David Ottewell's Politics

The figures are £s claimed. “Mileage” means car mileage:

Pornographic films, romps in the House of Commons, and questions about the way tens of thousands of pounds of parliamentary expenses get claimed.
A week in the life of government. A week in the life of modern British politics. And on the eve of the 20 most powerful people in the world meeting in London to discuss a trillion-dollar package to save jobs, houses and businesses across the world. What chance economics when there is the whiff of not one but two sex scandals in the air?
In a sense, there is nothing new about this. Sex and alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money, have always set the agenda, particularly when a government appears to be limping towards the exit. Tory ‘sleaze’ in the 1990s may not have been solely responsible for the result of the 1997 election, but it contributed to the size of Labour’s victory.
More than that, it damaged the Conservatives’ reputation for a decade. Not, as Theresa May once said, as the ‘nasty party’ – but, far more damagingly, as the untrustworthy party.
And to some extent they bring it on themselves. Where power doesn’t actually corrupt, it can still tarnish. Politicians – even ‘good’ ones – find themselves cutting corners, believing that minor indiscretions will go unnoticed and unpunished.
Perhaps we all do that, to some extent. But then most of us aren’t paid generous salaries from the public purse. We are entitled to set higher standards.
At any rate, you’d think they would know better. The level of scrutiny that politicians face has never been greater – not just from a rapacious 24-hour news media, but from a small army of bloggers on the internet. In principle, this is a very good thing. MPs and peers wield power over the public. Of course they should be accountable to the public.
But something has changed. Something more subtle, and potentially unhealthy. It is a matter of tone. It is a matter of mood.
Politicians have never been held in such low esteem. People have never been more willing to believe they are – to a man and woman – a venal, arrogant clique whose sole purpose is to line their own pockets at our expense. So Jacqui Smith can’t be seen as the innocent party, even when her husband is caught trying to claim money back for two £5 porn films.
In the public mind, she has to be somehow the one to blame. Her spouse’s indiscretion has to somehow undermine her own perfectly principled crackdown on prostitution.
And that’s the problem. There comes a point where scepticism about politicians is so wide-spread, and so deep-seated, that a rational discussion of policy becomes impossible.
Here’s an example. During the debate about congestion charging in Greater Manchester, a friend of mine told me he would be voting ‘no’ in the referendum. It wasn’t because he doubted whether the proposed public transport improvements would make a real difference.
It wasn’t because he felt the £5-a-day charge was unreasonable. It wasn’t because he thought the government should be paying for transport without resorting to blackmail.
No, it was because he thought that once politicians were allowed to set up a charge, they would immediately widen the zone and hike up the cost charge. “They can’t be trusted,” he said.
What chance do politicians have if we don’t judge them on the proposals they make, but on the shadowy ‘secret’ plans that we assume must lie beneath? It’s why Harriet Harman was so short-sighted in appealing to the ‘court of public opinion’ over the Sir Fred Goodwin affair.
The court of public opinion, these days, has a bloodthirsty jury and a hanging judge.
Last week there was a televised spat between two of Britain’s leading political bloggers. In the blue corner was Paul Staines, better known as Guido Fawkes – purveyor of right-wing, libertarian scandal and gossip. In the red corner was Derek Draper, whose labourlist project brings together some of the government biggest hitters for what purports to be more high-minded policy debate.
The two men have been engaged in a vicious, and highly personal, spat. But set aside their TV clash – an unedifying ten minutes of playground slapping. The fact is, in cyberspace, Staines’ one-man-band site is beating the might of Labourlist hands down. The most telling thing he said last week wasn’t about Draper at all. It was about politicians. “I hate them,” he snarled. The frightening fact is, most people agree. Fawkes is winning the traffic war because he is giving his readers what they want.
Politicians should be kept on their toes. The internet has given the public more power than ever. But they too need to use it responsibly. They have to be fair, and they have to be proportionate. Scrutiny is good; only perhaps we should be turning a tiny bit of that scrutiny back on ourselves.

