When an MP 'loses it'.

Here

@obotheclown: OK obo, I admit it. I'm a c*nt.
I also don't seem to have got the hang of this InterWebby thing. I'm totally clueless about how to turn off admin rights to the comments section, so how I cope as an MP creating laws to f*ck you up the a*se with, I haven't the faintest idea...

And the reason for this immoderate outburst?

Obo had, on his own site, written this. It's a bit sweary, but it does make a good point.

There was a time, when he was in government, that Tom Harris was a good, interesting blogger. He made a reasonable fist of engaging with people, both people who sucked his pole as well as people who wanted him impaled on a pole.

He also managed to occasionally step off-piste on his blog, certainly more than he ever did in the lobby.

Then Labour lost the election.

And I think this shock really was a bit too much for poor Tom. Instead of powering out of his hard-won blogging credentials and laying waste to the ConDems with verve and wit, he turned into a pathetic "yah-boo-sucks" mong, blogging at the intellectual level of Bevanite Ellie.

Come on Tom. You and I will never, ever agree on pretty much anything. But this pathetic, infantile, tribal bollocks is really demeaning. You sound like a spiteful toddler every time you blog lately.

If you follow Mr Harris's blog you'll probably agree with Obo, because the tone of the blog has changed quite a bit since the election, it may be that he reflects the thoughts and opinions of a lot of Labour MPs who are, in effect, leaderless and will remain so until mid-September. There is no 'party line' to follow at the moment and no 'policies' of their own to champion. So all they can do, to keep themselves in the public eye and maybe hope to be noticed, is be critical of both policies and personalities - because that's how Labour behaved when in government.

Criticism of government policies is what 'The Opposition' is supposed to do, but this criticism is supposed to have a purpose - it isn't meant to be empty, whining rhetoric. The 'Opposition' is supposed to use their time in Parliament and in committees to temper legislation that they think goes too far by being positively proactive, because all MPs of whatever political colour are meant to be there to represent the best interests of their electorate. Trouble is that for 13 long years the Labour government had too large a majority to have an effective opposition, so were able to do almost what they wanted - and whilst in power they always seemed to tell us not what they were about to do, it was always what the horrible Conservatives might have done. It was almost always alarmist stuff, and always empty words - because the neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems were in a position to do anything much and the Labour government had its' own way, and did precisely what it wanted. Responses to opposition MPs were almost always put-downs, worded in a 'we know best' and 'you're stupid' sort of language.

It must be very difficult, having wielded such power and authority, to suddenly find yourself powerless, not really knowing what you're meant to be doing in Parliament, leaderless and rudderless and with only one or two long-standing MPs who have experience of being in active opposition. So the rules are being made up as they go along, and are based on what they know best - what they did before - name-calling in an attempt to distract, to cover up the fact that there are no policies.

The new creature in government is called a coalition. A coalition is always built on compromise and negotiation. The business world is used to making compromises and we, the electorate, know the Lib Dems had talks with both Labour and the Conservatives. We know they opted to go with the Conservatives instead of joining Mr Brown's 'Rainbow Coalition of all the parties'. We're still not 100% sure it was the right thing to do, but we do know we'd had enough of Labour and didn't want the more of the same.

Some sections of the media and some MPs don't seem to want to understand the process of negotiation, which tends to involve withdrawing from a previous high horse position to reach a compromise, and they're criticising both parties of 'breaking manifesto promises' - which is a bit rich really, because Mr Brown taught us that manifesto promises can be broken, there's a Judge's Ruling that says so.

The blog in question also has several posts complaining about IPSA, including an indication of bad-mouthing by MPs that, if it were an ordinary member of the public could lead to arrest for abusing a civil servant. These complaints come at a time when almost everybody except Labour and the Unions seems to realise Britain's in the middle of a serious financial crisis - and we should all be counting the pennies, and reducing spending, not trying to line our own pockets or create mountains out of molehills.

Mr Harris's own comments policy includes this

Want to try out some really, really clever put-down that you’ve been constructing in your head since last August? Do it somewhere else.

And if your comment is, in my view, needlessly offensive and snide, I’ll delete it without explanation or apology.

So, let's backtrack a bit to when Mrs R first saw this comment. She, naturally, thought the site had been hacked - it happens, and she had expected the comment to disappear. She sort of expected some sort of disclaimer, or an announcement condemning those who had done the dastardly deed that undermined Mr Harris's credibility and niceness.

But, that's not what has happened because it looks as if Mr Harris has been back to his blog since. Later (moderated) comments have appeared, he's also left another response ... and those words remain in place. So Mrs R reckons it's reasonable for her to assume these are his own words, deliberately written, and intended to be read by anybody who reads his blog and decides to also read the comments.

Mrs R would be furious if her MP was putting stuff like that on the internet, even as a joke, and she'd let them know what she thought. Unfortunately Mr Harris is able to moderate comments out of existence, so it's unlikely her words would see the light of day - hence this post.

Mr Harris is not Mrs R's MP, but he is paid by Mrs R's taxes and maybe it's 'old fashioned' to say this, but she doesn't expect people whose wages she pays - especially MPs - to use language like that in public. And, a blog is public, if it isn't protected by a password and only viewable by a select group of by invitation-only individuals.

So, Mr Harris, don't wriggle and pretend it's a joke. You are a public servant and we expect better from you. Either take that comment down, tell us it was 'hackers' or apologise to those you've offended - because Mrs R isn't the only one.

* Asterisks courtesy of Mrs R.

....

Ainsworth interview

Coventry North East MP Ainsworth, who spent the 11 months up to the General Election in the cabinet, was rarely able to secure one-to-one meetings with Mr Brown and when the two did get together Ainsworth says his views on defence policy were generally ignored, he has revealed.

“It’s no secret that Gordon and I are not each other’s greatest fans,” he explained. “I found him very difficult to work with. Impossible really.”

Makes Mrs R think, "Aww, poor Bob.

Then she read this :-

In his first major interview since resigning as Secretary of State, Ainsworth admits he is struggling to get used to “normality”. He’s gone from a cossetted life, whisked around the world with first class travel accompanied by a retinue of support staff and armed security guards, to the role of a backbench constituency MP.

Why on earth did he, or indeed any government minister, need all that? It does, though, help explain this profligacy. Since 2008 (Fausty)

£178 million [spent] on MPs' pay and perks

....

Oh ... quotas!

Harriet Harman says half of Labour shadow cabinet should be women. She wants this because 81 of the 258 Labour MPs are women which, to the non-mathematicians, means that 177 are men.

She doesn't want this because these 81 lady MPs have already proven themselves to be good at their job and she doesn't want this because of their experience in the world of work. She wants this because

"It's time for Labour women to step out of the shadows,"

and because

"The Labour men are great - but they are not twice as good as the women"

Hah! Mrs R rather likes the put-down, but it's neither Churchillian nor Wildean. It's demeaning, and it's sexist.

