Here’s a few stories that have grabbed my eye from today’s press. What do you think and what stories have interested you? Let us know in the comments.
First of all, we’re just 48 hours away from the US Midterms, a set of elections in which the Republicans are expected to do well. In reality, it’s a set of elections a bit like the Euros were for us, that are not the Democrats’ strongest sets, even on a good day. The Observer follows Obama for 24 hours on the campaign trail and majors on his weaknesses. There’s an argument he’s done pretty well given the wrecking mischief-making of the Republicans during his entire term. There is evidence of the Obama we know:
Yet hints of the old Obama remain. During his gubernatorial rally in Maine, Mike Michaud – a former mill-worker who would become America’s first openly gay elected governor, if successful on Tuesday – the president’s speechwriters drift toward the catchphrases of his own election campaign: hope, change, progress.
“Hope is a better choice,” Obama tells the audience. “Hope is what gives those soldiers in world war two the courage to storm a beach. Hope is what allows young people to march on behalf of women’s rights, and workers’ rights, and civil rights, and voting rights, and gay rights, and immigration rights.”
The Indepepndent is a bit kinder – and looks to two years’ time for real opportunity for the Democrats:
But, finally, the biggest mess of all will come if indeed the Senate falls into GOP hands this week. Mitch McConnell, currently the minority leader, will, as majority leader (if he is not defeated in his own race to keep his seat in Kentucky), have to prove to the country that with both chambers of Congress in their control, the Republicans can act responsibly and get things done.
It is a good bet, however, that they would continue with their obstructionist agenda of the past few years, sending bills to the White House that they know Obama will be completely unable to sign.
The result could be two years of gridlock even worse than Washington has witnessed so far. If that is their legacy when we arrive at the start of 2016, the Democrats, Mrs Clinton included, will be quick to exploit it.
Fraught elections aren’t confined to the US. The Sunday Times (£) reports allegations of US style “push-polling’ in the Rochester and Strood by-election as UKIP accuse the Tories of dirty tricks.
The same paper (£) also has Norman Baker have a good old go at the Tories, saying that they make policy decisions based on prejudice rather than evidence and telling of their interference in his plans on drugs policy and gun licence fees:
“I think it’s a pity that in the Home Office there is a reluctance sometimes to base policy on what is factual and rely instead on prejudice,” he said.
“Unfortunately the home secretary and her special advisers think the Home Office is a Conservative department in a Conservative government. It’s not. It’s a coalition department in a coalition government.”
Relations between the Lib Dems and the Tories have soured and the parties clashed last week following the publication of a controversial report that said the decriminalisation of drugs would not increase their use. Senior Lib Dems, including the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, praised the report but May quickly stamped on any notion of changing current drug laws.
“The Conservative high command sounded out of touch and petulant,” said Baker. “If you want to minimise drug use damage you need an evidence-based approach based on what works.”
He thinks that decriminalising drug use and instead putting addicts into treatment programmes would free police to pursue dealers. “Criminalising huge numbers of people for possessing a small amount of cannabis is nonsensical and counterproductive and it also wastes police time,” he said.
The Telegraph has a really interesting interview with the author of a new biography of Margot Asquith, wife of the Liberal Prime Minister H H Asquith. It just goes to show that papers making stuff up about people they don’t like, especially if they are slightly unconventional women, is nothing new.
Lord Alfred Douglas, poet and lover of Oscar Wilde, penned a satirical verse in 1915 accusing “merry Margot” of cuckolding her husband with other women in 10 Downing Street while young men were dying in the trenches in northern France.
Again it was, de Courcy shows, untrue as well as malicious. Indeed, there was some cuckolding – but not by Margot. When he was meant to be leading a country embroiled in a bloody war, Asquith had fallen in love with Venetia Stanley, a friend of his daughter Violet (by his first wife with whom he had five children) and 35 years his junior. He would sit in cabinet meetings writing her love letters. To complicate matters, his private secretary was smitten by Violet.
