away with trial by jury. The government used to favour the "court of public opinion", but rating 22% in the polls and with the spotlight turned on ministers such as Cooper and Balls with their snouts firmly in the trough I doubt that appeals anymore.
The Freedom of Information Act is the classic example of New Labour's "legislate in haste, repent at leisure" tenure.
There was no pressing need for a FoIA. No one was banging down the doors of Whitehall demanding one. But it seemed like a good idea at the time and was populist, so Brother Blair decided to "go for it".
Why?
Well, his government was going to be Persil white, wasn't it? They wouldn't have things hidden away that would destroy them.
Jack Straw, the man who guided the FoIA through parliament apparently had different ideas, according to Richards, who seems to have an unnatural fascination with using "prism" in every article he can. Straw obviously wasn't as stupid as his boss. But didn't have the necessary balls to argue the point.
And now the FoIA is bringing down the whole rotten structure that is politics in this nation.
Richards and other apologists argue that we should pay MPs more. But, hang on, they don't have to take the job on, do they? They know the salary when they apply. Why take a job paying 63,000 GBP a year if you don't want to settle for anything less than 100,000 GBP per year?
That said, with Mervyn King printing money to buy government bonds (the vast majority of the money he is printing is buying the bonds the government is issuing to function), sterling will soon be worth next to nothing.
Re: Freedom of Information
[info]tatcawh wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
Because the snitch didn't just take the evidence needed to raise their concerns. Whoever he (or she) is, they sold the personal data of 600+ people to a newspaper for 150,000quid while the courts and the Information Commissioner were still deciding whether or not the data should be made public. They sold the data of the guilty and the innocent without discrimination. They committed a criminal offence for personal financial gain, just like the fraudster MPs. We don't like it much when the Gov loses our personal data, do we?

So let's bring prosecutions for tax evasion and obtaining money by deception, and let's send some MPs to jail. But don't kid yourself that the snitch is some kind of public-spirited hero. Because if he moves to another Government department and gets the chance to sell YOUR data to a bunch of Russian mafia identity theives, the only question he'll ask is 'how much can I get?'
Re: Freedom of Information
[info]jj9876 wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC)
MP's want to put us on the national DNA database, irrespective of whether we are guilty or innocent. So it is only fair and proper their details are made available to the public whether they are guilty or innocent. I think the phrase is 'what goes around come around'.

The DVLA is selling our data to all and sundry. The DVLA is a Government body. It's about time MP's had a taste of their own medicine. All hail the Mole for standing up for the common and oppressed individual. And may he long enjoy the 150,000. Please do not forget the MP's voted to suppress the expenses before it got leaked. If it had not been for the Mole their dishonesty and hypocrisy would have continued unabated.
Re: Freedom of Information
[info]tatcawh wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 12:38 pm (UTC)
I hadn't forgotten that the MPs wanted their expenses withheld from the public - that's why it was going through the courts. It's pretty obvious now what the right decision from the courts would have been. Doesn't excuse the person who sold the data, I wouldn't trust him with my personal information.
Re: Freedom of Information
[info]linchung wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 02:41 pm (UTC)
Totally agree: public spirited means not in it for the money.
Ten Ministers Whose Sacking Would Benefit Britain
[info]leonard_merryl wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 12:56 am (UTC)
1) Brown
2) Straw
3) Hoon
4) David Miliband
5) Blears
6) Balls
7) Woolas
8) Smith
9) Morley
10) Malik

But why stop there! Sack them all!! Election now!! Every single one of them is a useless, war-mongering criminal sack of shit!!
Re: Ten Ministers Whose Sacking Would Benefit Britain
[info]bowesy wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 07:28 am (UTC)
Hard to disagree with your sentiment. Gormless gordon is not really acting in the way he should. If Brown had any balls and a backbone Blears would have gone straight away, as would a few others.