In a fair job market each of those MPs should be considered and each should be considered on merit and experience, not because of their lack of 'Edwards'.

Do we, indeed does anybody, want somebody doing a job just because - only because - of their genetic make-up?

Some of these MPs have been elected as a result of all-female shortlists. They might think it was a nice way of getting an important job, and maybe they think it was their 'right', and perhaps don't realise they have only been chosen because they can wear skirts to work without any raising of eyebrows. They were only chosen to fulfil a quota - that's it, nothing more.

And Mrs Rigby thinks that sort of non-equal and divisive quota should be illegal, and it should be as illegal as the not-jobs masquerading as a training programme, where applications are only open to

... candidates from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the "normal recruitment process was not rectifying" under-representation.

Bristol claims that their two year 'training programme' with a wage of £18,000 is not a job, and claims that

"Race Relations Act 1976 allows for authorities to offer training to specific groups of people if they are under-represented"

It's a convenient loophole that may well have been closed by later legislation. Even if it wasn't, Mrs R believes that both Bristol Council and Harriet Harman are wrong and are abusing 'the system' in order to satisfy arbitrary, made-up, quotas that eventually satisfy nobody.

Here's why.

First of all, those MPs. We know some of them were elected via all-women shortlists - which prohibits fair competition - and now they're to be given even more preferential treatment. If the 81 names were put in a hat then each woman would stand more chance of getting a well-paid job than if the men were put through the same selection process.

Mrs R can see it's wrong and will, ultimately, cause resentment and divisions amongst both Labour MPs and their male supporters who, even though they are the 'faithful', are pretty sick of being pushed to the bottom of the pile because they're male. The only people who can't see it's wrong are those who don't seem to care about the quality and suitability for the job - and have little understanding of the damage caused when people are promoted way beyond their capabilities solely to satisfy an arbitrary quota.

They can't understand how difficult it might be for somebody to turn up to work knowing full well that they've only got a job because of either their gender or their race - no other reason.

And they can't seem to work out why ordinary people don't like this sort of selection. It might be because we have children who are both male and female, and because we want them to have equal chances on their way through life - and not have doors slammed in their faces because of their gender.

As for Bristols?

Well, the article says that

The authority has a total of 9,000 members of staff of which 8,370 are white and 630, or seven per cent, are from ethnic minorities.

Because 12 per cent of Bristol residents come from minority backgrounds the council has begun searching for more employees to redress this imbalance.

Sorry, it shouldn't work like that. In making the same quota-hunting mistake as Harriet by excluding 88% of the local population from applying for jobs well-paid 'training opportunities' the authority is being discriminatory.

And it doesn't make a jot of difference if Kerry McCarthy gives the scheme a verbal pat on the head by saying

"I would support schemes like this. It gives people an opportunity."

It is denying opportunity - and at what price?

It clearly doesn't matter to the quota-ists that 88% of the population of Bristol are excluded, and it clearly doesn't matter to Harriet that about 66% of Labour MPs could be excluded from the selection for ministerial posts.

All that matters is 'the quota'.

....

By election in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath?

If Mr Brown is, as he has said, going to retire from politics there will need to be a by-election in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

....

Some strike action must be made illegal.

For these people at least. (And in Telegraph here)

Let's, first, look at how some Labour MPs have been caught out trying to fill their pockets with lobbyists' cash, in return for favours

- Patricia Hewitt, a former health secretary, who claimed she helped to obtain a key seat on a government advisory group for a client paying her £3,000 a day.

- Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, offered to lead delegations to ministers and told the reporter that he was looking to turn his knowledge and contacts into “something that frankly makes money”. He said he charged £3,000 a day.

- Margaret Moran, the Luton MP who was forced to pay back £22,500 in expenses, boasted that she could ring a “girls’ gang” of colleagues on behalf of clients. Among those she named were: Jacqui Smith, the former home secretary; Hazel Blears, the former communities secretary; and Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour party.

Oh, they're wriggling, of course they are. They're saying they didn't go along with the scam because they thought something was amiss - but none of these three, not one, said, "No!" then and there. They must have thought about it, wondered what they could get out of it, wondered if it might be worth it.

We know Mr Blair has made quite a lot of money, but didn't want anybody to know because it was 'sensitive'. We know that he shredded documents before leaving office. His children have Irish passports, he doesn't stay long in Britain any more - it would be quite interesting to learn where he pays his taxes, especially as he owns a rather nice house, with a tennis court - in England.

But all that's just fine - because he supports the Labour Party, so he doesn't get called rude names by the media.

And now some of the top "public servants" in the land might think it's just fine to go on strike, and walk out of parliament on Budget Day. Instead of doing what they're paid for,

Those MPs taking part will also join union chiefs on a boat trip along the Thames at Westminster

Secondary picketing is illegal in this country.

Secondary picketing
It is unlawful to picket other companies’ premises where workers are not in dispute with your employer. For example, if you are on strike you should not go to the premises of your employer’s customers to encourage their workers not to handle your employer’s goods. This is known as secondary picketing.

But, presumably, it's just fine for union activists to try to prevent Parliament working - maybe because it isn't a "company".

So Mr Serwotka, in [a] letter, dated March 16 and headed 'To all members of the PCS Parliamentary Group' [wrote]:

'Our members will be taking strike action again on Budget Day ...

'There will be picket lines (my bold) at Westminster and we would ask MPs not to cross in solidarity.

'We will also be taking a boat up the Thames past Parliament on the day which will be suitably equipped to generate media interest for our members' case.

Mr Serwotka isn't talking about demonstrating, he isn't talking about bringing something to the notice of Parliament - he's talking about picket lines at the Houses of Parliament, intended to stop MPs getting into their place of work, and as a softener he'll take them for a nice boat trip on the Thames, with reporters and TV cameras in attendance.

Is that a bribe?

Mrs Rigby honestly doesn't know the answer to that, she doesn't know if, "If you refuse to go to work I will take you for a nice boat trip instead," counts as a bribe. Maybe somebody else will know the answer to that one.

Oh, and according to the website

PCS has a highly active all party parliamentary group with over 65 members.

Ordinary people, according to DirectGov,

have the right to try to prevent or stop industrial action if the industrial action is, or is likely to be, unlawful and either:

* is likely to prevent or has prevented you from receiving goods or services
* is likely to reduce or has reduced the quality of the goods or services you get

This is called the 'citizen's right to prevent disruption'.

So we could have the bizarre situation of ordinary people demanding their MPs turn up for work, to ensure government happens!

But don't hold your breath - it won't happen, because these are Labour MPs, and everything Labour MPs do is brushed under the carpet by the media.

If any MP decides to strike on budget day it will be made very clear who they are working for, and it will not be their constituents - who elected them, and whose taxes pay both their salaries and extremely generous personal expenses, and whose taxes will pay these same MPs a 'winding up allowance' on leaving Westminster.