“Can you imagine?” says de Courcy. “That was a tragic period in Margot’s life, but the public at large knew nothing about it.” Perhaps they might have judged her more kindly if they had.
Today, many might nominate Cherie Blair as the most unpopular prime minister’s spouse of modern times, but Anne de Courcy believes Margot Asquith suffered more. “Imagine having people say in the middle of a world war that the prime minister’s wife is a traitor. That’s what they said about Margot. She had to go to court twice to stop the public accusations that she was sending parcels to German officers, or playing tennis with them in a prisoner-of-war camp. And even then it remained common currency.”
And, finally, from the Sunday Times again, there’s that poll which makes Ed Miliband the most unpopular leader in the country, at -55 one point lower than Nick Clegg. This is not something that I’m suggesting is any cause for celebration. When I see Cameorn with such relatively high (although still sub zero)approval ratings, I wonder why. Interesting, though, that the percentage of Liberal Democrat voters, 71%, who back Nick Clegg, is significantly higher than the number of people in the LDV Members’ Forum who are satisfied with him. Is it time to listen to the voters and cut him some slack?
Another You Gov poll has grabbed the headlines in Scotland as Scotland on Sunday reports. Just 6 weeks after the Referendum, the only pollster to put Yes ahead during the campaign, has done so again. It also has really worrying figures for both the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour. For Scottish Labour, it’s clear that voters are unconvinced by Jim Murphy to say the least.
What’s grabbed your attention from the papers today?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Andrew Tampion
Anne Williams
Steve J Smith
nigel hunter
Chloe
53 Comments
Caron, you say that it may be time to cut Nick some slack given the fact that he is more popular with our voters than with party members. I would imagine these numbers are based on those supporters we have left (though please do correct me if I am wrong), so that is not a surprising finding. I think you would see a very different result if you asked all those who voted for us in 2010 what they thought of Nick… And it is those liberal minded people who have stopped supporting us since the last GE who are very people we need to win back.
A wiser interpretation of the polling on leader popularity is that this has relatively minor effect on voting intention. Cameron may be popular, his party is less so than in 2010, Miliband may be unpopular, his party is more so than in 2010. I’ll let you decide what the liberal democrat voting intention says about the liberal democrat party.
I much prefer Nick than Ed if I could give Nick one small tip that would be, when he sits at PMQs he just tries looking less unhappy he looks as if the milk is sour. The strange thing is when he speaks his face is often more happy. You may think this is small point however who would trust someone who looks as if he had lost the will to live.
I am sorry Nick if it seems hard on you as actually I quite like you but my goodness it’s hard trusting someone who looks glum
I think Ed is disliked as he does not radiate any sincerity or regret for things Labour did in 13 years of power, he may be more of a man if he rejected Alex Salmonds point of offering coalition won’t England be keen if the Scottish Mps will not only vote on our English laws but also appear that Labour has 2 masters Union and SNP
“Interesting, though, that the percentage of Liberal Democrat voters, 71%, who back Nick Clegg, is significantly higher than the number of people in the LDV Members’ Forum who are satisfied with him. Is it time to listen to the voters and cut him some slack?”
Seriously?
Yes its 71% approval. But of just 7% of the electorate. Look outside those groups (ie to people whos support the party would need to win if it were to move of 6-7% and it’s terrible. Among 2010 Lib Dems its just 27%, trusted to make the right decisions on the economy, 3%m,, NHS 5% , schools 8% (overall figures).
This is beyond spin it’s desperately, disturbingly complacent if that represents any sort of view among key people at the top of the party.
What exactly should he be cut some slack for? And in any case the membership by and large cut him some slack after the elections in May when there was a general view that the party needed to change direction and remotivate the membership rather than a leadership election. What are the results of that? The pre-manifesto, proposed 4 “red line” pledges and the Gurling report which doesn’t show much signs of having been acted upon.
