Parliamentary Connections

The steady flow of stories about MPs, MEPs and Peers abusing expenses are doing huge damage to their credibility, standing and support among the general public. This, in turn, damages and undermines the entire political system.
I know many senior people in business who scornfully dismiss the idea of engaging with politicians on the grounds that "they are all in it for what they can get out of it". Like most sweeping generalisations this does not tell the whole truth and it is a dangerous assumption to make for anyone with an interest in influencing how our laws are made. Every business leader should have an interest in this area as it shapes - or distorts depending on your point or view - the markets in which business operates.
Politicians, of course, deserve alot of the criticism that is currently coming their way. It seems to me desperately naive of them not to think that the last decade of demanding ever more transparency across the rest of society wouldn't eventually see the spotlight of scrutiny turned on them. It wouldn't have taken much to get the system of parliamentary allowances cleaned up so that it was capable of being judged favourably against today's standards.
All that said, it is important that we recognise that the majority of MPs are not there to make their fortunes: in my experience they genuinely want to serve the country, however pompous that aspiration might sound in today's cynincal world. This means that people must look beyond today's headlines and continue to engage with the democratic and political processes. This is never easy at the best of times because finding out where to start can be difficult. This remains one of the over-riding reasons why we – by which I mean Incisive Media – continues to work with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Insurance & Financial Services to provide that starting point. They genuinely want to hear from you and many people who meet the senior members for the first time will tell you how taken aback they are by their knowledge of the financial services sector: proof alone that some of that cynicism is miss-placed.

For the first time in a decade there is a realistic prospect of a change of government at the next General Election, now certain to be in the first half of 2010. Regardless of one's personal political persuasion, this has to be good for the country as governments without a serious opposition tend to become arrogant and detached. This is almost always the inevitable fate of governments and Prime Ministers who win three elections in a row: it has happened to Tony Blair and Labour, just as it happened to Margaret Thatcher and the Tories 20 years earlier. Blair went according to his own timetable while Thatcher had to be forced out. The aftermath was remarkably similar, however: Chancellor succeeds to premiership, party suffers divisions and gets caned in the local elections. Then what?
The City, of course, is excited by the prospect of a Conservative government and suddenly Conservative spokesmen are in demand and speaking to large and engaged audiences in the financial services sector. They don't appear to have much of substance to say but they are being listened to and taken seriously. But are you really listening to the next cabinet or will we still have a Labour government well into the next decade?
John Major was in the same position as Gordon Brown in 1990 and 1991 but by the middle of 1992 he was able to fashion a General Election victory in the last ten days of a campaign that had previously looked to have only one winner, and it wasn't the Tories. This proves nothing beyond the huge uncertainty and unpredictability of politics but it should serve as a cautionary reminder to City firms, financial institutions and their lobbyists not to get too excited about the prospect of having their 'friends' in government and certainly not to the extent of forgetting to engage with the current ministers. Labour will be running the country for another two years which is a very, very long time in politics.

There now seems very little chance of a General Election taking place in 2008 such has been the huge shift in the political landscape over the last few months.
Gordon Brown's premiership is, at the very least, in dangerous waters even if it hasn't quite hit the rocks yet. Crisis after crisis has battered him since taking over from Tony Blair, leaving the public with the feeling that this is a government lacking the competence to manage the country. That gnaws away at public support and, unless Mr Brown can counter that soon, his government could be doomed.
The parallels with when Labour last changed leader while in government are becoming more numerous by the day. Thirty years ago, Harold Wilson stood down and was succeeded by Jim Callaghan. The Tories had a new leader in Margaret Thatcher, slowly finding her feet after succeeding the defeated Ted Heath. As for the Liberals, they were forced to replace their leader, Jeremy Thorpe when he became embroilled in allegations of bribery, homosexuality and attempted murder. He was succeeded by David Steel who, like the recently elected Nick Clegg came from the right of his party.
Three new leaders, economic crisis, government not in control of events, delayed General Election – the parallels are there. When the election did eventually come in 1979 Labour was swept from power for 18 long years. One significant difference is that in 1977-79 Labour had to hang on in Parliament by its fingertips, eventually relying on a pact with the Liberals to secure majorities in key votes. This time. it has the cushion of a comfortable majority so shouldn't be forced to the country because it loses a vote of confidence in Parliament as happened thirty years ago.
Labour may have a mountain to climb to recover over the next 18 months but we should all remember that they are still the government and could still be the government after the next General Election. The financial services sector musn't make the mistake of thinking that change is just around the corner and therefore spend all its time getting close to the Tories: they need to be taken seriously and this is a good time to influence their policy formation but they are not making any decisions. We probably have two budgets and one hell of alot of legislation to go before the election and any prospect of a change in government.