Mrs R wholeheartedly agrees with these MPs opinions:-

Conservative MP Mark Pritchard:

'Not content with closing Britain's airports and railways, union bosses are now colluding with Labour MPs to disrupt democracy itself.

'Any Labour MP who fails to open his or her Commons office on Wednesday should have their pay docked. This bears all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated union spring offensive against the nation.'

Eric Pickles is also right, he said,

'This could only happen in the topsy-turvy world of the Labour Party where your loyalty to the unions takes priority over serving your electorate.'

It's a great pity there are no quotes from Labour MPs who think this possible 'strike' is a disgrace.

Who'd have ever thought to wonder whether or not it is 'legal' for MPs to go on strike and halt the process of government - in Britain, in 2010.

Oh, and where's Mr Brown, the man who is Prime Minister of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Is he in hiding, again?

....

Focus Groups and Power2010

Do you want a sponsored 'Focus Group' to make your decisions?

No?

Then go and read what the Devil has to say

When you've done that please make sure you vote for English Votes on English Laws *** over at Power2010.

*** active link removed by blog owner ***
(see post dated 31 March 2010)

....

Star Chamber suspensions.

David Blackburn in the Coffee House asks

If this is a suspension, what is an expulsion?

Sky’s Jon Craig asks one of those questions you wished you had posed: wasn’t Elliot Morley suspended already? Yes, he was, on the 14 May 2009 and with immediate effect. However, showing a fine disregard for the manner in which repeat offenders are usually treated, Labour suspended Morley again for good measure.

Here's an extract from Jon Craig's piece at Sky

On May 14 last year, just a day or so after the Daily Telegraph began unleashing its avalanche of disclosures about MPs' expenses, the Prime Minister said this at a Labour Party elections campaign launch:

"Where standards are transgressed and mistakes are made, we have got to take action.

"That is why we have suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party Elliot Morley because of the allegations, which are serious, which have been made against him. Where there is irregularity, it has got to be dealt with immediately."

Immediately?

Now call me old fashioned. But you would have thought the Prime Minister meant that Morley had had the Labour whip withdrawn, wouldn't you?

Well, yes, because that is what happened to those in other parties who'd been caught with their hands in the public purse. But there was a lot of kerfuffle, so it was hard for mere mortals to keep track of what was going on - we relied on being told the truth.

It did began to unravel a bit, when some MPs were able to wipe the slate clean by handing over some rather large cheques. But, frankly, by then nobody was at all surprised because those who did this at the beginning were important people, too important to be seriously told off.

Anyhow, there's much more information in Jon Craig's article, it's worth reading it all, because it goes some way to answering his question. So also, in part, does a comment left at Political Betting

For those keenly interested in the PLP (lots of you, seemingly), this is the position for Elliot Morley - he’s been suspended but not expelled, pending his attempt to clear his name. He’s not entitled to attend PLP meetings unless he’s acquitted.

So what some people thought was a serious punishment was little more than not being able to attend a few meetings and, as somebody else points out

 70: genuinely confused here. Do any of the those three Labour MP’s named today still hold the Labour Whip?

and also

72: XXXX, studiously avoiding the elephant in the room. He is still entitled to vote and prop up Gordo’s lame government.
His flagship policy to “clean up politics”, voted through by those facing criminal charges.

Back comes the response, which helps to clarify things

@ 70:  ....... They have been suspended (which means they can’t take part in any PLP proceddings) but not expelled (pending resolution of their cases - presumption of innocence etc.). The claim that it’s some recent decision relating to a vote on a Bill is mistaken - it was taken last June.

Some of the posts above imply that people think that anyone being prosecuted should no longer be able to sit as MPs, but in fact none of the parties have the power to remove MPs from their seats (otherwise the temptation for whips would be huge!).

@ 72: I try not to comment on MPs (and haven’t commented on Elliot Morley, apart from stating the position on his suspension), so ....

*shakes head*

This explanation seems to further muddy the waters and is another of those things that make the  Rigbys say, "Surely it can't be right."

It seems that a Labour MP can appear before Mr Brown's Star Chamber, and be told they've done something so bad that they should be punished, but now we're told that their serious punishment was little more than not going to meetings.

The peculiar thing is that these MPs have been before a disciplinary committee and have been punished even though it wasn't a big punishement, at least not to people who don't like attending meetings - so how is it that anybody can say these people were 'presumed innocent'?

How can that be?

You don't punish people for nothing - do you?

..........

Oh, and if anybody wants to find out more about Mr Brown's Star Chamber, there's an historical item in Wikipedia and this ... which is run by Mr Ed Balls department, DCFS

What is the Star Chamber?
The Star Chamber is one of the main vehicles in the Department's drive to reduce bureaucracy impacting on local authority children's services (including education) and schools. It was formed in 1999 to review existing and proposed data collection exercises originating from within DCSF and re-launched in October 2006 with a wider remit and enhanced powers. The Star Chamber ensures that new data collection exercises do not create unnecessary burden; do not duplicate in content existing collections; seeks to keep data requests to the absolute minimum needed to develop policy; and will amalgamate and streamline exercises wherever possible.

Surely this can't be the heart of the disciplinary body called The Star Chamber which is much feared by Labour MPs?

.

Would a 'safe house' have been a good idea?

A lot of bloggers have carried a video of an unhappy Jim Devine discussing his expenses claims, and trying to explain both what happened and why he didn't do anything wrong.

Talking to the media might not have been the wisest thing Jim could have done, because it might now be difficult for him to have a 'fair trial' before a Jury - if his case proceeds to Crown Court. It's likely that a high proportion of the population has a preconceived opinion of his alleged crimes, and now they've also had the opportunity to see his 'defence' outlined in advance - either on the television or via the blogosphere. No doubt his solicitors will know the best thing to do next.

Separately ... but linked, sort of ... in a report about the Damian Green business, the BBC says

It is unprecedented for an MP to be arrested and his office searched by police in connection with a leak inquiry. Mr Green was suspected of committing a common law offence under an obscure and little-used piece of legislation.

and

Some believe the police breached parliamentary rules put in place after Charles I sent soldiers to arrest MPs in 1642.

Maybe the then Speaker, Michael Martin, and his Serjeant-at-Arms Jill Pay weren't aware of this ancient Parliamentary rule that's a bit older than the 1689 Bill of Rights Mr Morley, Mr Devine and Mr Chaytor are relying on, or maybe they knew of different levels of "misconduct in a public office", meaning that some sorts of "misconduct" are worse than others.

But, thankfully, Mr Martin did something about it

The Speaker appointed a committee of seven senior MPs to investigate the issue and ruled that, in future, no MP's office could be searched without a warrant.

Luckily it looks as if the Police are being more respectful of our MPs these days, because none of the those currently under investigation and facing charges of 'misconduct in a public office' relating to their expenses have been arrested, they haven't had to suffer the indignity of donating their DNA in case they might be real criminals (either now or at some time in the future) and nor have they been given accommodation in a Home Office safe house to stop them talking to the media.
.