The MPs’ expenses lists contain, for the first time, figures spent on travel by spouses. Husbands and wives of MPs are allowed to make up to 30 journeys a year between London and their home/constituency. A journey is defined as a trip in a single direction.
This immediately caught my eye.
So Hazel Blears’ husband, Michael, spent £2,953 on six trips to London? That’s nearly £500 a trip. Surely that can’t be right?
Well, apparently it isn’t. A spokesman for Ms Blears has just gone back through her records and says Michael made eight return trips, and one single trip, at a total cost of £2,615.85. All the trips were by train. Ms Blears is now contacting the fees office seeking an urgent correction.

Mileage claims. I once calculated that Janet Anderson could have driven to the moon and back with the expenses she claimed over a few years. She pointed out – entirely reasonably – that that simply suggested she was more diligent than most in doing her job.

Eight of our MPs claimed the maximum allowable for a second home:

The MPs’ expenses for 2007/08 came out this afternoon. There are some fascinating news lines emerging – more on this later. For now, I’ve done you this handy graph to check your MP’s claims. “Expenses” covers things like staffing costs and second home allowance; “travel” is, well, travel.

There is a group on Facebook with nearly 10,000 members called “cc all your emails to Jacqui Smith“. The people in charge intend to flood the home secretary’s work inbox on June 15 as a protest against plans for a super-database tracking internet use.
Rule 2’s an interesting one:

Week five, and Manchester United still lead despite dropping 41 points. Hertha Berlin are now just two behind, after another strong week for Deutsche Bank. Nottingham Forest have crept back up to third, but Wigan Athletic plummeted down the table, with JJB going from a 25 per cent profit to a slight loss on my original investment.
The table in full:
1. Manchester United (AIG) – 173 points
2. Hertha Berlin (Deutsche Bank) – 171 points
3. Nottingham Forest (Capital One) – 157 points
4. Nantes (Synergie) – 127 points
5. Chivas (Grupo Bimbo) – 123 points
6. Anderlecht (Fortis) – 123 points
7. Sevilla (888.com) – 122 points
8. Manchester City (Thomas Cook) – 111 points
9. River Plate (Petrobras) – 107 points
10. Bayern Munich (Deutsche Telekom) – 103 points
11. Ajax (Aegon) – 101 points
12. Wigan Athletic (JJB Sports) – 98 points
13. Inter Milan (Pirelli) – 96 points
14. Sampdoria (ERG) – 94 points
15. LA Galaxy (Herbalife) – 82 points
Total value: £1,788
I have to admit I had no idea I’d be in (healthy) profit at this stage. Neither did I expect the likes of AIG, Deutsche Bank and Capital One to be leading the way, while companies selling ‘real things’ – Pirelli, for example, or JJB, or Herbalife – struggle at the bottom of the table.
Anyway, the five-week performance of the top four, in graphic form:

Last week here.

I make no apologies for failing to blog today. It’s been a busy day at the end of a busy week.
But I did promise the first update on the Ottewell awards, which I am now rebranding – on the advice of one of Greater Manchester’s leading PR professionals – “the Otters”.
Two small changes:
1. I’ve decided not to include Peers after all. This is because (a) they aren’t elected, and more importantly (b) they talk far too much.
2. I’ve taken the word ‘internet’ out of the scoring for the MP 2.0 Award. It’s just too common.
That said, here are the leaderboards:

Another day, another webchat. This time with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.
You can review the whole thing here.
Edited highlights? Well, he was pretty unequivocal about the ‘lost’ Christie cash, saying: “I think it’s incomprehensible that the Government can pour billions of pounds into the city banks who got us into this mess, and not find a miniscule amount in comparison to help such a great hospital trust.”
Coffee: lots of milk, no sugar. Typing speed: good. Typing accuracy: excellent. Although a couple of eagle-eyed readers spotted this mistake: