Hello readers!
Ever wondered how to actually find out what your MP is doing in the House of Commons, or even who your MP is? One easy way of doing it, as I have found out whilst working in Parliament, is to use the excellent website that is They Work For You. It allows you to do several things:
1. Find out who your MP is according to your postcode: so if you type in TR10 9EZ and click search, you get George Eustice (Conservative), the MP for Camborne and Redruth.
2. Set up a feed to your e-mail account alerting you as to when your MP speaks in the House, with a link to the debate in full.
3. See how your MP has voted on various issues, such as tuition fees.
4. Examine their expenses claims.
5. Find out what their interests are: in Ben Bradshaw's case, it's the National Lottery and Arts Councils.
So definitely worth having a look at if you want to find out more about MPs. Fun times!
Thanks for reading,
The Evening Stanners
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label expenses scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expenses scandal. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Broken Laws

Oh, dearie me. The coalition may well hold a new record for the quickest Cabinet resignation since the formation of a UK government known to man. Not even Ted Heath's government started this badly, though it has to be said that David Cameron did NOT get hit by rotten tomatoes.
So why is the Lib-Con coalition honeymoon "already over"? Well, as I'm sure you'll have read in the Guardian and other such outraged newspapers (ie all of 'em), David Laws (above), Chief Secretary to the Treasury, resigned yesterday. This is because he broke the expenses rules from 2006, when he claimed money that should have gone to the taxpayer.
About £40,000 to be precise.
Naturally, there's a bit of outrage about that: the Lib Dems did rather well after taking the moral high ground on the expenses scandal last year, so the Yeovil MP is not exactly in much of a position to argue.
The difficulty for Laws is that he was trying to protect people around him: because the money he claimed went to his landlord, and partner, James Lundie. Many of his close friends did not know about Laws' sexuality: hence why he claimed the money, in order to protect his reputation. Unfortunately, covering something up will only get you so far: in Laws' case, into the Cabinet for 18 days, before all hell broke loose.
It's hard not to feel sorry for Laws: one gets the feeling he's been hounded out a bit here. But rules are rules, and Laws would only have damaged his reputation further by trying to wriggle out of it. In any case, judging by the support from such right-wingers as Iain Duncan-Smith, he will probably be back at some point. But the lefties will want to see him repay the money, and plenty of penitence whilst he's at it: much like they wanted to see Tony Blair apologise for Iraq, or George Bush apologise for being a muppet.
So will the coalition fall apart? My guessing would be: not yet, lads. This was very much the media baying for blood, and the public mood is decidedly anti-media: newspapers are not cool, Twitter and Facebook more sort of are. So the likelihood is it will hold until at least next May, by which time we'll see how the new Labour man (or woman) is doing.
Definitely a shock to the system, though.
Clegg: Well, this is a bit bogus.
Bill: Shut up, Clegg!
The Evening Stanners
So why is the Lib-Con coalition honeymoon "already over"? Well, as I'm sure you'll have read in the Guardian and other such outraged newspapers (ie all of 'em), David Laws (above), Chief Secretary to the Treasury, resigned yesterday. This is because he broke the expenses rules from 2006, when he claimed money that should have gone to the taxpayer.
About £40,000 to be precise.
Naturally, there's a bit of outrage about that: the Lib Dems did rather well after taking the moral high ground on the expenses scandal last year, so the Yeovil MP is not exactly in much of a position to argue.
The difficulty for Laws is that he was trying to protect people around him: because the money he claimed went to his landlord, and partner, James Lundie. Many of his close friends did not know about Laws' sexuality: hence why he claimed the money, in order to protect his reputation. Unfortunately, covering something up will only get you so far: in Laws' case, into the Cabinet for 18 days, before all hell broke loose.
It's hard not to feel sorry for Laws: one gets the feeling he's been hounded out a bit here. But rules are rules, and Laws would only have damaged his reputation further by trying to wriggle out of it. In any case, judging by the support from such right-wingers as Iain Duncan-Smith, he will probably be back at some point. But the lefties will want to see him repay the money, and plenty of penitence whilst he's at it: much like they wanted to see Tony Blair apologise for Iraq, or George Bush apologise for being a muppet.
So will the coalition fall apart? My guessing would be: not yet, lads. This was very much the media baying for blood, and the public mood is decidedly anti-media: newspapers are not cool, Twitter and Facebook more sort of are. So the likelihood is it will hold until at least next May, by which time we'll see how the new Labour man (or woman) is doing.
Definitely a shock to the system, though.
Clegg: Well, this is a bit bogus.
Bill: Shut up, Clegg!
The Evening Stanners
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Speak Up, Old Chap