Tower Block of Commons.

Tower Block of Commons :-

In this new four-part series the MPs leave Westminster and their comfortable homes to live for eight days and nights in tower blocks on different council estates in some of Britain's most deprived neighbourhoods. They will be living alongside and meeting a wide range of residents on the estates and coming face-to-face with issues that affect their lives: including gangs, immigration, drug addiction, poverty, crime, housing and unemployment.

The group of MPs in the first programme, which covered their first 48 hours on the estate, were Austin Mitchell (Lab) (in Hull), Ian Duncan Smith (Tory), Mark Oaten (Lib Dem) (in Dagenham) and Tim Loughton (Tory) (in Birmingham).

Ian Duncan Smith had to pull out because his wife needed some urgent medical treatment - please let her recover - so the first programme only looked at the experiences of three MPs.

They were meant to lodge with residents, but Austin Mitchell declined - and also brought his wife and his car along, she also took responsibility of sorting out their flat.

Each of the MPs was meant to hand over their personal goodies - cash, mobile phones, credit cards and so on, and they did - except Austin Mitchell and his wife who were filmed surrounded by newspapers and using a laptop.

The MPs were expected to wear clothes provided by their hosts, which was a bit of a culture shock, but they went along with it if only because they were advised that suits would lead to unpleasantness - but Austin Mitchell declined, because he'd already bought himself a leather jacket, and Tim Loughton decided to keep his deck shoes - he even checked with a newsagent that they looked okay.

To be honest, Austin Mitchell came across as a bit of a coward - unable to live without his creature comforts and his wife for eight days and even unwilling to visit the local eateries. Imagine what he'd be like on a camping holiday or in the military.

One thing that was particularly striking was that the young people in the programme knew virtually nothing about Parliament, had never seen pictures of Big Ben and they had no idea who their MP was - and these people have been through an education system that uses the National Curriculum which includes "Citizenship". KS3 Citizenship is outlined as follows :-

Education for citizenship equips young people with the knowledge, skills and understanding to play an effective role in public life. Citizenship encourages them to take an interest in topical and controversial issues and to engage in discussion and debate. Pupils learn about their rights, responsibilities, duties and freedoms and about laws, justice and democracy. They learn to take part in decision-making and different forms of action. They play an active role in the life of their schools, neighbourhoods, communities and wider society as active and global citizens.

The C4 website carries both testimonials and interviews from Mark Oaten and Tim Loughton. They are remarkably honest. Let's look at what Tim Loughton says

it was an exercise in showing communities which are clearly fairly disenfranchised and disengaged from politicians and the political process, to show them that actually, you can use MPs and other elected representatives to try and bring about change in your community. MPs are for everybody, and this is what the programme is partly about.

and, quite damningly for the current MP

It was Clare Short's seat, although nobody actually knew who their MP was. If that was my constituency, I would have been very, very worried about that. She's been the MP there for 26 years.

And now for Mark Oaten

I went along with the BNP when they were canvassing in one episode, to get a sense of what people were saying to them. It was very seductive. The BNP guys were basically saying 'You must be fed up with your house, you must be fed up with these living conditions. Do you understand if there were less people we could build houses, we could move you out of here. Why don't you vote BNP?'

And what I discovered, really, was that people were not racist, they were voting for the BNP because they were fed up with the other parties, and were desperate to get out of the tower blocks. They were looking for anybody that would say anything which might give them a glimmer of hope.

and

It has changed me as a MP. I feel less powerful and have less answers in many ways – it is a experience I would definitely recommend to other MPs – it helps to get you beyond the 20 minute surgery appointment and means a rural MP can understand an urban area better. Perhaps all MPs should swap seats every now and then to get an idea of the different issues facing different communities.

It will be interesting to see what Austin Mitchell has to say, because so far there is nothing from him on the C4 site, perhaps he has been too busy to comment or be interviewed, There is however his profile. There is nothing, yet, from Nadine Dorries either, possibly because her involvement has not yet been broadcast.

Let's hope that other MPs, of all parties, take the time to watch this series or at least discuss it with those who have taken part - because each and every one of them, new or old, needs to take off their rose-tinted specs and see the country, and 'society', they have created in the last 13 years. They also need to understand that it isn't just those who live in inner city tower blocks who are unhappy, disenchanted and feel as if they are disenfranchised.

As an aside ...

It's interesting, don't you think, in Harriet Harman's equal-opportunity, diverse, equal-voice, quota-driven, times that of the 646 who work at Westminster - of whom 349 are Labour, 193 are Conservative and 63 are Liberal Democrats - giving a ratio of approx 5.5 : 3.1 : 1  and of those 646 there were 15 MPs elected at the 2005 general election from an ethnic minority - the programme makers chose 1 Labour MP, 2 Tory MPs, and 1 Lib Dem MP as a  fair cross section of our Parliamentary representatives.
.

Are MPs revolting?

Interesting choice of words by The Mirror :-

Revolting MPs says they won't pay back expenses (their grammar, not mine!)

Revolting MPs last night threatened to dodge demands to repay thousands of pounds in the expenses scandal.

and in The Times :-

MPs threaten to reject ‘unfair’ expenses report (with a nice picture of those naughty climate change activists!)

MPs will attempt today to dodge demands to repay hundreds of thousands of pounds as the expenses scandal engulfs Parliament once more.

And in the FT there's this article, by Jim Pickard, which I'm sure he/theythey won't mind me sharing. :-

Union of the angry backbenchers - Tory 1922 Committee to meet Labour’s PLP

My sources tell me that backbenchers from the Parliamentary Labour Party are to meet their equally angry counterparts from the Tory 1922 Committee to discuss what to do about Sir Thomas Legg. They are all furious about the fact that his criteria are being applied retrospectively. “Why not just go back and decide that Germany won the 1966 World Cup?”, one asked me.

There was a meeting of 40 or 50 Labour MPs with Nick Brown and Harriet Harman this morning in Room 11 in the House of Commons. They were a tad upset, I’m told. Some were moaning that there were clerical errors in Legg’s paperwork (eg dates were wrong), others that papers had been lost.

Can anyone else think of an occasion when the two groups have gathered together? Curious times indeed. I’m not sure where and when it will happen yet; I’ll update you in due course.

UPDATE

Except they won’t get it. Despite a groundswell of enthusiasm among the Labour ranks for this meeting I’m told that Tony Lloyd, chair of the PLP, has put a kibbosh on it. “The prospect of a joint action…it’s just not going to happen,” says my (more authoratative) source. Could it possibly be that someone has been sat on?

Prosecuted for criminal damage ... to hamburgers.

It seems that when Stephen Morgan's hamburgers failed to arrive with the rest of his food delivery he did something that has led to a criminal prosecution for :-

criminal damages to hamburgers, worth £5

Stephen will be appearing in Swansea Magistrates Court on 10th October.