Another fine example of no leadership ability - no wonder they are in such a mess.
Re: Ten Ministers Whose Sacking Would Benefit Britain
[info]rojaws wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 08:41 am (UTC)
You forgot 'lying', 'hypocritical' & 'treacherous' in your description.
Who's investigating the Fees office?
[info]palestinian_ian wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 03:51 am (UTC)
In nine days the Daily Telegraph has exposed dozens of dubious claims and some case of outright fraud. The Fees office had the data for several years but found nothing wrong. The way the Fees office is being run needs investigating to see if there is a culture of turning a blind eye to claims that are blatantly against the spirit of covering the costs of needing a second home in London.
"The House of Commons is often nearly empty,..."
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 03:55 am (UTC)
That very neatly sums up the problem, the place is often nearly empty but at the same time the heavy workload means that MP's need a second home to be in London as well as a home in their constituency or even elsewhere.

How can they elected representatives not be in the House but need a second house? A few might be in meetings or in their plush new offices, or even in their constituencies but based on the recent performances, it is hardly likely that anyone would believe that.

"Day Eight: And there's no respite"
There is no respite because there is still so much to be revealed, the entire political class is involved and it is fascinating to speculate how many politicians will emerge with their reputations unscathed. Of the 646 members, only a fraction will be considered honest when this is over, how shameful!
Minister steps down (sacked)
[info]over325one wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 06:06 am (UTC)
That such an imbecile can be made a minister shows just how poor Brown's judgement is. Or, was it because of his religious beliefs. He'll do anything for a profit?
Re: Minister steps down (sacked)
[info]bowesy wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 07:35 am (UTC)
Brown is a half wit simple as that. all this talk of his great brain must be ironic.
never ending
[info]south_seas wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 07:02 am (UTC)
I have a feeling that this saga will move from second homes to second jobs shortly. I have always found it surprising that MPs who are paid a decent salary can have numerous directorships.
[info]daniels09 wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 07:10 am (UTC)
Leonard Merryl 12.56

Let's make it a round dozen and add Darling and Cooper to your list.

After the police and CPS the Inland Revenue? Oh I do hope so, I really do - and I hope that tax law trumps parliamentary Rules, adequate though they would have been had members respected their spirit and not their letter.
Ministers gone in days ?
[info]deimosp wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
Brown has not got the balls (putting it bluntly). He prefers committes asking for reports followed by reviews. That way, if it works he tries to take credit for asking for the study->report->etc. but if it fails he was nowhere near at the time. He just does not get on well with acting himself.

Add to that how he now has virtually no power in his party - they do what they want and will leave him as PM as long as he keeps out of theor way and does nothing to disturb the status quo.

We do need a proper government. Labour have shown they cannot (or rather will not) act over this scandal - so let the electorate have their say on what has been going on. If Brown wont act, we (the electorate) will act using our votes.
WHAT ABOUT BROWN HIMSELF?
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC)
Brown himself is involved in some very big stuff.

His brother Andrew (with whom he shared the famous cleaning bill) is Director of Communications for EDF.

EDF has been at the forefront of campaigning for new nuclear stations.

Need I say more?
POLICE ENQUIRY
[info]angusdina wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
Whilst news that the police are considering action is welcome, however late, I am amazed at the way in which they are working. Can you imagine this scenarion forty odd years ago;
MAIL TRAIN ROBBED

Following the biggest robbery in British history Slipper of the yard confirmed he is in discussions with the prosecuting authorities to consider whether it is appropriate to consider, possibly, taking action against those implicated in the robbery. Slipper said that, if all goes to plan, he hopes to be in a position to interview one suspect,at 11.00 on Tuesday week. When challenged that that subject may well have destroyed evidence, or even left the country by that time, Slipper said "process was process and it would be wrong to act pre-emptively". Slipper was then asked if more immediate action would be taken, were for instance, the names of suspects leaked by a Senior Police Officer. "Oh yes" said Slipper "if the suspects had the slightest suspicion we were onto them we would have armed police officers arrest them in hours and detain them for 42 days".

