How well is Cameron dealing with MPs’ expenses?

Until the last couple of days, received wisdom – both among the mainstream media and the blogosphere – is that David Cameron has had a ‘good crisis’, dealing firmly with those Tory MPs who’ve committed egregious expenses abuses (from moats to trees to duck islands) and being ahead of the curve on democratic reforms.

So I was intrigued to read this analysis by the London Evening Standard’s Paul Waugh today, which notes how this received wisdom is now beginning to be questioned, not least by Tory MPs themselves:

… as the days have gone on, it seems that Cameron has also made some tactical decisions that his MPs are now bitterly regretting. The most pressing is his decision to effectively demand that his MPs subject themselves to the public stocks whenever there was an accusation that they had misclaimed public funds.

The formula seemed tough and simple – appear before your voters at a public meeting and explain yourself. … The problem with the public stocks approach is, as Team Cameron rapidly realised with the [Julie] Kirkbride case, that it can be fraught with difficulty. What if there is a hardcore of opponents just out to get the MP? Is your public meeting open to all comers or registered voters? …

Tory MPs are now grumbling privately that Cameron has “released the mob” by suggesting they all appear before public meetings. They want to know when or if the genie can be put back in the bottle. Having been impressed by their leader, some now fear that he has made a huge tactical blunder in a bid to meet the demands of a voracious media. But if Cameron were suddenly to announce he no longer expects his MPs to face public meetings, he risks being accused of wobbling.

Labour has not been slow to spot the potential weakness on the leadership issue. Ed Balls pointed out today that not a single Tory MP has had the whip withdrawn to date, whereas Labour have suspended three MPs. Cameron says that it was the very threat to withdraw the whip that resulted in Steen, Hogg and Viggers all agreeing to quit at the next election.

Cameron claimed today that he had been tough when he needed to but also fair and “consistent”. Yet with every case appearing to have its own quirks, backbenchers believe it is impossible to be “consistent” without appearing to adopt a blanket approach. …

His allies will say that Cameron can’t win in the eyes of his critics. But others are wondering whether the MPs expenses affair – and his invitation to the “mob” – has exposed his Blairesque fondness for an “eye-catching initiative”.

The whole article is well worth a read HERE. It’s a fair analysis, I feel, which duly reflects the ‘no win’ situation the three major party leaders will feel themselves in at the moment. I draw attention to it not especially to take cheap partisan pot-shots at Mr Cameron – fun though that sometimes is – but to redress some of the balance of the debate about which leader has performed best in this crisis.

Yes, David Cameron has won some decent headlines – but is there much evidence that he’s persuaded the public of his reformist credentials? PoliticsHome’s survey of public opinion suggests voters are considerably more sceptical than some of the mainstream media, while recent opinion polls have suggested a sharp dip in Tory support. Caught as we (still) are in the maelstrom of local and Euro election campaigns and the MPs’ expenses row it is of course impossible yet to tell how, or even if, the plates have shifted, and who might prove the ultimate beneficiaries.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • anne widdecombe for speaker

  • David Heigham 29th May '09 - 7:36pm

    While we are talking about Politics Home panel poll, it is worth noting their “Leaders Tracker”. Clegg has been moving up on Camweron through this expenses scandal and before. He now stands equal with Cameron.(G. Brown’s figures are soewhere in the sub-basement.)

  • Very well if the Times poll of this evening is to believed. The Tories are on 41% (up 2). Labour down 5, LD’s down 7 (15%).

  • Actually the European voting intentions from Populus are pretty remarkable, with UKIP second and the Lib Dems only narrowly ahead of the Greens in the contest for fourth place:
    CON 30%
    UKIP 19%
    LAB 16%
    LDEM 12%
    Green 10%
    BNP 5%

  • The reality is many people just want to see the back of Brown. They don’t care how awful Cameron is, anymore than they care about the BNP being racist. The Lib Dems aren’t seen as relevant.

    The awful irony of the poll is that the Lib Dems are seen having coming out best in the expenses scandal but have recorded the biggest drop in support.

    Cameron realised most voters are entirely superficial in their knowledge and interest in politics. Now wonder he comes out best – he is one of them – to coin a phrase.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Martin Gray
    Ultimately - you cannot sustain the current levels of immigration, & solve the housing crisis simultaneously...Sadly too many progressives are infatuated wi...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "Blaming them for promising amenities (to get planning permission) that they then find endless excuses to delay, however…" A key issue and the one which resu...
  • Joe Bourke
    The Renew Europe demand that the EU Council and Commission take responsibility and finally take further steps to apply Article 7, which could lead to the remova...
  • Cassie
    @Simon R – “I don’t think we can blame developers for building the houses they think they can most easily sell for a profit.” I, for one, wasn't blamin...
  • Joe Bourke
    Vernon Bogdanor has an interesting analysis of the rise of the Reform party in contrast with the SDP of the 1980s