Mrs Rigby can't imagine the CPS pursuing a prosecution that is neither in the public interest nor value for money, so presumably the case will either cost less than £5 or assaulting hamburgers is a dangerous pastime. Otherwise it would be a waste of taxpayer's money - right?

Mrs Rigby had a quick rummage through the depths of the internet to see if anybody had been taken to court, and been given a criminal record for something that cost even less. Here you go ...

Court case over 90p Oyster Card bus fare to cost £10,000

Mrs R is delighted by this ongoing vigilance, rapid intervention, charge and appropriate punishment of lawbreakers. She's pleased to know that anybody who breaks the rules or tries to get a free ride will be prosecuted - no matter how little the sum involved. After all, the Rigby family pay their way, so why shouldn't anybody else.

Ah, it doesn't always work that way.

Following Sir Thomas Legg's decision that Jacqui Smith," ... wrongly classified her main family home in Reddich as her second home ..." she is not to face prosecution. Her punishment was to stand up in Parliament and say, "Sorry!" and then go home with a clear conscience, and without a stain on her character. There will be no criminal record for Jacqui Smith for taking around £117k of taxpayers' money, and she's not being forced to pay it back - yet. (Mr Brown might change his mind because Dave C ordered Tories to repay any over-claims or face the sack.)

All this is nice for her and her family, and they won't face penury. No doubt it's something of a relief too, because it would be awfully unpleasant and very demeaning for an MP to be questioned by the Police, have their DNA harvested, and face criminal prosecution. Ah, but it happened to Damian Green, and Jeffrey Archer was sent to prison in 2001, after he was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice (that's 'telling lies under oath', and 'fabricating or disposing of evidence') - such a terrible thing that prison was the best place for him.

But wait!

It doesn't always work out like that, because although Lord Ahmed killed somebody when he was using his mobile phone whilst driving his car he didn't go to prison. Harriet Harman is said to have driven away after hitting a parked car whilst using her mobile phone, but she might get away with a slapped wrist. A certain Mr Blair is known to have shredded all sorts of documents before he left Downing Street, I wonder why?

Mrs Rigby wouldn't mind betting that Stephen Morgan would be delighted to be able to say sorry, or be sure of getting away with a slapped wrist for assaulting a hamburger, but the Police and the CPS won't let him.

Mrs Rigby believes that it shouldn't matter what political party anybody belongs to, or who their friends are, especially if they've broken the rules and used somebody else's money as if it's their own.
Because of this she thinks it IS in the public interest to at least attempt to recover the money misappropriated and treated as personal spending money by Jacqui Smith and other MPs of all political colours.

We are, as even Gordon Brown himself says, "... facing difficult times ..." and the country's broke. The country's so broke that we're selling bits of it off to the highest bidder.

Wouldn't you think that these MPs would be proud to 'do their bit' for their country? They expect the rest of us to, and to use a phrase oft quoted by a well-known supermarket, "Every little helps!"

Mrs Rigby is angry.

.
Mrs Rigby wasn't going to say anything more about the horrible mess that's being made, or that is appearing to be made, of supplying our troops with the equipment they need, but she read something today that made her very angry.

General Sir Richard Dannatt has, it is reported in the Mail,

"Pleaded for more resources to defeat the Taliban and said British forces could not operate 24-hour surveillance in the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan"

This means, at least I think it means, that the Taliban can take their time to plant their explosive devices, which then blow our young men to smithereens.

The newspaper goes on to report that Lord Guthrie, former Chief of the Defence Staff, said,

"Bob Ainsworth appears to be a thoroughly decent man who is miscast as Secretary for Defence, particularly at a time when the nation is involved in war.'

Seems quite a polite way of putting it to me, nothing offensive there.

So what do our esteemed politicians do in return?

Do they rush off to do the decent thing and do their utmost to try to hurry along the equipment that might save some soldiers' lives?

Do they heck!

The newspaper tells us in glorious detail that,

"Senior Labour MPs have submitted a series of Freedom of Information requests - urged on by an MoD minister - hoping to expose wining and dining bills at the Army boss's home in Kensington, West London.
The minister behind the smear this week branded Sir Richard a 'complete b*****d', after repeated clashes with the Army boss, who has 20 days to answer the questions."

So, rather than searching for ways of ensuring that our troops get the gear they need, our senior government ministers have decided to expend time, manpower and effort to find out what General Dannatt eats and drinks, and what he gives to his guests, in the hope that they can use his shopping bills as a weapon against him!

They give him 20 days to answer their questions, or ... what? Will he be subjected to a stop and search by by a PCSO? Will he be given an on the spot fine? Maybe he'll be thrown in the Tower?

It took these same ministers months and months of obfuscation and legal challenges before grudgingly letting us taxpayers see how they spend our money on themselves, their homes and their families. But even then they crossed out the bits they wanted kept secret - they were too late, we'd already read it all in the Daily Telegraph!

Ooh look! Bob Ainsworth claimed almost £6k for getting his house done up. His second house that is, the one we pay for. He had some nice beams, a lovely new fireplace and got rid of some walls and some nasty artex. He should have asked the Army, they've got a really clever way of getting rid of artex, and walls too, something called explosives.

These poor, stressed-out, government ministers (who swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown - the same sort of thing soldiers do, aged 16) must have been really, really, badly bruised by having their own expenses - oh sorry, they're called "allowances" otherwise they're taxed - published in the newspapers.

They must have been so terribly traumatized by being criticized and made to look like scoundrels for milking the public purse - to buy bath plugs, fancy porches, packets of crisps and DVDs - if they think it would hurt the feelings of any General for us to know how much he spends on a few of bottles of wine and a chicken or two. More especially when he, and we, know that the MoD wasted £259million on buying a load of fancy helicopters that won't work because they forgot to pay for the important computer bits.

These unhappy politicians were put on suicide watch, and were given counselling - paid for by the taxpayer - when details of their expenses were published, so it's hardly surprising that they think somebody who is only a General will be equally emotionally scarred by such an terrifically frightening experience.

Maybe they'd like to be a General? It sounds good, and it takes longer to say it than "MP". Trouble is, the rank isn't just dished out to your chums like sweeties after a birthday party or a seat in the Lords.

Let's see how easy it is to be a General. Simple! First you have to get into Sandhurst, by doing a bit more than turning up at the gate. Then you get trained as an Officer. Trouble is, it isn't a case of just attending a lecture or two and getting a shiny badge. If you're not good enough you do the training again - or go home and do something else with your life. I have a sneaky suspicion it's all a bit more difficult, and a lot more complex, than being able to sit on a bus.

Let's see what General Sir Richard Dannatt KCB CBE MC ADC Gen, did after he left Sandhurst. First of all he joined the Green Howards in 1971. Two years later he was awarded the Military Cross, which is for:-

"an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land to all members, of any rank in Our Armed Forces…"

There's more about him here, including details of his service in Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.. He doesn't seem to have had a lot of spare time to sit on a yacht in the Mediterranean!