Oh – and the midterms are not the Democrats equivalent of the Euros for us. They won the House and Senate in the equivalent (nearly – different senate seats were up) elections in 2006
Hywel, the Democrats were in opposition in 2006 when George W was in power and pretty unpopular. Not the same situation at all.
The Gurling Report had a fair number of recommendations which have been acted upon. I agree with you on the red line pledges but there is time to fix that. The Pre-Manifesto has been through FPC and Conference so you can’t blame Nick for all of that.
I am not stupid, you know. It is plainly obvious that we are up against a massive threat in the next 6 months. We need to get marching towards the gunfire, though. I think there are lots of productive things we can do to influence strategy over the next few months. I have my own opinions about what needs to change and I put them forward. We have to have some sort of sense of solidarity though – and that includes with Nick. He has six months to turn this round and I think it’s more constructive for the party to be supporting him rather than decrying him. I think he has responded to what people think. We’re hearing much stronger language on protecting the vulnerable and breaking down the sorts of barriers that hold people back. I’d still like the language to be stronger but there is a positive change.
There’s some good stuff on wealth taxes and housing and political reform in the manifesto – those things need to be front and centre.
The real point about those leadership approval figures is that they feel relatively “cool” & thus get away from the problem of people saying what they think they “should ” say. We see the same effect with ICMs Wisdom Polls which ask how you think other people will behave in The Election. On average Voters expect The Libdems to get 15%, roughly double our average Polling on the usual “How will You Vote” question.
What those who think we are doomed have to explain is why Voters, on average, are overestimating our prospects to such a degree ? Why would they overestimate at all ?
Similarly the Anti-Clegg brigade have to explain why Clegg is more than twice as popular as his Party ? Thats what the Polling “says” but it makes no sense. If anything Clegg should be even less popular than the Party as a whole.
ICMs 15% in the Wisdom Index & that 18% approval for Clegg actually represent the likely range of our performance next May.
I do not trust Clegg to deliver on what he says. So that results in an empty manifesto for me. Clegg has said nothing about how he intends to get trust back. He said “what goes down, goes up” and thus does not want to turn things around. He thinks things are already going in the right direction
GV, he’s delivered quite a lot of what he said last time – pupil premium, tax threshold raise (which, even if you don’t agree with it is a promise kept) and a whole load of green stuff which would never have seen the light of day if the Tories had been in power.
Green Voter,
“Clegg has said nothing about how he intends to get trust back.”
What can he say that he hasn’t said already? Politicians can rebuild damaged reputations, as Gordon Brown did in the final days of the Scottish referendum. But there is a crucial difference between Brown and Clegg. Brown never lost the respect of his core constituency. Clegg has no core constituency. He is a synthetic political personality without a coherent set of values. If we could merge the niceness of Charles Kennedy with the toughness of Paddy Ashdown and the intelligence of Ming Campbell, then we have our leader.
pual barker, this post of mine should probably be rejected by the moderators on the grounds that multiple similar posts have been made in the past. Every time you trot out your “Poll shows Clegg is more popular than his party” line.
The usual phrasing is that you are comparing apples with pears. The question about Clegg asks for an “approval” rating, and finds that somewhat more than 7% of the great British public say they are “satisified” with the way he is doing his job. However, that’s a completely different question from “who will you vote for?”, a question on which only one party can be given a preference. Quite a number of Tory voters are satisfied that Clegg is helping the Tories, but they won’t vote LD, they’ll vote Tory. So, your conclusion is bogus.
Whenever anyone posts this argument, proving that your conclusion is bogus, what do you do? Generaly, you just go quiet. So, presumably you know perfectly well that your conclusion is bogus. And yet you keep repeating it. Presumably you believe that if you repeat a terminological inexactitude often enough, people will believe it. And that’s the way you think Lib Dems can best hope to make progress. Well,you may be right about that last point.
