Essentially I agree with what Rayyan says in #59. It takes a public display from those who claim to be committed to reform, and an unequivocal one, for trust to be restored. That hasn’t happened yet – it’s all been weasel words about “the system” and “I always voted to reform the system” etc. I haven’t really seen a genuinely heartfelt expression of disgust, and to be honest I’d have hoped that MPs to whom this is all supposedly such a big deal, would have made their voices heard in the media beforehand – being professional politicians whose trade involves being able to get quotes into the media, etc.

The “err, no”, was to Mat suggesting that this is all about me. Which it clearly isn’t – it’s about the public’s right to know that its representatives are spending its money responsibly, and also about the public’s right to hold those representatives to account via a democratic election.

Fair point. Alas the Telegraph’s reporting has been like bird shot. A few direct hits initially and as the investigation progresses, more misses. Owing to the Telegraph’s disclosure mechanism, it is difficult for the white hats to raise a fuss. Any white hat may be caught out for accidentally claiming for a bottle of shampoo amidst a legitimate claim.

But we can sort that problem out. Absolute disclosure. Including the Telegraph.

Only if the clean MPs are prepared to castigate and highlight their party colleagues, and demand their leadership or local units deselect those with dodgy claims, will the public’s faith ever be restored in Parliament as a whole. Right now, though, they all seem to be closing ranks, and they even have their supporters on blogs sneering at people who are simply relaying what the public think: “they’re all the same.”

Having spoken to lots of non-politico ordinary members of the public, people really do think the MPs from the main three parties are all the same. Whilst that isn’t quite fair, it’s not hard to blame people for thinking that when the ‘good’, ‘clean’ MPs aren’t demanding the heads of the corrupt or dodgy buggers who are bringing them all into disrepute! And it doesn’t help when those supporting the main three parties try to disregard this public sentiment rather than acknowledge it.

Clean out your houses now, before the people clean out their House.

And of course if the ranks of the holy amongst MPs are so sure of themselves, then they clearly won’t mind testing their credentials at the ballot box: they can splash their records all over their campaign materials after all.

No amount of “FFS”ing and repeated mention of the word “stupid”, can refute the blindingly obvious.

The receipts for dodgy claims were being submitted, privately, to the fees office.

MPs campaigning for reform suspected abuse. Some may even have known of abuse. But they had no proof, the Fees Office had the receipts. How, exactly, where they to openly accuse others of abuse without actual evidence?

Campaigning for the evidence to be released was the best they could do without invoking serious legal sanctions. They got the evidence released, and now you’re attacking them for it?

FFS.

And if you think Rowan Williams isn’t a liberal then I really don’t know what basis you’re using for an assessment. The point about disestablishing the church again rather misses my point.

Finally, yes in all likelihood the Tories will win the next election – however it takes some kind of quasi-stalinist thinking to deny the public an election which it clearly wants, just because one fears that the result would not be to one’s liking.

Mat, no matter how intemperate and partisan your responses become, you cannot escape the point that it is not possible for people to have decided the allowance system was wrong, without them knowing that people were putting in dodgy claims. That is obvious, and frankly you’re the only person I’ve recently seen attempting to deny it.

As to “clubbable atmosphere”, if I’m an ill-informed dolt on the issue then so is Gordon Brown and so are all of the major political figures who want to “end the gentleman’s club”. Again, it is generally understood precisely that the cosy atmosphere of mutual back-scratching which characterises rather a lot of political institutions, was at least in part responsible for this. You can’t avoid that either, however much you splutter about “reading comprehension” or insinuate sexism and homophobia on the part of people writing articles about the expenses.

Sorry, but it just doesn’t wash.

Many MPs claimed realistic or zero allowances for a second home or hotel accommodation. Many MPs campaigned for reform and for disclosure. Those are not the acts of MPs in a cosy club, screwing the system for every penny. Sticking your neck out against abuse does not endear you to the free loaders, so MPs who sought reform are those least likely to have known how bad it was.

The independent liberal, Richard Taylor MP, has nothing to lose — no opprobrium from party colleagues about rocking the boat. He is amongst the cheapest MPs in claiming expenses and appears to act honestly. He is certainly not a member of the free loader club, and I find it difficult to believe he knew about it.