It also looks as if General Dannatt has had a bit more than mere words thrown at him as he worked his way from Lieutenant to General, using a combination of discipline and determination, along with a huge pinch of bravery. Real bravery that is, harder stuff than appearing on the X-Factor.

Have any of these high-ranking, money-grabbing, politicians any idea of what it's really like in the Army these days? Have they been near anything that makes more of a bang than a party popper?

Have they heard of horrid little bits of hard metal called bullets, or sharp, pointy stuff called shrapnel that can tear flesh apart? It's made worse if you aren't wearing body armour, or are in a vehicle that's badly designed and not fit for purpose.

Have our ministers heard of big explosive things that do more than go whoosh and make pretty patterns in the sky on bonfire night? They must, surely, have heard of bombs and rockets - and not just the big, posh, rockets that take men to the moon, or the little ones that come down to earth as an empty bit of cardboard on a stick and throw the Health and Safety brigade into such a panic.

There are bombs that are much, much bigger, and make much more noise - and they are being used against our young troops. These bombs make holes in the ground, holes so big that the Elfin Safety mob would have to have special meetings to formulate a strategy for dealing with them. These bombs make so much mess that fixed penalty fines for littering would generate enough cash to pay for the Olympics.

Our ministers should learn that while these bombs make their big, untidy, holes in the hard-packed ground they blow anybody unlucky enough to be nearby into lots of little pieces. Sometimes the little pieces have to be picked up, by people, and have to be carried back to the base and sent home in a box called a coffin.

Maybe our politicians should make a law against standing too close to an IED. That'd do the trick, it'd be cheaper than sending protective equipment and then they could fine the lawbreakers instead of having to pay compensation for injury.

Mrs R is truly astonished, and quite disgusted, to learn that the country is being run by individuals who will happily debase themselves by searching for what they think are dirty details, in an attempt to undermine the character of a General whose worst crime appears to be that of asking for more equipment for his men.

General Dannatt isn't somebody out of Oliver Twist, to be beaten by the Beadle for saying the wrong thing.

General Dannatt is trying to save lives, and he is also trying to get a job done properly because he's been told - by politicians - that it is important.

General Dannatt is, in fact, merely attempting to follow orders - something so alien to too many people these days, when doing as you're told seems to be an option, not a requirement, and behaving decently is something to be derided.

Mrs Rigby reckons the politicians should spare just four short minutes of their lives to see the impact their penny pinching policies and political posturing is having on the people they are paid to represent.

They should watch this short video, and afterwards they should take a moment to think that John Thornton had been doing the job he was being paid for - and doing it unquestioningly, without thought for himself, as have more than 200 other young men and women whose lives have been lost in Afghanistan.

I'm coming to realise that I should not be surprised that none of our government ministers have the courage to go to and stand alongside members of the British Legion at Wooton Bassett!





Hat tip for video: Jonathan Isaby
.

Did Bob Ainsworth forget the RAF?

It is reported that

Government ministers were under fire today after failing to welcome home RAF crews returning at the end of 18 years of operations in Iraq.

Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth had been expected to attend a ceremony at RAF Marham, near King’s Lynn, Norfolk, to mark the conclusion of one of the RAF’s longest deployments.

The Ministry of Defence said earlier this week that Mr Ainsworth would be at Marham to see the return of the last six Tornado fighters stationed in the Gulf.

But Mr Ainsworth did not appear, and base officials said he had been unable to come because of a debate at Westminster.

Mrs Rigby has checked Hansard for today, she cannot find Mrs Ainsworth's name mentioned in any of the debates, so she thinks it looks as if he forgot his responsibilities and somebody had to make excuses on his behalf.

The article says

The RAF has lost 27 crew members between 1991 and 2009 - most killed following the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Sad, isn't it, and a sign of the times that Government Ministers can so conveniently forget those who have been laying their lives on the line for this country, and who have done so following a decision made by this particular government.

Andrew Marr listened to Gordon Brown.

Mrs Rigby didn't watch the Andrew Marr/Gordon Brown interview but she read a few reports and found the transcript here - The Andrew Marr Show

The transcript doesn't show the body language, it doesn't fully show the interruptions and, of course, it doesn't show the intonation either. It doesn't need to, the words are enough to get Mrs R into a flap. She could write pages, but will be strict with herself.

She noticed that Mr Brown used those little comparisons again, imitating St Francis. He said

Where there is wrongdoing, it will be exposed.
Where people need to be punished, they will be punished.
Where repayment needs to be made, it will be made.

Mrs R doesn't believe him one little bit. These are empty words.

He was, of course, talking about MP expenses. If he believes he's punished wrongdoers then he must have done it in secret because Hazel Blears is still there, Jacqui Smith is still there, Alistair Darling is still there and so are Balls/Cooper, three-house Hoon and the rest of the sleazy crew.

Punishment doesn't happen outside government either. Criminals are wandering the streets knowing they're untouchable because they're too nasty or too minority-group to be challenged. It's the normally law-abiding, ordinary folk who feel the wrath of this government's target-driven agenda.

He said :

In a free society, open information and open society is the key to a proper democracy being accountable. I've always supported that.

As Old Holborn pointed out last week, Labour policies have ensured that we are now listed 5th in the world's "Most Electronic Police States", with China, North Korea, Belarus and Russia pipping us to the post. Even the BBC has articles saying UK is sliding unwittingly into a Police State. Ex-MI5 people say the same, so it must be pretty bad.

Mrs R certainly doesn't feel any safer knowing her every move is being monitored and recorded. She wasn't in the least reassured to count at least 7 CCTV cameras pointing at the railway ticket queue at Gatwick Airport. She didn't feel less at risk whilst having to stand in front of a camera after checking in for a flight, nor when she had to take off her shoes and walk barefoot on filthy carpets - she just felt vulnerable, that she was being monitored, checked and recorded for no particular reason other than because they said so. This sort of thing makes the hairs on the back of Mrs R's neck prickle. It's creepy, and it isn't nice to be presumed capable of doing something nasty.

Mrs R can't imagine the people whose planning objections have been rejected, and who have been threatened with prosecution for making racist statements, believe they live in a democracy - where all views are taken into account.

Mrs Rigby doesn't believe the mother who is facing prosecution for trying to get her child into a good school thinks she lives in either an "open society" or a "proper democracy". Mrs R wonders if Mr Brown knows what those word means.

As for "open information" - he was joking, surely!

Is this the same "open information", enabled by Freedom of Information legislation, from which government exempted itself - whilst at the same time writing new laws that pass onto the statute books tucked away in Statutory Instruments instead of being subjected to the proper scrutiny of Parliamentary debate?

This is a government of list makers, of data collectors and bean counters. Mrs R doesn't think much of the information is of use to anybody other than a statistician, there is too much of it and it's held in too many separate places. But, the law enforcers will be able to use it to instantly punish wrongdoing. Ordinary people can't say, "Sorry, it was a mistake, I messed up," as can MPs with their financial claims.

