Chaytor and Morley were "kicked out of the PLP" when the allegations appeared in the paper, Brown waffled on about appearances in front of the star chamber, but they never did appear, they just advised they would stand down at the next election, thus maintaining their seats at the trough, and qualifying for their severance payments when they do lose their seats and maintaining their entitlement to their pension. I notice that the police are somewhat reluctant to investigate - certainly no reports of arrests being made in connection with fraud charges in the case of these 2 idiots. It seems that the only Labour MP who has acted with honour is the guy from Norfolk who has resigned as an MP and forced a by-election. Perhaps Chaytor and Morley and a few more should be persuaded to do the same.

Star chamber was a figment of a tortured mind in Browns head, and soundbites to the press. Nothing more.

Labour isnt working.

Originally Posted by REgards

Maybe he should look closer to home as a starting point if he wants to clean up. 'Transparent politics' my hoop! I haven't seen anything in the media relating to his nibs' expenses claims but I'd bet my left testicle that he's as dirty as the rest of his troughing cabinet

I dont have specifics but a nice exel doc i got hold of, shows how much all mp's claimed, ...i am not exactly sure if it is from this year or not though, most are well over £110,000 a year in expenses thta is over £92million a year on top of their wages we pay for our beloved MP's a year

In his colourful but unbalanced book The Psychology of Military Incompetence Norman Dixon comments upon Major-General Sir Charles Townshend's ill-fated decision to fall back on Kut after his dust-up with the Turks at Ctesiphon:

As for Townshend, this reversal of fortune had a predictable effect upon a mind already preoccupied with delusions of grandeur [Nixon's supposition that Townshend had designs on the title 'Lord of Baghdad']. He withdrew his force to Kut: Kut, which he knew to be without defence; Kut, which he had described to [General Sir James Wolf] Murray as a position undesirably remote from Basra; Kut, which he now described as a 'strategical point we are bound to hold.' According to Braddon [author of Siege], Townshend's new-found delusion regarding the virtues of Kut may well have had its origins in a much earlier event, the siege of Chitral.

Dixon now drags his psychiatrist's couch out...

When intractable desires are thwarted by reality there is a tendency to hark back to the memory of earlier gratifications, and Chitral epitomized for Townshend just such a gratification. Here, as a young officer in the Indian Army, he had withdrawn into a fort and captained his small force throughout foty-six days of siege. When eventually he did emerge, it was to find himself a hero beloved by Queen and country.

Hold that thought while we look at the past antics of a certain Rector of Edinburgh University in the early 70s...

As rector, Gordon Brown fought and won a fierce running battle with the authorities for the right to chair the court, the university's governing body. In yet another sign of his future parsimony, he demanded a full list of expenses and entertainment allowances paid to members of the administration. He wrote in a memo: "In this time of economy I believe it is vital that the university's finances must not only be properly managed but be seen to be so."

When the principal objected to a rise in grants because of the amount students spent on alcohol, Brown wrote back asking, "whether you have an equivalent figure for members of staff".

Source: The Making of Gordon Brown

Both protagonists are, or were, highly intelligent men but unlike the hapless Townshend, Brown's seemingly trademark ability to end his fifteen minutes of fame with the PR equivalent of a clown car—a loud 'paaarrp' followed by a cloud of smoke and all the wheels and doors falling off—has been seen before:

At this young age, Mr Brown seems to have been worried whether he was getting enough publicity.

In one internal memo the university's information officer wrote: "The Rector appears to be sensitive to the fact that the BBC did not contact him yesterday to appear on television.

"I told him this was a matter for the BBC to decide whether or not they should follow up any story. In confidence I have warned the BBC News Editor in Edinburgh about the Rector's attitude."

Mr Brown wanted to have a "formal installation ceremony" for himself as Rector, with the presence of the University's Chancellor, the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Duke's private secretary consulted the University Secretary, who warned him off, stating that "the intention is presumably to make use of the occasion and its attendant publicity for the delivery of an essentially political speech."

When it came to the end of his three year term Brown clearly hoped to go out in style.

He planned to give a valedictory address and get the University authorities to declare the day a special academic holiday, with no lectures or classes.

This was derisively rejected. The Secretary wrote that Brown's suggested date was "singularly inappropriate", suggesting instead that he give his address on a Wednesday afternoon, a time normally free from classes anyway.

The university authorities must have been relieved to see the back of him, but even when Mr Brown's Rectorship ended, his legacy lived on to annoy them.

Mr Brown had set up an independent Commission to examine the university's relations with the local community, one of his pet subjects.

When this eventually reported, the university authorities were irritated with numerous requests for a copy from other interested higher education bodies both in Britain and overseas.

They made it clear that they did not want in any way to be associated with it, sending out dismissive letters along the following lines: "The so-called Commission was not set up by the University, but by a group originally under the Chairmanship of our former (student) rector", and the report "is in no way an official report by the University."

Source: Brown's First Taste of Power

Fast forward to 2009 and having narrowly avoided political annihilation at the hands of the Daily Telegraph and the recent elections, we see that Pa Broon has drawn his parliamentary Praetorian Guard up around him in a defensive square (by fair means or foul, but hey, this is war!) and is planning to reprise the the kind of puritanical reform tactics that won him so much adulation in earlier times in the hope that we all come to our senses and declare him president of the universe.

Meanwhile, back in reality, even though this next eleven months may well be his Kut, we're still his garrison...and look what happened to them.

Well ,he seems keen to protect Shaheed Malik!

Great post Stickybomb, thanks.

Originally Posted by Whet

Originally Posted by bobthedog

Whet you didnt fall for Brown's waffle about the Star Chamber, where no Labour MP's actually had to give evidence? It was just words to put into the press that Labour MP's may be required to appear before a committee of Labour party members to discuss their expenses, I dont believe any of them actually appeared.
The star chamber was just soundbites for the press to get them off Brown's back.

But Morley and Chayter didn't just up and decided to go at the next election did they? The chamber was as effective as Camerons angry words. The guilty aren't going immediately but they ARE going.

And as I said, it was an independent civil servant who decided on Maliks innocence.

No you didn't - you said it was Parliament.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia"

Originally Posted by Whet

Originally Posted by halo_jones

Yes it would be good to see the minutes of all those sent before 'Star Councils' still one supposes that would be a little too transparent.

I thought it was Parliament that cleared Malik and not the Labour party

. . . . . An independent inquiry was launched by parliamentary watchdog Sir Philip Mawer after a report in The Daily Telegraph alleged that Mr Malik claimed tens of thousands of pounds on his second home in London while renting his constituency home for less than £100 a week. . . . . .

Nice try Sven, try reading my post properly heres a Hint ' councils'! Plural thus denoting all reports not just one parties now be a good thread detailer and crayon somewhere else.

Originally Posted by RCT(V)

If this is what I know as “the Single Transferable Vote”, I am all for it.

If we (must) accept that not every constituency will throw up an elected member with over 50% of the vote, at least “the Single Transferable Vote” ensures that more than 50% of the electorate are represented by their second favourite candidate.

It will lead to some very interesting results at both constituency level, and the overall make-up of Parliament.

STV (sounds a bit like a nasty form of VD doesn't it) tends to be the desription for the system where you have multimember constituencies rather than one as in the AV system. STV lends a measure of proportionality to the result whilst still reataining the link between the voter and the elected member. It is already used in the UK for elections in NI and local elections in Scotland. It is thus not too difficult to use.

Originally Posted by bobthedog

FPTP has worked for us for centuries, it may not be the best system, but which is? It has seen our country have many years of stability, and served us well through 2 world wars. Any interference with the voting system by the current government must be treated with the utmost suspicion.

First past the post worked quite well up to WW1 when there were effectively only 2 parties, and since WW2 has really failed to give us stable government, yes governments have rarely been forced from office but the style of government oscilates violently, something that in my view has held us as a nation back and has been very much to blame for the collapse of manufacturing industry in the UK.

As things stand at present FPTP tends to give the governing party a majority that is not representative of the support in the country, and is thus a form of germandering. Real power lives in the hands of a few floating voters in a few margiinal constituencies, resulting effectively the future of the nation lying in the hands of a few tens of thousand voters in the whole country. As a result to much legislation and taxation stems fro ideology rather than common sense, practicallity and need.

And even if you see onbsene majorities as the rout to stability can you really call our present government stable, were the last days of the Milk Snatcher or Major really stable.

Some else suggested 25% of MPs elected every years and certainly such a system would help keep all the b*st*rds on their toes which is part of the solution to the problem. The other big part of the solution is to change the system so the concept of the safe seat evaporates overnight

Strange how having only got 15% of the vote can change your position on electoral reform!