Shane Croucher

Conservative blogger Iain Dale appeared on Newsnight yesterday evening, opposite the editor of Don’t Panic magazine Heydon Prowse, to discuss Prowse’s undercover filming of Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Alan Duncan. Duncan made some embarrassing remarks regarding the recent expenses furore. In the video, Duncan says:

Basically it’s been nationalised. You have to live on rations and you are treated like shit.

These comments are rather important seeing as he’s the man heading up Cameron’s parliamentary reforms. This undeniably contradicts his public persona of sincere apology. Iain Dale, however, is completely opposed to what Prowse did. Dale said:

it was incredibly rude of him, having accepted an invitation to the House of Commons from a man whose garden he had dug up, to then record their conversation

…to point out the sheer duplicity of the jerk who did the surreptitious filming. Remember, this is the man who dug up Alan Duncan’s lawn. Alan magnanimously invited him for a drink at the House of Commons so he could put his point of view to him in person.

Just to clarify, for Don’t Panic magazine Prowse had dug a pound sign into Duncan’s garden and planted flowers in it, as a form of protest against his gardening expenses. Duncan called ‘fair game’ and invited Prowse for a drink in the Commons. Now, Dale takes issue with the secret recording of the conversation between Prowse and Duncan. However, in the interests of investigative journalism – what’s exactly wrong with that?

Duncan has previously made dubious remarks about his expenses. Prowse would have undoubtedly been aware of this. Duncan has to put on a public show of sincere regret, but does he really mean it? Where better to find out than in the comfort of the Commons’ bar over a glass of wine? Prowse took the gamble, filmed their encounter and got a result. Dale presents this as though it’s been a betrayal of trust between friends – it’s nothing of the sort. Duncan is an elected representative and he is being held to account. That’s how democracy works.

It’s in the public interest that Duncan’s real feelings about expenses are aired – after all, he will more than likely be a senior cabinet member this time next year. As has been pointed out, MPs should be up front and honest about how they feel, and not hide behind an amicable public persona. Duncan has learnt this the hard way.

I suspect Dale’s opposition is mostly due to him being the Tories’ yappy little online Chihuahua, and is an attempt to save some face for the Conservatives.

Seeing as both the North Devon Gazette and North Devon Journal both told me that they don’t buy stories, I’m left to just putting this one up here.

Liberal Democrat MP for North Devon, Nick Harvey, described public concern over MPs’ allowances as “erroneous” in a speech he made to the House of Commons back in June 2008.

 Mr Harvey was presenting a bill to reform the expenses system for MPs when he said: “I do not need to tell Members that the impression created in the national media has not reflected well on this House as an institution or on its Members. The public believe, quite erroneously in my view, that our allowances are excessive, that there are irregularities in the way in which Members claim those allowances and that the systems in this place are lax. I repeat that those are not my views, but that is the impression out there among the general public, and that is the context in which the Members Estimate Committee has conducted its investigations and the basis on which we have brought forward our recommendations.”

 He seemed to concede that it was public opinion forcing the Commons into a position of reform, rather than MPs recognising that there is a genuine systemic issue.

 However, on Mr Harvey’s website he says: “Unfortunately the media have acted like the row over MPs allowances has come out of the blue, however for those with longer memories you will recall I was involved with the ‘Review of Allowances’ in June 2008, which recognised the situation was fatally out of hand” in an apparent u-turn with his feeling towards the public’s views on MPs’ expenses. He now appears to agree that public outrage is rooted deeply in a genuine problem, despite his previous disagreement.

 When asked to clarify where he currently stands, Mr Harvey said: “Obviously I did not know in July 2008 what I know now, and I have been astonished by some of what has come to light.  There is no doubt that some claims have indeed been excessive and I could not offer the general assurance now which I believed then to be justified.  I don’t believe that the level of allowances was or is excessive, but some of the individual claims clearly have been.”

 He said that the report proposed “more comprehensive audit arrangements as well as ending the ability to claim for purchases of household and electrical goods, furniture and home improvements” and maintains that they should have been adopted.

 He added: “The speech I made on 3 July 2008 was obviously a pitch to try and get the House to back a package of measures in which I had invested a lot of time and effort – to try and browbeat the House would hardly have been productive.  Had I succeeded the House would have been in a better position today.  I note with interest that some of those who have found themselves in the firing line were among those who voted down the reforms.

 ”There remains a strong need for further reform.” 

The upcoming local elections on June 4th may be an interesting reflection of how the public feels about national politics. However, this should not be the case.

When coming to vote for a local councillor, many of the population will have the expenses scandal, the economic crisis, settlement rights for Ghurkas and many more issues whizzing around their heads like a swarm of angry locusts, eating away at the rationale of voting in local elections.

None of these issues are particularly important at local council level. Yet they may well be the deciding factors when people are ticking the box.

Don’t vote for a party, vote for the candidate. If you’re a stalwart Tory but your local Tory candidate is an arse, don’t vote for them. Vote for the most competent candidate that shares your views on local issues. Vote for the candidate that seems most trustworthy and has a loud, clear, representative voice. Independents are more likely to be strong candidates as they are entering politics off their own backs, genuinely wanting action and change with a passion for local issues.

The only time you should consider a party when voting locally is the BNP. Anyone who represents the BNP is not a reasonable, straight-thinking individual.

The key is research. Read up about each candidate. Contact them personally to ask for more details on their views. Make sure that when you are standing in that booth the decision you make is informed.

Forget party politics in local elections.