Ordinary people will soon need to :-
* fill in lengthy forms to be able to travel to the Isle of Wight;
* hand over their most personal and intimate information to an un-named individual before being allowed to leave the country to travel overseas;
* have to pay a fixed penalty fine and provide personal details to a badge-wearing park keeper who didn't like the way they took a picture of some trees, because kids might be playing somewhere nearby.

Thanks to this government ordinary people can be found guilty, and summarily punished, on the say-so of a single individual and without benefit of judge and jury.

Mr Brown mentioned political reform.

Mrs R would welcome political reform - reform that ensures that those who make the laws are not allowed to set themselves above the law.

Mr Brown says he was,

brought up in a household where integrity and telling the truth and doing everything honestly was what really mattered.

Well, gosh! So were both Mr and Mrs Rigby, and so have the Rigby children. Look where it's got them!

Never-been-in-trouble Mr Rigby Junior has, for the privilege of working hard, been given a lovely set of undergraduate loans that will total at least £21,000, plus interest, after three years - not allowing for books, stationary, travel costs etc..

This wonderfully benevolent government will soon let the English Universities charge even more, just in time for Junior Miss Rigby to pay the bills - whilst students in Scotland will continue to get free higher education. It seems remarkably like academic apartheid and conditioning that personal debt is normal.

Everything the Rigby family touches is taxed, and taxed at least once, but with little to show for it.
* The road outside Rigby house is potholed, but the council won't look at them without being sent exact measurements.
* We Rigbys have never had a new car, so won't hand in our old bangers.
* Draughty old Rigby house doesn't qualify for cheap insulation, so the Rigbys wear thick jumpers and feel guilty for failing to conserve energy.
* Rigby's recycle, but their rubbish will be weighed in case there's too much.
* Rigby's council taxes are used elsewhere in the country (read here and here) where wage-earners are apparently less well-off.
* Rigby children (just the two) have never been eligible for any state support to help them with schooling/uniform/books/transport.
* Senior Rigbys' pension provision is terrifyingly low, but there'll be no chance of them borrowing their way out of trouble, and printing money for private use is illegal.

We Rigbys have been honest, have shown integrity.

Mr Brown refers to his "Presbyterian Conscience."

Blair found God after he'd resigned, and after carelessly shredding his expenses receipts. He does God so well that he has his own Faith Foundation, and reckons he can advise the Pope how to sort out Roman Catholicism.

Derek Draper was recently reported as being a practicing Christian. Pah! He didn't have much morality when he was manipulating words to make it look as if he'd attended a top university, nor when he was playing around with nasty emails.

In Mrs R's experience no God likes their religion being used as a smokescreen.

For these people, including Mr Brown, to have so conveniently found religion, and Christianity, at a time when ordinary British people are losing their jobs for offering up a prayer or wearing a crucifix is, she thinks a little bizarre and amazingly convenient timing which will perhaps help endear them to our more Catholic neighbours in Europe - which is where they may be looking for their next job.

Mrs R is, sadly, a cynic.

Al Jalom's compares MP expenses by party.

Discovered via Dick Puddlecote, Mrs Rigby was interested to read the end result of Al Jalom's weekend endeavours.

He has done some number magic with the expenses claimed by the "Top Hundred Troughers". Mrs R thinks it's worth reading.

Here's an extract or two :

Of the top 100 Commons troughers,

• 62% are Labour MPs (against 54.1% of 646 parliamentarians)
• 21% are Conservative MPs (against 29.9% of 646 parliamentarians)
• 15% are Lib Dem MPs (against 9.8% of 646 parliamentarians)
• 2% are other (against 6.2% of 646 parliamentarians) (% figure corrected)

and

• Labour MPs are the biggest troughers taking 55.8% of allowances paid, while having 55.1% of MPs in the mix here.
• Conservative, while still in the same league are the least trougherous, taking 29.5% of allowances, amongst 30.4% of MPs in the mix here.
• This means Tory MPs cost, on average, about £5500 less than Labour MPs, and almost £9000 less than Lib Dems.

Of the top 50 troughing MPs

• 33 are Labour MPs (66% against 54.1% of 646 parliamentarians)
• 10 are Conservative MPs (20% against 29.9% of 646 parliamentarians)
• 7 are Lib Dem MPs (14% against 9.8% of 646 parliamentarians)

There is other mathematical and statistical wizardry, and Al Jalom says he might revisit the data and work out some more.

Interesting stuff, don't you think?

PR and Mrs Rigby.

Sometimes things make Mrs Rigby feel a bit nice but dim, Proportional Representation has been one of those things.

Some politicians have been raising the idea that the current "First past the post" system of parliamentary elections is really unfair, for a few reasons.

a) The smaller political parties don't get many seats, if any.
b) The people who've voted for the smaller parties aren't represented
c) First past the post winner rarely gets "most" votes when all the votes cast for other parties are added together.

The CBBC site, probably says it better; the "Single Transferable Vote", or STV, has an explanation in Wikipedia - it's miles too long to repeat here; "Alternative Vote Plus" is explained by the BBC and "Additional Member System" is described by the Electoral Reform Society, which has a careful explanation of all PR voting systems.

Looking at these various ideas Mrs R has begun to wonder PR originates from the same sort of "It's not fair!" that's bleated out again and again when somebody gets a prize and loads of other people - who have tried hard - don't.

She wonders if it's the same sort of, "It's not fair" and "everybody should be equal" that totally confused Little Miss Rigby when she was seven and had her first school sports day. The children had to show off their ball skills and run races that weren't (to make sure nobody could be last) but unfortunately there were no real winners either, because everybody got a sticker before they went home. The teachers were delighted that nobody had ended the day in tears.

Now, you can't pull the wool over children's eyes - they know when they're being conned, and these children knew very well they hadn't done anything worthy of a special sticker - because it wasn't the same as getting one when they tried very hard with their colouring, got all their sums right, did some writing with no mistakes or read carefully during assembly.

Mrs Rigby has some simple examples of why she does not think PR is a good idea - not least because it's way outside our culture. She is also wondering who is trying to pull the wool over her eyes

In the real world there are winners and losers.

When a job is advertised there may be hundreds of applicants who will each have spent hours filling in complicated forms - they'll all have tried very hard, they'll each have done their very best, but at the end of it the employer will check Jacqui Smith's or Harriet Harman's rules about equal opportunities, and then choose the person they think is most suited for the job that's on offer.

Britain's Got Talent will end up with one winner - who will be chosen by public vote - the one with the highest number of votes wins. There's no question of ticking loads of different boxes to make it "fair" and "equal", it's simple maths and completely ignores the total number of votes cast, for all acts, when added together.

Musical hits are the ones with the highest sales; the winners in the marketplace are selected by sales volume, nothing else. In fact almost everything we touch is decided by a clear difference, not by some intricate formula designed to "make it fair".

So Mrs R looked a bit deeper, she thought it was really odd that a few years ago people like Gordon Brown thought PR was a silly idea, but high-ups in the Labour Party think it's great now - why?

