Nadine Dorries has had to apologise to the House for failing to declare her income from appearing in that silly TV programme about nonentities whining in a mock jungle. Apparently, her fee was paid to her company, Averbrook, from which she took a £10,000 dividend. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24902813 I wonder if she is related to the Nadine Dorries who claimed, back in June, that she had "not personally benefitted" from appearing on that programme and that anything from which she would benefit was declared on the register of MPs interests? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22746273 Dorries is the MP for Mid Bedfordshire and, despite a string of investigations, a period during which the party whip was suspended, frequent outbursts of criticism against (inter alia) the speaker, the cabinet and the party leadership, has nonetheless been reselected to defend the seat at the next election. One has to pity Conservatives in Mid Bedfordshire, if they want to vote Tory, they have to vote for Dorries. However, this sort of thing is by no means limited to Tory MPs. Constituency associations and party central offices frequently impose a candidate onto a constituency. We need a better system, otherwise we might as well just vote for a list.

Nadine Dorries has had to apologise to the House for failing to declare her income from appearing in that silly TV programme about nonentities whining in a mock jungle. Apparently, her fee was paid to her company, Averbrook, from which she took a £10,000 dividend. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24902813 I wonder if she is related to the Nadine Dorries who claimed, back in June, that she had "not personally benefitted" from appearing on that programme and that anything from which she would benefit was declared on the register of MPs interests? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22746273 Dorries is the MP for Mid Bedfordshire and, despite a string of investigations, a period during which the party whip was suspended, frequent outbursts of criticism against (inter alia) the speaker, the cabinet and the party leadership, has nonetheless been reselected to defend the seat at the next election. One has to pity Conservatives in Mid Bedfordshire, if they want to vote Tory, they have to vote for Dorries. However, this sort of thing is by no means limited to Tory MPs. Constituency associations and party central offices frequently impose a candidate onto a constituency. We need a better system, otherwise we might as well just vote for a list.

In many cases that already exists, most people will simply vote for a colour rather than the person standing in their constituency who could be a complete scammer who's personal desire is to scam as much money as possible out of the next five years and keep their head down.

As I've mentioned many times in the past at the last election I voted for a person who had a previous history of working in the constituency and the city, he lives in the constituency (which helps) and still gets involved with his local party on council issues, his office also responds to emails and he has assisted me on two occasions in putting me into contact with senior offices when I had problems with government agencies - I don't really care about his party policies (which enrages some people I know) its his work ethic for his constituency that I vote for.


At the same time I do wonder if parliament is full of scammers or if actually the rules on expenses are just so bloody complicated that the poor loves just don't understand them, claiming for heating in your stable block does seem a bit far-fetched though, if my employer offered to pay for the rent or mortgage on a dwelling in another part of the country because they needed me to work there I confess that my first thought wouldn't be "Oh good, I can get the horse's heating bills paid for as well".

Why do horses have central heating anyway, I thought they lived in fields ?

Unfortunately, I live in one such place. Leeds West is one of safestet Labour seats in the country (I'm sure I've read that it is second, behind Wigan?).

I'm not for a second suggesting that Rachel Reeves is a scammer out for as much as she can get from the system, but I've been very unimpressed with her in campaigning for local issues that would benefit this part of the world.

I couldn't care less about what colour rosette she wears, but it would be nice for her to feel like she has to earn her votes - and her keep.

What bothers me is when, if someone wants to vote for a party, they have to vote for someone whose only redeeming feature is that they are a member of that party.
Constituents have no say in the candidate's selection.

Regarding expenses, I'm convinced that all the IPSA stuff and supposed rules are mere window-dressing.
If thousands of companies up and down the land can organise expenses of their employees, it can't be that difficult.
When I was working in Westminster 5 days a week for about eighteen months, my own employer, for example, didn't allow me to claim for a second home (such as funding a self-fulfilling property speculation in the likes of Lord North St, Gayfere St and Smith Square ... you can't move around there for politicos coining it, current house prices being between two and three million pounds).
Instead I was pretty comfy in a decent hotel and claiming dinner and travel, all of which was fair enough and a familiar scenario for most people who have worked away from home.
I was reimbursed solely for genuine expense incurred in the pursuance of my job ... the notion of the company paying for my family to live there too or nominating which of two homes should be maintained at public expense would have been laughed at. Why should it be different for MPs?

Because you can't feed them Ready Brek.

I think the Tories have stumbled upon ways that the hard-pressed, average man & woman can save money during this time of austerity. It's simple really, just stop heating your stables and clean your moat yourself. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone?

She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone?

If people want a say then they should join the party. Then you get one.

So if people have a particular political view they can attempt to influence who their candidate for MP is.

It might be the person selected is not the one you favour but if you are completely at odds with the politics of the candidates from the other parties you have a simple choice. Vote in a way that may end up helping a government be formed you are opposed to or accept the fact you took part in the process of candidate selection, move on, accept nothing is perfect but at least you took part in the process and vote in what you see as the national interest.

It's no excuse to vote for an MP who is good at dealing with local issues who is going to vote to privatise the NHS (to give an example) when it is within everyones reach to actually at least try and influence the selection of a candidate locally from the party they would want to see govern nationally.