Seriously I agree with Palestinian Ian above, the answer to this lies in the fees office. Mr Andrew Walker is without doubt the key witness in all of this I just worry that by the time they get round to asking him a question he will either have been afforded some immunity or so well briefed as to make a prosecution impossible - just what they all want.
Which Ten MPs will remain ??
[info]drug_baron wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC)
It is not a question of which Ten MPs will be removed.................

It is which Ten MPs will remain in office ???
Ten within days, the lot within a year.
[info]neil639 wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 09:58 am (UTC)
Ten Ministers may be gone within days, but I suspect the lot will be gone within a year. The electorate is eagerly waiting the opportunity to punish them, for with our totally undemocratic, 19th century electoral system that is all we can do - exchange one set of dishonest political faces for another set of dishonest political faces, give the second set a few years and, when they outgrow their boots, punish them too.
They could sort this out today
[info]milesbatch wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 09:59 am (UTC)
Why don't we cut off the drug supply that feeds these bloated pigs and withhold our taxes until we have a new, clean parliament. Exercise some people power for a wothwhile cause for a change. Something along the lines of "I am withholding my tax payments until there is a parliament in place that has the moral authority to accept it and administer it on my behalf."
Didn't that happen with Poll tax?

Cut off the supply
[info]milesbatch wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC)
Why don't we cut off the drug supply that feeds these bloated pigs and withhold our taxes until we have a new, clean parliament. Exercise some people power for a wothwhile cause for a change. Something along the lines of "I am withholding my tax payments until there is a parliament in place that has the moral authority to accept it and administer it on my behalf."
Didn't that happen with Poll tax?

Like Old Rome
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 12:40 pm (UTC)
And we thought we had come far from the days of the Roman Senate scandals and intrigues.
It's saddening and sickening, how the mighty are falling . . . but it is really necessary to clean up.
Those guilty MPs and representatives of the public must be hoping for a huge divine, or devilish intervention just now. Please let there be none.
Took us very long time did it not
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC)
We are kaput and they have the millions, we are the suckers
[info]mr_scummy wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 02:56 pm (UTC)

Ten ministers may go? So just how many ministers are there in the Government these days? Labour seems to have created ministerships (sp?) for almost everything - is there a minister for funny walks yet?
Honest government
[info]hughcrowther wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 10:37 pm (UTC)
I guess its time for the Queen to let Brown know his administration has brought HMG into disrepute and dissolve parliament. Give us an election now, at least it will allow those with a questionable ethics to get off all the sinking ships.
Please let her Majesty stay out of this.
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 11:19 pm (UTC)
Please let her Majesty stay out of this.
Steve, Queen to let Brown This is known to her but Mr. Brown the way I saw his photo with all hair ruffled up, worries the Queen and I am sure she et him go this time but next time it will be yet another hair loser blown with the winter wind like Gone With The Wind
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Ten ministers may be gone within days, said one MP
[info]alok8888 wrote:
Sunday, 17 May 2009 at 08:25 pm (UTC)
This present anger shows how shallow the majority of the British public is. They are angry because the news about fiddling of expenses by their MPs has come out in economic times that are tough for many of them. In better times, most of the ordinary public would have brushed such news aside as non-news because most expect MPs to do so.

Where was this overwhelming anger when their MPs voted to drag UK to war in Iraq? That war cost at least million of Iraqi lives and billions of GBP. I understand that long as they enjoy a good, comfortable life most people of most countries do not give a hoot if their soldiers go and kill millions of people in far away lands.

Some of their MPs might have stolen public money and they should be duly punished. But many of these MPs cavalierly decided that it was ok to order their military to go and kill people in a foreign land on a false pretext. One of such MP was the previous Prime Minister, a Mr Tony Blair. Many other MPs blindly took Blair's dodgy dossier to be worthwhile intelligence. Why did not they examine that with a fine tooth comb before they voted? Or, were they too busy fiddling expenses? Why do not the UK public hold them responsible for commiting war crimes against humanity and bring charges accordingly?

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date