Is it because somebody thinks his political party might not do very well at the next election?

Mrs R thinks this might be the case, she's realised that PR often leads to coalitions because it's hard to get a clear winner and she thinks somebody is getting rather desperate to cling to power, believing it's their right to lead this country. So, how are they going to manage to retain power - by Proportional Representation of course!

Hah!

No thank you!

An MP's threatening letter.

Mrs Rigby notes that some MPs don't seem to realise they're there to listen to their constituents, even if they don't like what they hear.

It's reported in the Mail today here that Brian Jenkins has written to his constituent Warren Clegg, threatening legal action concerning a letter in a local newspaper.

A Labour MP was accused of ‘bullying’ yesterday for threatening to sue a 21-year-old student who criticised him for not backing the Gurkhas.

Warren Clegg, a member of the Territorial Army, received the threat in a letter from his MP Brian Jenkins.

It was hand-delivered to Mr Clegg’s mother Julie Steggles at their home in Tamworth, Staffordshire – two days after her soldier husband John, Mr Clegg’s stepfather, had left to serve with the Army in Afghanistan.

Mr Jenkins, writing on House of Commons notepaper, said: ‘You have damaged my good name. It is my intention to seek legal redress unless you able [sic] to prove your allegations or are prepared to fully retract the offending comments and apologise unreservedly.’

In a letter two weeks ago to his local newspaper, Mr Clegg said: ‘I wrote to Mr Jenkins in support of the Gurkhas; as usual, my opinion as one of his constituents did not warrant a response.’

He said Mr Jenkins had ‘voted to keep the Gurkhas in poverty’ by not agreeing to let them settle in the UK.

Yes, some of the Mail article is padding - Mr Jenkins probably didn't know that one of the family had gone to fight in Afghanistan, probably didn't know that Warren Clegg is in the TA. And, maybe, Mr Jenkins was trying to save taxpayer's money by delivering the letter by hand.

But, instead, Mrs Rigby thinks he's highlighted a symptom of the country's malaise. You see, Mrs R has noted that the first thing a lot of people do when they run up against a problem is run to a lawyer - and attempt to get compensation of one sort or another. She hadn't expected an MP would do the same, especially not now, when politicians of all parties should be doing their utmost to rebuild the electorate's trust.

Mrs R would have thought his best route would have been to make an appointment, talk to the chap who wrote the letter, try to sort out their disagreement amicably and, maybe, even apologise - and mean it too, not with crocodile tears. Doing this could even have led to a positive report in the press, which might have helped him at the hustings.

Mrs Rigby thinks it's the duty and responsibility of our politicians to lead by example, and had thought they would realise that doing nothing about an irritation can sometimes lead to a good result.

By being heavy handed Mr Jenkins has brought this matter into the public eye.

Mrs Rigby wouldn't mind betting he wishes he hadn't bothered She wonders if he's just remembered that scratching a tiny little midge bite can make the itch a hundred times worse.

Frank Field is first!

Actually, Mrs Rigby doesn't know if he is first, but he's the first she has noticed in her wanderings round the internet.

Frank Field, who is Member of Parliament for Birkenhead, has published his expenses on his website. They can be found on the front page of his site, which is here

Hat's off to you Mr Field, for doing the decent thing.

Separately, Iain Dale had an informal poll for, asking visitors to his site who they would most like to see as Speaker. 2,100 people (members of the public who visit his blog) voted and this answer caught my eye. Mrs R hopes he doesn't mind it being shown here.

who you would like to succeed Michael Martin
Frank Field 19%
Sir Ming Campbell 18%
Sir George Young 15%
Kate Hoey 13%
David Davis 6%
Sir Alan Haselhurst 6%
Ken Clarke 5%
Alan Beith 4%
John Bercow 3%
Keith Simpson 3%
Sir Patrick Cormack 3%
Richard Shepherd 2%

Mrs Rigby thinks Mr Field would make an excellent Speaker, but she thinks his job on the back benches is more important to his constituents.

Decent MPs.

Mrs Rigby thinks there are plenty of decent MPs who are being hurt by the current expenses scandal. She's sure that most of the 646 won't have "flipped" their second homes and won't be claiming their sister's spare room is their main family home. She's worried that the good MPs will be thrown out with the bathwater their less scrupulous colleagues have dirtied.

Ignoring the second home thing for a moment, which some MPs have clearly abused, an MP with a constituency a couple of hundred miles from Westminster will have to spend a lot on travelling, and will also need somewhere to stay overnight. Those MPs who have done this at least practicable cost to the taxpayer should be lauded, irrespective of their political party.

Mrs Rigby would like to see frugal MPs named and praised by the media. Whichever newspaper takes the lead, once the nasties are out of the way, she thinks they need to be realistic - and fair.

There was an article in the Telegraph on 7th May which tried to do this, giving Philip Hollobone, MP for Kettering, the accolade of being the "cheapest" MP. Dennis Skinner was second.

Mrs Rigby wondered at the time if there was some sort of internal competition for being the cheapest, because MP Desmond Swayne said here

He said he was competitive about lowering his expenses and was proud to be in the lowest 10

Reasonable and essential expenses.

Mrs Rigby wants MPs to show exactly what they've successfully claimed, and been given, by the fees office. She wants them to do it voluntarily, and to do it soon.

Mrs R doesn't want to see "redacted" lists, she wants to see exactly where her and Mr Rigby's money is, and has been, going.

You see, Mrs R got a bit annoyed after she followed Iain Dale's link and listened to Lembit Opik on the radio. She's sorry to single him out and write his name here for all to see, but in amongst all the news items about expenses this one struck a chord. He spent, and claimed, £700 for a television for his "second home". He'd tried to claim £2,500 for a presumably bigger and better one. The higher claim was rejected, so he bought it anyway - out of his own pocket - and put that television in his "main" home. That means he spent £3,200 on a pair of televisions, and got £700 back. Mrs R will concentrate on this £700 which was paid out by the fees office.

Using Jacqui Smith's "Court of Public Opinion", Mrs Rigby rules that this cost is unreasonable. There are two reasons she can think of right now.

1) Mrs Rigby knows that somebody earning minimum wage (£5.73 an hour) would have to work more than three 40-hour weeks to take home more than £700. (On National Minimum Wage somebody who works for 40 hours a week, excluding meal breaks, earns £11,918.40 - before national insurance and income tax deductions.) She wants to know why their taxes should buy an well-paid public servant's spare television.

2) Mr and Mrs Rigby can't afford to spend £700 on a single television for their only home. She's a bit irritated that any MP thinks it's okay to take the Rigby family's taxes and spend them so indiscriminately on themselves. She thinks a cheap television from a supermarket or electrical chain store is just as good for watching the news - if watching the news is why a television is "essential".

Mrs Rigby doesn't think expensive televisions are any more "reasonable", or essential, for an MP to do their job than cutting their grass.