This is John Bercow, MP for Buckingham and Speaker of the House of Commons. Or is he? Because for a man who needs to keep order at Prime Minister's Questions and crucial debates, Bercow is having a bit of difficulty keeping hold of anything.
It wasn't always so for the Speaker: generally elected comfortably, it's a position that isn't normally affected by the hurly-burly of elections. Douglas Clifton Brown, for example, became Speaker during the Second World War of all times, and stayed on after the Labour landslide despite being Conservative. Likewise, figures like Bernard Weatherill and Betty Boothroyd saw relatively long stints at the post pass unhindered, as Thatcher and Blair towered over them.
But then came Michael Martin, and all hell has broken loose since then.
Martin was elected in October 2000, and caused a bit of a stir at the time amongst those who believed that a Conservative MP should have been chosen for the role. He had been chosen because of his support from fellow Labour backbenchers, but from 2006 onwards he started to make a nuisance of himself. Supposed bias towards Tony Blair certainly did not endear him to Conservative MPs or rebel Labour backbenchers.
Then came the expenses.
It is not at all clear whether Martin was aware just how much he was shooting himself in the foot, but to the impartial spectator it appears he was more than happy to carry on reloading. Martin was linked with not one but four expenses scandals, he then let police search the office of Damian Green (the Conservative spokesman for immigration) without a search warrant.
After that, the writing was on the wall: Douglas Carwell MP tabled a motion of no confidence on 19th May 2009, and Martin resigned. It was the first time in over 300 years that a Speaker had had to stand down.
After that, the writing was on the wall: Douglas Carwell MP tabled a motion of no confidence on 19th May 2009, and Martin resigned. It was the first time in over 300 years that a Speaker had had to stand down.

Bercow's appointment has been equally controversial: he may be a Conservative, but the Tories do not like him. This is illustrated rather well by Nadine Dorries (above), the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, who has e-mailed the "new kids on the block" in order to warn them about that bully Bercow. The warning goes as follows: "there are a number of reasons why, since his appointment, Mr Bercow has proven unsuitable in the Speaker's role. Not least, on the occasions during the last session when Mr Bercow found remaining impartial, a crucial quality in the role of Speaker, very difficult, leading to a number of heated exchanges between the Speaker and Conservative MPs."
So. Not really a ringing endorsement.
Fortunately for Bercow, Dorries is generally considered a pain in the neck by her own party and by others: her own expenses claims do not exactly give her the high ground, and such campaigns as banning high heels in the office would seem to present her as having her priorities mixed up. Some comments on Twitter illustrate this point rather well:
If Nadine Dorries thinks new MPs don't know how batty she is, she's more batty than I thought.
Given she can't maintain a Twitter a/c or website it's amazing Nadine Dorries managed to send an email at all.
Just when I thought I couldn't dislike Nadine Dorries more!
Haha, I bet Bercow is delighted Dorries is telling people not to vote for him.
Nadine Dorries wants to get rid of Speaker Bercow? Bercow can't be all that bad then!
Judging from those soundbites, it's going to be rather surprising if Bercow actually gets voted out. Even if he is much too liberal for the Daily Mail's liking. And after all, if he can hold off ten opponents in his own constituency, chances are he'll knock Dorries for six. Otherwise, one suspects this Government has started with a wobble.
The Evening Stanners
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
