Giving you the full truth on expenses

The reputation of Parliament was black enough before the black-out of expenses. Today it's even darker. I have long argued that transparency is absolutely key to re-building that trust. Suspicion and cynicism are instantly aroused by secrecy, so we need to open politics up to the people - especially when it comes to expenses.

When it comes to so called redactions only strictly private information - like phone numbers and bank details - should be crossed out, because there are legitimate security concerns about having this information online. Censorship for any other reason is unjustifiable. This is public money we're talking about - money earned through the hard graft of the millions of people we serve - so it is wrong to try and throw a veil over how it is spent.

So what next? The House of Commons Commission should bring forward the publication of the 08/09 expenses in uncensored form. My Shadow Cabinet are already publishing their current expense claims online, and today I've asked them to go further by including all significant correspondence and receipts.

I have also put all my expenses for the last month online, in full. To go through them click here. We can only move on from this dark time in politics by recognising that people have a right to see exactly where and how public money is spent, because it's clear - there can be no trust without transparency. Anything less than the full truth is just not good enough.

PM outlines vision for reforming Parliament

The Prime Minister has told Parliament that each MP has a part to play in “regaining the country’s trust” as he outlined proposals for reform.

In a statement to the House of Commons, Gordon Brown put forward changes on a range of subjects including MPs’ expenses, freedom of information and the modernisation of House of Commons procedures.

The PM said the Government plans to introduce legislation that could see a shift from self-regulation of the House of Commons - and subsequently the House of Lords - to independent, statutory regulation. A new Parliamentary Standards Authority would be given the power to regulate MPs’ allowances and the Commons would be asked to agree a code of conduct for MPs in order to increase accountability.

“There will be consultation with all sides of the House to come forward with new proposals for dealing effectively with inappropriate behaviour, including potentially the options of effective exclusion and recall for gross financial misconduct identified by the new independent regulator and the House itself.”

The PM’s proposals on MPs’ expenses were in addition to those already with cross-party agreement, such as the requirement for all spending to be receipted and incomes from second jobs to be fully accounted for. All parties have also pledged to accept recommendations from an independent committee due to report later this year, Mr Brown said.

The PM said the Government will also set out proposals for public debate on five major issues in the coming months: reform of the House of Lords to an elected House; introduction of a written constitution; devolution of power away from Westminster; reform of the electoral system; and increased public participation through electoral registration and greater engagement of young people, including a potential lowering of the voting age.

The PM said:

“As we come forward with proposals, in each case the Government will look to consult widely. And all proposed reforms will be underpinned by cross-party discussions.

“Our proposals will also be informed by leading external figures, including academics and others who command public respect and have a recognised interest or expertise in the difference elements of democratic reform.”

Today’s statement also contained proposals to progressively reduce the time taken to release official documents from 30 to 20 years and to broaden the terms of application of the Freedom of Information Act to include a wider range of organisations.

Mr Brown said all proposals would be brought before the House for debate in a standalone Bill ahead of this year’s summer recess.

Gordon Brown: Totally Insane or a Conviction Politician?

"Labour is always ready to listen to people's concerns, and take action on them." according to Gordon Brown.

He also said the government had listened to people's demands that police "come down hard" on gangs.

What on earth is this man going on about? Has he lost the plot and does he actually believe that he is in touch with the people or does he actually believe that the people will believe that he is in touch with them. Lets just have a quick look at labour's record on listening to the people.

The first instance I remember being hugely significant was the war on Iraq. Nobody wanted it but Tony and George had to do it because of all the WMD that Saddam was building & hiding which would presumably be used to destroy Israel and the west some day. Then after they invaded and it was discovered that in fact the Iraqis didn't have WMD, we were told that it was all about regime change to rid the oppressed Iraqi people of the evil dictator Saddam. Either way it never occurred to the government that the people, either them or us might not be behind them. In fact as I recall ,there was even resignations from the then government. Still they marched onwards.

I think that there was also a petrol demonstration early on at some point which was pretty much ignored but the next big thing I remember was the European Constitution which we were going to be given a vote on. Good old Tony never had to give it to us because I think the French and/or the Germans turned it down before we even got a look in. Then they changed the name of it from a constitution to a treaty & Gordon himself decided that we no longer needed any input because it wasn't a constitutional issue. Perhaps someone should point out to our unelected PM that an apple is still an apple whether you call it an apple or not.

The government told everyone that dental care would become easier and cheaper. They messed that one up too. The refused to listen to the BDA and their concerns about the new system of charging and now huge numbers of people cannot find an NHS dentist.