People vote the way they do for some bizarre reasons. Relatives once voted Tory because they felt John Major was a "strong leader". I was baffled by that and tried to explain you aren't voting for him anyway but for a set of polices that in my view would do the country no good.

It's the same here and there is no excuse not to get involved if people feel that strongly.

According to her twitter timeline she appears to have been very involved in local issues

Quote ="BartonFlyer"She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone?'" Meanwhile, many home carers do not get paid for travelling between visits – that's their own time, apparently.

Quote ="BartonFlyer"She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone?'" Meanwhile, many home carers do not get paid for travelling between visits – that's their own time, apparently.

I'm sure I read somewhere that carers had expense accounts.

Following yesterday's Opposition Day debate on the Bedroom Tax, I wonder how many LimpDem MPs will be worried about facing their constituents. After the grassroots voted overwhelmingly against the Bedroom Tax at the national conference, a grand total of TWO voted against the government's amendment (which was basically a repeat of the "it's all Labour's fault" mantra).

So by my reckoning that's 54 LimpDem MPs who either abstained, voted for the government amendment or simply couldn't be bothered to turn up.

Spineless 2@s

@ChriswMP seems to have tweeted quite a list of votes - plus a link to a full list. Also claims that Tory MPs Kwasi Kwateng and Therese Coffey were laughing during Jack Dromey" speech about a constituent who killed themselves as a result of the bedroom tax. He says tha presumably they weren't bothering to listen.

Valid points.
Looks like we're stuck with it.

I saw some of the comment about this posted on the Guardian rolling politics blog. A couple of things stood out.

First whoever it was speaking for the government, they reckoned they had done a better job if it then IDS ever would as they reckon IDS would have totally lost it pretty early on in the debate. This made me think IDS didn't run away to Paris but was sent there to be kept out of harms way!

Secondly, despite the liability that is IDS not being present Labour still carried the day morally with their arguments with the Interventions by MP's supporting their motion particularly telling. This one stood out:



From [url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/12/ed-daveys-speech-to-energy-firms-telling-them-not-to-be-greedy-politics-live-bloghere[/url

With cases like that the fact the majority of Lib Dems still voted as they did shows they simply can't be trusted. They lied before the election and now despite obvious cases such as the one above and their own conferences rejection of the bedroom tax they still vote for it.

Whatever is in a 2015 Lib Dem manifesto simply can't be believed.

I am so looking forward to when that fat bastad David Heath hits the campaign trail in 2015

Now I know yesterday's debate didn't concern pubs or real ale but does Jerry Chicken know how his LimpDem MP voted?

Yep, he abstained.

Which didn't surprise me as he's abstained on quite a few issues in the past, as did many other LibDems, haven't read his blog yet but the last issue that he abstained on (can't remember what it was) was explained by the fact that he was broadly in favour of the vote but did not like the way the legislation was worded.

Its disappointing that he doesn't vote the way you as an individual want him to but it is a tactic that his party use quite frequently.

It won't matter.
His manlove bonding with Gregory is unbreakable.

An MP who campaigns for better beer for everyone and is a big RL fan, whats not to like ?

Good enough reasons as any, I'd agree.
Far bigger t0sspots in that party to be concerned with.

[url=http://gregmulholland.org/en/article/2013/744620/greg-mulholland-mp-tables-liberal-democrat-backbench-motion-calling-for-an-urgent-review-and-change-or-scrapping-of-the-flawed-under-occupancy-penalty-policyThis is most strange[/url why go to all that trouble and then abstain, I await his explanation.

I suppose the moral of the story is "seek and ye shall find" or stuff...

The motion that was voted on earlier this week was an Opposition Day motion, winning this vote would not have affected anything other than to show opposition, it wouldn't have forced a re-think of the rules/law - Greg Mulholland took a bit of flak on twitter the other night after his abstaining and this was his response...





The Early Day Motion that he put his name to is on the same subject but not connected to the Opposition Day vote.

Still sounds a bit strange to me but to a politician I'm sure it all makes perfect sense.

He didn't abstain on the Opposition motion, he abstained on the government amendment.

Basically the opposition proposal was:

“That this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the social housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes…”

The government then amended it to:

“Line 1, leave out from ‘House’ to end and add ‘notes the substantial structural deficit which was inherited from the previous Government and the need to get the nation’s finances back into shape; further notes the need to bring expenditure on housing benefit under control; further notes that the reversal of this policy would cost the Exchequer around half a billion pounds a year…”

Amendments are always voted first and as can be seen, the government managed to get a vote on "it's all Labour's fault", rather than the proposed motion.

So basically Mullholland abstained from blaming Labour for the nation's financial state.

What a waste of a fecking day

More like a waste of five years.

It'll soon be over though.

How did he vote on the governments NHS bill? If he voted for it or even simply abstained "wha'ts not to like" ? Plenty!

He may give the pretence of being different to the Tories with the odd abstention but he is just like the rest of of his Lib Dem colleagues, an enabler of Tory drafted legislation and not to be trusted.

The problem is, I don't see anyone in the Labour Party I'd want to pin my vote on to either, seriously, if the general election was anytime before May '14 rather than May '15 I could see a majority Tory win, and thats painful to say.