MPs' expenses: things for policywonk to say if she gets the chance

I did wonder about the probe

Are you going to have to get that post deleted?

Prezza pork-chomping saliva-spray-shock!

hi artichokes - shame, that would have been fun! I tried to break into the Portcullis House central atrium bit but my crappy photocopied drone-level pass would not get me in.

I think more independent MPs would be brilliant. Would really love it if the next GE saw a big influx - enough for them to form a little caucus of their own and start throwing their weight around.

Good point re. Lords payment. I think HK is particularly incensed by peers selling themselves to lobbyists - she reckons it's endemic.

Is this all a bit too much like an A-Level politics seminar? [1989, Oxford and Cambridge Board, 'C', appeal comprehensively rejected]

It's an interesting debate Mollie. Why wouldn't you want one?

And so to Normie Normster. I still want to lick his face, he was marvellous. (For those who don't know, Norman Baker (LibDem, Lewes - fab town, fab MP) has been ploughing a lonely furrow on political transparency and Freedom of Information for years now, and he's been saying for ages that the public need to know what's been happening behind closed doors.)

Said that this is a Berlin Wall moment in British politics. He commented that the Commons 'feels' better today because MPs know they've begun to tackle the issue. The next Speaker will have a mandate because, for the first time, s/he will have been elected by private ballot (something that was unthinkable even a few days ago - I heard someone pshaw-ing the very idea of a secret ballot only a couple of days ago on the radio).

To some extent the new Speaker will be chosen by the public at large (in that MPs will take a close interest in any published opinion polls about the candidates); the public is finally taking ownership of the parliamentary process.

There needs to be a rebalancing of the relationship between the executive (government) and legislature (Commons/Lords); powers of appointment and declaration of war/peace need to be given to Parliament at large. No more guillotining of bills; they don't do it in the Lords so it's not necessary in the Commons either. (He gave the example of a debate yesterday in which just half an hour was allocated to the use of DNA samples.)

Importance of freedom of information; transparency is the key to a modern society and to giving power to the electorate. This whole issue has only come to light because of transparency measures.

He also sees more independents being elected at all levels, and a corresponding diminution in the power of the big parties.

Thanks jux.

Do you think people agree with all those things, ron? I do, but it's a fairly liberal/reformist agenda. I think the public at large barely understand this argument, let alone support it (this probably sounds insulting but I do think it's true - say you want a written constitution and the average person will go 'eh? I thought we already had one?')

HK also said that there's a misperception that voters are apathetic. She reckons they're not apathetic; they're unhappy, feel voiceless, fed up with stage-management of politics, know that politicans promise the earth to get elected and then don't do half of what they promised, feel that the major parties are too similar, distrust the culture of professional politicians and the conveyer belt from politics into the private sector (she gave the eg of Blunkett widening the use of DNA sampling hugely while Home Sec and then stepping directly on to the board of a DNA testing company when he left the cabinet. Which does stink to ruddy high heaven.)

She wants: written constitution (written with input from the electorate, not solely by politicians); funding of political parties (she admits this is a non-started in present climate); reduction in size of Commons and particularly Lords (she says the Lords expense scandals have yet to come out); greater powers for Select Committees, less power for whips; immediate moratorium on all appointments to Lords (including Martin) until situation has stabilised.

That's the one justa - think it got ripped to shreds on here (there's a surprise!)

Thanks Ronshar

Helena Kennedy was ruddy marvellous. I told her she has a lot of fans on here (did not specifically mention Pan's wish to lick her face). She is tremendously tiny, brilliant speaker, very quick and fluent (lawyer).

She said that this is a political moment that could be seized to great effect, but that at the moment too many MPs don't 'get' how furious people are. She said she's been speaking to doorstep canvassers, many of whom are knocking on a bit, and they are saying that they're being met with real fury on the doorsteps and a lot of them are saying they don't want to do it any more cos they're intimidated and pissed off.

She commented (as a Labour peer) that Labour have failed to engage properly with the constitutional reform agenda, but that one thing they have done - Freedom of Information legislation - led to these details being revealed, so they have done some good.

at 'Is he a parent?'

If you didn't see my Tweets, the hot news is that a lot of the MPs in the room were supporting John Bercow (Conservative but famously independently-minded) for Speaker (although apparently there's an odd situation in which Conservatives, broadly speaking, are supporting Labour's Frank Field (silly person IMO) and Labour is supporting Bercow); and the General Election is going to be on May 6 2010.

Julia H is a PR person - used to run Hobsbawm Macauley (sp?) with Sarah Brown but they had a big old falling out.

Her dad is Eric Hobsbawm, Marxist historian extraordinaire and fantastic writer.

anonyous?

Did I mention that Julia H apologised?

I need to do a shout out to An MNer Who Seems To Wish To Remain Anonyous But Who Gave Norman Baker's Exact Answer On A Thread Several Days Ago, if she's reading this.