The fact is that the list goes on and on. This government does not listen to the people. It never has and the fact is that is has never had to because of the size of its majority in the House that it has enjoyed and exploited for ten years now. If Gordon is serious about keeping his job, he needs to chop his PR machine because they are doing him no favours. They are making him look like a liar or that he has actually lost the plot. He and his party need to realise that although Blair was popular and did a lot for the renaissance of the Labour party, the fact is that they won their huge majority because people were sick to death of the Conservatives. Blair happened to turn up at the right time with a bit of razzle dazzle.

When people began to see through the razzle dazzle however and realised that there really was no substance ot the man, Blair was clever enough to depart. I think that the British people are beginning to expect more from their politicians than PR and marketing and would like to see candidates who could actually govern the country in the right direction, which at this point in time is in any direction away from the direction in which we are headed, thanks to Blair and New Labour.

In a way, I admire Gordon for sticking around, because that could mean that he is in fact a conviction politician and is ready to actually ride out the rough and do what is right for the people, in which case good luck to him. On the other hand it could also mean that he is oblivious to what people actually think and therefore a bad judge of circumstances and fact or even worse a raving loon. Gladly, I do not think that it will take us long to figure it out.

If you pay peanuts, you get....?

....Leading politicians have come under more scrutiny than ever today with the publication of expense claims for key individuals. Amongst them Blair, Kennedy, Howard, Cameron, Brown and Prescott have all been highlighted by the press in some tiresome quest for muck to sling. £4k here £20k there, council tax, TV licenses, mortgages and even food (to the delight of the anti-John Prescott-brigade).

I was also in the car listening to LBC and a debate about MP's salaries and how they wanted to raise them. Putting expenses aside for a moment, our MPs get paid somewhere in the low £60ks a year and they are complaining and suggesting that it should rise to £100k or in that region. Predictably the media was adamant that this was extravagance to the extreme (bearing in mind that the media knows nothing of extravagance itself). Even I started off feeling anger at the prospect that these loafers who hardly ever actually go to parliament anymore and appear simply to do no more than mince about for the cameras in an attempt to persuade us that we've never had it so good, could be suggesting that even more public money be diverted to their pockets.

Then I started to think about it. Perhaps the reason why it seems like all our politicians are fiddling expenses and /or in bed with dodgy businessmen and doing shady ppp/pfi deals or worse (if there can be any worse) is because they don't get paid enough to deter them from corruption. When you consider what these people actually do for the country.....they run it! I think they actually get a very bad deal considering the reason why a lot of these people go into politics in the first place is because they are idealists wanting to make a positive change to the country and possibly the world or even the galaxy perhaps Mr Blair? You could almost suggest that as tax payers we even exploit our MPs to a certain extent, expecting them to run the country for £60k a year when you consider what some of us get paid for doing much less important and mundane jobs and I have found a couple of examples from both the celebrity and non-celebrity world to exaggerate my point

JK Rowling according to Forbes in 2006 was earning over £100k per day.

CatwalkQueen.tv claims that Kate moss earned £4 million in 2007 (up to £15million in previous years).

According to the Times in 2007 David Beckham is earning £70k a day

However I very quickly want to mention that poor Leona Lewis is only earning enough to survive (see previous posts).

Leona and JK aside, I probably wouldn't want either Beckham or Moss anywhere near to positions where they would have an atom of the responsibility it needs to run a country. David Beckham managed to achieve nothing as captain of England other than unmitigated failure for years. Kate moss is a Drug user who take off her clothes for a living (or puts them on? I can never remember), yet they manage to command much bigger salaries than our politicians. JK has amassed her fortune writing children's books for Christ's sake. Now I want to make it clear that I am not knocking any of the people I have mentioned for having made money or even how they have made it (I would love to make it too after all) however I am trying to make the point that considering what these people earn and the ultimate importance or what they do do, we pay our politicians very poorly in deed for running the country or if you look at it another way our lives.

Kate Moss doesn't model because she enjoys putting on and taking off clothes only. She does it because she knows she can earn £4million a year doing it. Similarly, David Beckham isn't playing football for a living for the love of it alone. JK certainly isn't writing her books solely because she wants to entertain the children of the world. They are all arguably the best at what they do, but they're all doing it for cold hard filthy luca. If there's nothing wrong with that, then why can't MPs expect to be paid more for the job that they are doing. Presumably they are also the best at what they are doing, or maybe they are the best for the money we are offering.

On the other hand, perhaps if we were to offer more, or even a lot more, then we would attract a different caliber of politician. Imagine a country run by blue chip CEO calibre politicians. We would probably be much better off in the long run. We would probably have to speak to people in India if we ever had occasion to call government departments and it would probably take over 30 mins to get through to anyone (hang on a second that already happens!!!) but at least the country would be profitable. Who knows....even I might put my name in the hat if that were to happen.