Thanks to MatGB for the link to James Graham’s blog post about selective bias in the Telegraph’s reporting. Overall, I feel that the Telegraph’s reporting and additional research has been good, but when they have got it wrong, stories have only contributed to the sentiment that “they are all up to it”. A correction in three months time is not adequate, particularly if it is delivered after the next general election.

A sidelight on this is the historical precedent in UK parliamentary elections. Between the 1918 and 1948 RotPAs there were a handful of parliamentary seats elected by multi-member STV, mainly University constituencies. However if any by-elections were needed they went ahead as normal, albeit by FPTP.

*If* we were to see multi-member STV adopted (we can dream), what would be the preferred procedure if the Honourable Member for Snout-in-Trough were to take the Chiltern Hundreds and precipitate a by-election? Surely a recall of the other members for that division wouldn’t really be feasible?

Now, Mat. If you’re telling me that the whiter-than-white “crusaders for reform” who have recently been throwing themselves all over the opinion columns didn’t know that there were outrageous claims being put in

No, Alan, that’s not what I’m telling you. Look, it’s all there in the bit you quote:

No, they didn’t all know what was going on. Many had no clue whatsoever, and those that suspected have been campaigning for this transparency

As has been observed by many, not everyone talks about the expenses claims. You can talk about the “clubbable atmosphere” if you want, it merely makes you look like an ill-informed dolt.

Those campaigning for reform are those least likely to be in the ‘club’. You only need to look at the way some MPs are laughed at and ignored by those within the club.

FFS man, don’t dig yourself into a bigger hole by ignoring the facts when presented to you. Let alone misrepresent what I said while quoting me. For the hard of reading, I’ll restate my initial point:

Some MPs have been deliberately abusing the system.

Some have been making claims for dubious items after checking for approval from the fees office.

Many have been only claiming for perfectly legitimate items, and assuming their colleagues have been doing the same.

Some have been actively campaigning and voting for a complete overhaul of the system.

I want a General Election, but I want it to be fought only when we have the full facts, not the Telegraphs notably biased factually innaccurate politically dubious reporting of some of the facts.

If you doubt that some of the reports have been innaccurate, you’ve quite simply not been paying attention. Notably, on Friday they attacked leading transparency campaigner Jo Swinson for not claiming for make up and eyeliner (as far as can be told, she’s guilty of being young, female and reasonably attractive). They’ve also attacked Ben Bradshaw simply for being gay, Andy Reid for representing one of the largest constituencies geographically and doing his job properly, etc. James Graham’s done a bloody good summary of the whole thing, paying particular attention to the spurious attack on Jo, here:

They have been falling over themselves to portray Cameron’s leadership on the issue as dynamic and forthright despite the fact that, when you look at it in detail, it turns out he isn’t particularly interested in reform at all. He insists that his richer MPs must buy themselves out of the hole they’ve dug themselves but is keen for MPs to be able to continue to profiteer via the ACA. He wants a snap general election, something which would have the effect of scapegoating a handful of MPs in marginal constituencies whilst giving the ones in safe seats renewed terms of office. A general election now, with the Tories still insisting that (aside from a bit of fiddling), the status quo must prevail, would be a white wash.

But of course I must simply be “following the party line” on this, despite specifically rejecting items Clegg has campaigned on in this very thread. That I got involved in party politics in order to clear the system out, and have specifically stated I’m not happy with the current party system and would prefer a different party to the one I’m in in this thread must make me a party loyalist and devalue everything I write. Of course.

Get a grip, get a clue, and get your facts straight.

Robert, I concur—the MP for Halifax just up the road from me has managed to claim, to the penny, the maximum amount allowed, as has David “I’m clean” Cameron. Yes, it is an allowance (the name, Additional Costs Allowance) kinda gives it away there, but you’re supposed to spend up to the max, not to the exact penny every time.

Yes, having your idiotic comments deleted from a blog – how like Stalin.

No they don’t. The dissolution of Parliament is the Queen’s prerogative but is triggered by either the PM calling an election or Parliament voting no-confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.

you see if you get too angry you might throw them out and who knows what that might lead to?”. The sight of the liberal middle class falling over itself to protect its privileges really does tug on the old gag reflex.

Ah, someone else who hallucinates that the Archbish is a liberal. I don;t see why you think it matters when the election is. An election – whether it’s tomorrow or next year – will lead in all probability to a Conservative government. Where then your drivel about the middle classes and their privileges? You think the Tories are going to disestablish the C of E or something?