Parliament: May 2009 Archives

Once this episode is over, everyone who deserves it should get value for money, and those who deserve censure should get their fair share, even if we don't eventually see actual tumbrils. 

Taxpayers will get a substantial refund, a gargantuan round of schadenfreude, and should see a few rogues chucked out of the Commons. As it becomes harder for Honourable Members to do the Maltese breast-stroke, we should all see long term savings in this area.

The Telegraph, for their part, have had a substantial boost to their circulation and profile which will justify their shareholders' investment in this data. Their public interest defence also seems impeccable, given that the worst "flippers" (Morley, Blears, George, Darling etc) would have got away with it if the information had been redacted.

Some people are bored of this now. Not I. I've been lectured on morality for decades by these hypocrites. I've watched them condemn refugees to destitution and force the unemployed into grim make-work schemes. I've seen them make grandiose claims on child poverty and fail, and poverty was never made history internationally either. 

These are abstract problems, issues these cross-party scoundrels at Westminster might never have felt public anger on. But now we know precisely where their double standards lie. This issue has delivered their comeuppance, now the public have found them using our money to refurbish their moats, support their daughters' student flats, pay for their feather dusters and Hob Nobs, and save their marriages with cash injections. 

One last thought on the moats issue. As always, read the Daily Mash.

Now, I understand the idea of claiming back expenses when your work sends you away somewhere, and I'm sure most people accept that. 

She spoke up against the section of her government's Bill which would (or would not, it's that kind of legislation) reduce plastic bag usage. And she's got form, too. I refer you to a curious exchange from November last year.

If you're too busy to click that last link, here's the summary. AC claims a 90% reduction in plastic bags would lead to a 13,700 tonne increase in our waste levels. The Minister vaguely humours her. AC then claims that a 50% reduction in plastic bags would lead to a mere 4,000 reduction in our waste levels. The Minister makes some sensible comments about towns going plastic bag free.

Can anyone explain the bizarre and contradictory maths in that last question, or give me any idea why she's taken up a crusade Don Quixote would have blanched at? After all, we regularly find out that the consequences of our plastic bag habits are even worse than we thought.

The meeting was actually pretty interesting, for an anorak, and we found a degree more common ground than I expected. All there were agreed that having too many electoral systems risks confusion, although the first one I'd abolish is the one which keeps their undemocratic bums on the green benches. We further agreed that STV is a better system than closed party lists, and that if First Past The Post was ever abolished, STV would be a better replacement.

Mr Kawczynski was personally pretty impressive, and not just because he's about eight feet tall. He's wrong on hunting, and he's wrong on PR, oblivious to the price paid for all those disenfranchised Tory voters in 1997, but he seems sincere and prepared to take a different line to his own party, including on Royal Mail privatisation.

The most amusing part, though, was when Murdo Fraser, deputy Tory leader, put one of his young colleagues right on STV. Having sat through an anti-STV rant, Murdo agreed PR wasn't right for Westminster, but pointed out what a success it had been for local government. Cue broad smiles from our corner and torn faces everywhere else.