“……………….the home secretary and her special advisers think the Home Office is a Conservative department in a Conservative government. It’s not. It’s a coalition department in a coalition government.”
If only Norman Baker had been a Cabinet minister from the beginning of the coalition !!!
He might have been able to get this sort of thinking across to some of those less able Liberal Democrats who thought that when the Tories told them to jump, their job was to jump.
Good to see our old mate Paul Barker trotting out the same old rubbish as before. He’s been told it is totally misleading everytime, but never replies and never retracts. Just same old, same old. 🙁
Caron, every time you have cut Nick some more slack, and every time things have got worse. Is it time you stopped cutting him the slack, or do you really believe that repeating the same thing again and again will result in a different result?
@David Allen – quite so. If a pollster asked me “do you approve of the way that Ed Miliband is running the Labour Party?” I would think of his inept handling of the Scottish Labour Party issue and (more enlightening to most people) the “tuppence to the beggar” fiasco. And I would conclude that yes, I do approve of the way that Ed Miliband is running the Labour Party because it might encourage Labour waverers to vote LD in Con/LD seats. I wonder what percentage of Clegg’s approval is based on the same reasoning.
Caron
You ask about — “..the percentage of Liberal Democrat voters, 71%, who back Nick Clegg”
You know from your long campaigning experience that this is nonsense and anyone who cares about the survival of the party will be ignoring this sort of thing and instead helping in those dozen or so constituencies where their efforts might make a difference. Or in Scotland those two constituencies where it might make a difference.
Poor Ed Davey had to go on The Sunday Politics today and answer questions from Andrew Neil and three other journalists about how Liberal Democrat MPs were going to get out of the hole that has been dug for them.
When Ed trotted out the usual line about how it will all be alright on the night just as soon as the voters learn how wonderful life is after four and a half years of Coaliton, Andrew Neil and the other three journalists laughed in his face.
Isobel Oakeshott then made the point that however well Liberal Democrats had done in Coalition and however good Liberal Democrat policies in the manifesto are, nobody will vote for us because the real problem is Clegg.
She said nobody will vote Liberal Democrat whilst he remans leader– because nobody trusts him.
Ed said something in reply but the four journalists just laughed at him again.
Humiliation might be the right word to describe what the Secretary of State must have felt in that moment.
Here he was a Cabinet Minister at the very top of his political career being interviewed on national TV and being laughed at by his interviewers.
They were not being unduly cruel, it is just that the leadership line is like a old Music Hall Joke.
Everyone knows the punch line and many people are laughing even before they get to the hackneyed lines about taking some people out of taxes and turning round the economy.
It is a joke that is going to wear a bit thin over the next 150 days.
“……..the Gurling report which doesn’t show much signs of having been acted upon.”
@David Allen “you just go quiet”
@David Evans “never replies and never retracts”
In Paul Barker’s defence (not of the point he is making – generally I disagree when he pops up with his optimistically loyal spin), in posts about improving discussions on this site he has often indicated that he does not like it when people respond to posts in a thread (I disagree with him on that as well).
I think we might all look back at the coalition period as one of relatively benign and really quite stable govt. Of the 3 UK leaders, I probably like Cameron best (gasp) but his party least. The fact that he was PM with liberal partners worked for me. The LD problem is that they have been held to higher standards than the others, and it will take time for supporters and voters to get over that. There is nothing that I can see can save Labour, and their leader is much the least convincing; their support knows this which is why they are so cross at him for not getting out of the way.
At the moment there is little reason to vote at all, and I can’t see that changing until leaders and parties and systems change.
For me, the big hope is a sizeable Commons contingent, under Salmond, holding the balance of power and wrecking and burying the union and its outdated systems , thereby breaking the ‘establishment’ state once and for all. it might just about be democracy but it would be fun to watch!
