Scandal

Even a general election could not shorten the expenses crisis’s shadow. The Telegraph has the scoop that David Laws apparently abused the second home allowance between 2006 and 2009, claiming tens of thousands of pounds for rooms owned by his long-term partner. MPs have been banned from leasing accommodation from their partners since 2006. Spice is added to the scandal in that Laws escaped exposure during last year’s witch hunt because he did not disclose that his landlord, James Lundie, was also his lover. Laws and Lundie have been involved since 2001; their attachment was kept secret from family and friends. Laws’s defends his actions as being designed to guard

IPSA, IPSA, IPSA.  If there’s one thing exercising MPs across all parties at the moment, then it’s the new expenses regime in the Commons: the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.  I won’t run through all of their grievances here, mainly because you can find good summaries here, here and here.  But they are already a frustrating mix of seemingly legitimate concerns (about staff wages) and outrageous whining (about not having taxi fares paid for before 11pm)(erm, pay for them yourself). The latest news is that John Bercow is going to intervene, to “ensure the new rules are interpreted reasonably and that MPs are treated courteously.” That may not sound like much,

“Where’s the popcorn?” I thought, as I joined a bunch of journos to watch the Tories’ final broadcast of the election campaign. It was a good nine minutes long, and might as well have been titled The Downfall of New Labour. The opening shots were of Blair and Brown in 97: “a new dawn,” and all that. But Blair’s image soon faded to black-and-white, and we were bombarded with a montage of headlines, quotes and images which highlighted the failures of the Labour years. 10p tax. Falling education standards. MRSA. The misdemeanours of Peter Mandelson. Defence spending. Purnell’s resignation. Gillian Duffy. Even Manish Sood’s comments today. Depending on your disposition,

Labour’s campaign has been dysfunctional. ‘Bigot-gate’, the concealed cuts, the absence of a spending review, open challenges to the leadership, infighting and a manifesto that read like the terms of surrender, it has been beset by gaffes and self-immolation. Last night, Gordon Brown personified the desperation at Labour’s core. He was negative – dour predictions accompanying an ashen expression. He defibrillated the old cuts versus investment line – a lurid grope for his core vote and one that is incredible in the current circumstances. We expected all of that; what we did not expect was that Brown no longer agrees with Nick. Pitching for what remains of his position on

Last week, I reported on dubious expenses scheming by two Liberal Democrat MPs – Paul Rowen in Rochdale and John Leech in Manchester Withington – and subsequently wrote a blog fdetailing Paul Rowen’s method of funding his political campaigning at public expense. Inevitably, having failed to respond to my questions, Rowen stated that the pieces were part of a “Tory smear campaign” – but that’s just not the case. In fact, in the last week, I’ve received a wodge of correspondence from constituents disgusted not just by the candidates’ questionable fundraising methods but also about the campaigns themselves. I thought I might share a few of them.   First up,

This message has just been blasted out to Labour members: As you may know, I have apologised to Mrs Duffy for remarks I made in the back of the car after meeting her on the campaign trail in Rochdale today. I would also like to apologise to you. I know how hard you all work to fight for me and the Labour Party, and to ensure we get our case over to the public. So when the mistake I made today has so dominated the news, doubtless with some impact on your own campaigning activities, I want you to know I doubly appreciate the efforts you make. Many of you

If seven days ago, anyone had suggested that the first debate would propel Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems to the top of the polls we’d all have thought that their lunch had gone on rather too long. But that’s what happened. Tonight, the questions are whether Gordon Brown reprises his ‘I agree with Nick’ routine or tries to check Clegg’s momentum and whether Cameron can turn in the kind of performance that begins to turn things round for him.   Cameron shouldn’t be angry tonight. But he does need to bracket Brown and Clegg together at every opportunity. When three people are debating, the person who does the best