Caron I don’t think you’re stupid and I’ve never said that*
I’m sure you have put forward alternative suggestions and I know that you share a number of my concerns even if not my conclusions. The problem is that time is getting very very short. At what point does it need to be said “this isn’t working”
Look at the trend on this graph in 2014.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
Then extend that a few more months. It’s arguable that there is a little bit of tweaked language but I’d really struggle to identify an example other than adding “opportunity for all” to the party slogan. If party strategy is truly that “we’ll perform better in marginals” is that being backed up by polling results because the pattern in local election is mixed, the Scottish elections don’t point towards incumbency being a saving magic bullet and the seat polls I’ve seen have sketchy information (although not asking the right questions IMO.
There is a view among some activists that it needs FPC to refocus the direction of the manifesto. But it is that same FPC that endorsed the pre-manifesto and has either approved or been sidelined in producing the “top lines” currenlty being circulated.
(*just to be clear – because, y’know misunderstands on LDV threads can sometimes spiral a bit! 🙂 I don’t think you were suggesting I had!)
Can we just stop with the attacks on Paul Barker, please. You don’t agree with him. He doesn’t agree with you. Both of you are free to express your views and should be free to do so without being attacked. Paul is under no obligation to respond to anyone and should not be attacked if he hasn’t.
We expect people to be polite to each other – so please abide by that.
Hywel, unfortunately if Lib Dems responded to presidential and committee elections with a leadership election then the party would just look like a bunch of naval gazers. I’m for pulling out of the coalition, but naval gazing and long leadership elections would not be right at this moment in time. There is no silver bullet to improving the party’s fortunes.
Regards
“no silver button” – well, there are things that Clegg can do to improve trust. One of them would be to recognise that the pledge should not have been broken and apologise for that. He only apologised for “making the promise”.
Unless he and Cable recognise the problem in credibility, I do not see how they can solve it. The current plan seems to be to keep things as they are and hope that voters will forget
Caron
Fair point about Paul Barker
I now await the one directed at Cllr Shaw reminding him about being polite to other posters….I will not hold my breath
I think this person does a great job in putting off potential voters……..
I wish that the Wail on Sunday story about the feminism tee-shirts being made in Mauritius by women sleeping 16 to a roomd and paid just 62p a week had been included.
My thanks to Caron for those kind words. I am not going to reply to anyone whose addressed comments to me because I think all comments should address the content of the original post. Theres an analogy with the tradition of “speaking through the Chair” in meetings.
On the Polls, Labours ratings seem to have fallen by about 1% a week over the last few weeks, there should be fireworks if that continues.
Tsar Nicolas 2nd Nov ’14 – 7:06pm
There is a niche in the market for anyone who quickly produces a tee-shirt displaying a large photograph
of Mauritius women slaving in a sweat shop and the slogan —
THIS IS WHAT BEING PAID 62p WEEK LOOKS LIKE
It could maybe be followed up with another tee-shirt with a picture of refugees drowning in The Mediterraean with the slogan –
THEY SHOULD STAY PUT IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY
correction –
THIS IS WHAT BEING PAID 62p PER HOUR LOOKS LIKE
“Interesting, though, that the percentage of Liberal Democrat voters, 71%, who back Nick Clegg”
The positive news we can take from this is that only another 2.03% of left-leaning voters need to leave before Nick will enjoy 100% support.
Tsar Nicolas 2nd Nov ’14 – 7:06pm
Yes I was surprised that was omitted – perhaps Caron thinks that is so important that she is working on a special article on the issue as I write.
It was good to see Norman Baker’s response to the current mess on child abuse – following up John Tilley comment – if Norman Baker had been included in the negotiating team – the Party’s poll rating would probably be in the high teens and there would be far less inequality in our society.
I have been praising NB in the Guardian comments section with regard to his doggedness – if anyone would like to join in.
Caron Lindsay 2nd Nov ’14 – 4:36pm
Don’t worry Caron you will not have to defend the indefensible for much longer – if the Party gets the kind of support at Rochester that has been predicted – NC will have to go. Whatever support he has amongst the influential will disappear – they will know that the game is up!
Time to get your bets on – last time I looked you could get 5/1.
13 recommendations on my NB comment in the Guardian in less than an hour!
Paul Barker said:
“I am not going to reply to anyone whose addressed comments to me because I think all comments should address the content of the original post. Theres an analogy with the tradition of “speaking through the Chair” in meetings.”
OK Paul, so let’s suppose that an original post describes (just to think of an illustrative example) the size of the Lib Dem byelection leafleting campaign in Rochester. Then let’s suppose that Joe Bloggs writes a comment post to say that UKIP will walk all over the Lib Dems because they have better policies and will keep Britain er, British. How do you think it is permissible to respond? Do you have to “speak through the Chair”, and confine yourself to remarking that the Lib Dems would do better to used folded A4 and print in two colours? Or would it be reasonable to respond to what Joe Bloggs said?
I am surprised that Will Hutton’s article entitled “Cameron’s tax credo is incoherent, immoral and economically illiterate” interested you less than the US elections. Could I also suggest that the principal contributors who regard Clegg as a liability are those who have spent many years campaigning. John Tilley ‘s description of Ed Daveys’s ordeal demonstrates that Clegg is a joke from which there can be no recovery.
There seems little point in engaging in debate with someone who believes that it is possible to tell from opinion polling whether one party’s support has varied by 1% since last week, whether or not it is done “through the chair” (if, in this context, that means anything other than never having to defend your own opinion).
Curious. Peter Barker states “the Anti-Clegg brigade have to explain why Clegg is more than twice as popular as his Party ?” but when we do so and point out that he has repeatedly had the error of his analysis pointed out to him but he stills carries on, Caron asks “Can we just stop with the attacks on Paul Barker, please.”
Caron, he asked us to explain, and we have done so. How can that be an attack on him?
Apologies. I should have said Paul Barker, not Peter.
In the end we have to act on what is best for the party not for any individual. Is it best for the party and the general election campaign that Clegg stays or goes?. And that abide by that.
31 recommends now for my comment in the Guardian:
“Norman Baker does have a reputation for doggedness [David Kelly’s death].
Might be the chance for a Liberal Democrat to show they do have at least one MP who does not dance to the Tory’s tune!”
Caron Lindsay
Interesting, though, that the percentage of Liberal Democrat voters, 71%, who back Nick Clegg, is significantly higher than the number of people in the LDV Members’ Forum who are satisfied with him. Is it time to listen to the voters and cut him some slack?
What is the figure for FORMER LibDem voters?
It’s not surprising that when national media of the Liberal Democrats paints it as the Nick Clegg Fan Club, and the party’s own national publicity does likewise, that those who actually want to vote for it right now are Nick Clegg fans.
Most voters don’t think deeply about politics and don’t have much idea about how it works. Member of the party are more likely to do so, and also more likely to have a deeper commitment to the long-term values of the Liberal Democrats and to know what they are, and from that basis be more critical of Nick Clegg than casual supporters.
We also have to face the fact that the serious arguments against Nick Clegg which members of the party air here in Liberal Democrat voice get almost NO coverage in the national media. So how are people who are not involved in the party to know about them? The national media may be nasty to Nick Clegg, but most certainly not on the basis that it gives support to his critics within the party. So little is our case ever mentioned that it gets away with this ludicrous notion that any opposition to Nick Clegg within the party must be organised by one or two personalities as some sort of power struggle at the top.
Allan
I much prefer Nick than Ed if I could give Nick one small tip that would be, when he sits at PMQs he just tries looking less unhappy he looks as if the milk is sour.
Yes, but remember all that Rose Garden stuff when he looked so happy and pleased with himself over the formation of the coalition and his becoming DPM?
That very much fed into the idea that the Liberal Democrats had abandoned all that they stood for previously and just “rolled over and propped up the Tories”. I think that sort of coverage was very wrong, and I’ve been angry about it ever since. Hardly anywhere and at any time (I hesitate to say “never”, but I don’t ever recall a national media article putting it this way) have we been given credit for doing what we had to do – give Britain the stable government that IT voted for in May 2010 and confirmed in May 2011 when it voted to keep the electoral system whose distortion meant no other government was viable and gave us the balance between the two coalition partners which is reflected its policy and main drive.
So I’m unhappy with Nick Clegg for letting this go, and for not doing more to stress that what we have is a compromise and not our ideal. I regret that there is quite a lot coming out from him and those surrounding him which does bolster the argument that the apparent shift to the right of our party is what he and others at the top wanted anyway, and the coalition is just an excuse. However, national coverage really does ignore the extent to which junior coalition partners just cannot get that much out of their position, and certainly not things which are opposed to what the senior coalition partner wants. As a result we are just getting written off on the supposition that we wholeheartedly support everything this government is doing and it’s what we would be doing if we were the main party in government. We need to get out of that. We need a leader who will get us out of that, and who give the impression she or he WANTS to get us out of that.
Matthew Huntbach.
I am sure everyone in the party knows this, whether it is expressed openly or simply retained without expression. To criticize the leader is seen as rocking the boat, something that will adversely affect the ratings of the party. However we are so far past that position, the ratings cannot fall any further, can they? Our Council base has been destroyed, the Euro MPs were virtually whitewashed and we cannot find council candidates for most by elections. Eventually something will happen, it has to, because we simply cannot have Mr Clegg in the leaders debates, everyone will target him it is so sad but that is the reality.
I know this is off topic – but the Guardian has just reported:
MPs’ expenses: officials records from scandal-hit era have been destroyed
As you can imagine – the comments are becoming quite revolutionary – come on LDV – get with it!
John Roffey
MPs’ expenses: officials records from scandal-hit era have been destroyed
A few dozen MPs claim a few thousand in dubious expenses, and that’s a major scandal.
Several thousand bankers claim millions in “bonuses” (and I rather suspect they have expenses claims that would make the MPs’ look insignificant) and that’s just necessary because if you don’t want monkeys …
Isn’t it just possibly the case that the MPs expenses issue has been pushed again and again as a bit of distraction? Isn’t it another case of exploitation of most people’s inability to handle large numbers? Note that whichever way we turn, we have to use bankers of some sort, so if they’re all in it together saying they must have their million pound bonuses, then we don’t have a choice, it is being taken from us because they can. All the MPs expenses in total amount to less than a handful of top bankers get as norm.
It would be a scandal if MPs were using their position to make big business contracts bringing in millions. This is the way politics is corrupt in many countries. If the worst we can say about our MPs is that some of them claimed a few thousand for garden maintenance and so on beyond what could be counted as reasonable accommodation need, then we have a remarkably non-corrupt set of politicians.
Matthew Huntbach 3rd Nov ’14 – 3:40pm
I agree with the sentiment of what you say Matthew – in fact I would be content to pay our MPs much more if it meant that they devoted all of their time to their job of representing the interests of their constituents and were banned/did not need to look for other sources of income – particularly as we know that often the ‘other work’ can be classified as dubious.
However, the ‘outrage’ generally expressed by the Guardian commentators was that these claims had been destroyed and although, apparently, this is in line with standing instructions – it was viewed as destroying evidence on a time scale not in keeping with other government regulations.
This view is compounded by the ongoing case of the child abuse records handed to Brittan which also have apparently been destroyed – so the general view was of the crooks in government destroying the evidence of their crimes!
>MPs’ expenses: officials records from scandal-hit era have been destroyed
Standard practise for expenses – HMRC only requires “Records must be kept for 3 years from the end of the tax year they relate to.” So this is the popular press trying to create a storm when there isn’t one.
Actually todays Ashcroft poll has the Lib Dems up from 7 to 10%!!!!
Is this an outliner or a trend?
Roland 3rd Nov ’14 – 4:38pm
MP’s expenses are far more complicated and generous than those usually applying to individuals working in the private sector. Perhaps the laws applying to those being forced into self employment would be more appropriate since only a few of these will match MPs overall income:
How long to keep records
You must normally keep records for at least 6 years from the end of the last company financial year they relate to.
You may need to keep records longer if:
they show a transaction that covers more than one of the company’s accounting periods
the company has bought something that it expects to last more than 6 years, like equipment or machinery
you sent your Company Tax Return late
HMRC have started a compliance check into your Company Tax Return
https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/company-and-accounting-records
Roland 3rd Nov ’14 – 4:38pm
“…….the popular press trying to create a storm when there isn’t one.”
I am intrigued by the phrase “the popular press”. It is is regular use, usually in the way it is used here by Roland.
But how popular is the press?
In a country of 64 Million people how many regularly see a UK newspaper in print or on-line?
According to the UK Press Gazette figures most of us do not look at the press —
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/uk-newspapers-ranked-total-readership-print-and-online
Is this just a hark back to the culture of the 1950s ?
Is it like references to “Fleet Street” long after the print empires moved out of that particular street in central London?
Most people in the UK in 2014 do not look at a newspaper.
I do not know how many of us sit peering at a tablet or a lap-top for our News, or how many still listen to Radio 4 or watch TV News Programmes.
When my daughter went off to university four years ago, in the accommodation that she shared with 12 others not a single one of the 12 ever bought a newspaper. In my time every student that I knew would read a newspaper every day. It is a marked and interesting change in one generation and maybe explains some political phenomena that we now witness.
I wonder if everyone has seen the latest Ashcroft weekly Poll ? We are up 3% to 10%, probably not significant unless a couple of other Polls show similar moves.
Like other Pollsters Ashcroft shows Conservatives on a level trend & Labour in an accelerating fall. I wonder how much farther Labour can fall without triggering an explosion ? So far they seem like rabbits in the headlights.
There are two polls out tonight giving the LibDems 9% and 10% that certainly is an improvement. My guess is that a few Labour voters are wobbling about voting for Miliband and maybe looking at the LibDems. It’s still neck and neck between the big two – Labour one point ahead in one poll, the Tories one point ahead in the other. The bookies have Miliband favourite to be the next PM and Labour to win the most seats.
Paul, you must have missed my entry at 5pm.
John Roffey
I agree with the sentiment of what you say Matthew – in fact I would be content to pay our MPs much more if it meant that they devoted all of their time to their job of representing the interests of their constituents and were banned/did not need to look for other sources of income
Well, that’s up to the people. If they want MPs who devote all of their time to their job of representing the interests of their constituents and don’t have second jobs they should only vote for those who devote all of their time to their job of representing the interests of their constituents and don’t have second jobs. But they don’t, do they?
You could say people feel they are forced to vote for the Labervative candidate who has a second job in order to avoid splitting the vote and so letting in the Conlabourtive candidate whose policies they don’t like. But if we had the AV system that argument would go away because a candidate who supports the Labervative/Conlabourtive line but doesn’t have a second job could stand without splitting the vote. But the people voted against AV by two to one.
“What is the figure for FORMER LibDem voters?”
I’ve tried to crunch this number. Assuming that all the current Lib Dems are also 2010 Lib Dems (which is open to some criticism but bear with!) then of the remaining 2010 Lib Dems who are not now supporting the Lib Dems around 8.7% of people think Nick is doing well and 82% think he’s doing badly.
That is a worse set of figures than for current Labour or Conservative voters!3
(Sub-samples like this are notoriously inaccurate so I think this is more “bit of fun” type exercise than something to be relied on.