The vote by the House of Commons for a 100% elected House of Lords came as a complete surprise to most commentators as well as the majority of the cabinet. Tony Blair showed just how far out of touch he is with the prevailing mood by voting for the 50% appointed/50% elected House of Lords – the option that was defeated by the biggest majority.
I can't see the 100% elected option getting much further, however. A significant number of MPs who voted for it actually don't support radical reform of the Lords. They voted for this option because they think that it has little chance of progressing, playing just the sort of political games that most of the public don't understand and certainly don't like. There was, however, a real majority for the option of having an 80% elected House of Lords and this would seem to be where we are heading.
There are still big issues to be addressed, not least getting the ermine clad turkeys to vote for Christmas. Also high up the agenda must be the size of the reformed House and its role: these already seem to be getting lost in a largely irrelevant debate about what is should be called. Just as with the House of Commons (see below), we should first look at the functions of the new upper house and then properly analyse how many people are needed to carry out those functions effectively.
As to the key question: should there be any appointed members? I think that 20% is about right so long as it is kept away from the Prime Minister of the day. We need to create a system where people who would never stand for election but who can make a major contribution to the legislative process can be appointed for a fixed term.

I ask this question becasue the full extent of the proposed changes to constituency boundaries for the next General Election has just been analysed. Among the many consequencies – including the loss of John Greenway's Ryedale seat – is that the number of MPs will increase from 646 to 650. Can this be justified? I believe the answer is no.
Just look at the trends.
After the post-war abolition of the university seats the House of Commons had 625 MPs: this steadily increased over the next 50 years until it reached 659 in 1997 and 2001. Amazingly, the first tranche of post-devolution changes actually reduced the number of MPs elected at the last General Election to 646 but this was too good to last so the trend is back on an upward curve.
There are still huge anomalies which the Boundary Commission has failed to address this time round. For instance, why does the average English constituency have 69,934 electors while the average Welsh constitutency only have 55,640? And they have their own Assembly. I would use this as a lever to reduce the number of Welsh MPs but it could, of course, just as easily be used as an argument for increasing the number of English MPs.
The real shortcoming of this whole boundary review exercise is that it appears no-one has ever sat down and asked the obvious question: how many MPs do we need to create an efficient, modern political assembly that is effective in holding the government of the day to account? I don't know the answer to that question but it is likely to be nearer to 300 than 700. Could you imagine the huge rows if the number of seats was slashed by half?

Every time the (relatively) new Economic Secretary to the Treasury Ed Balls speaks to an industry event he impresses. His latest platform was yesterday's Institute of Insurance Brokers annual Parliamentary Reception.
He spoke with authority on a range of issues that are of concern to insurers and brokers, including the regulation of travel agents, the shortcomings of non-advised sales and the role of the Financial Services Authority. It is, of course, easy to sound knowlegeable when a team of officials write your speech – but he didn't have a script or any notes. He knew what he was talking about and spoke in terms that showed he had an instinctive appreciation of the role the insurance industry plays in modern society and economic life.
Guests at the reception were left struggling to remember the last time the insurance industry had a minister responsible for it who seemed to have such a genuine interest in them and a real sympathy for some of their concerns. One or two with longer memories and involvement with our political masters suggested that you had to go right back to the mid-1990s and the last Conservative government when the insurance industry was still looked after by the Department of Trade and Industry and Jonathan Evans was the minister in charge of the industry. He, of course, exited the Commons in the 1997 Labour landslide but found his way into the European Parliament where he is now an influential figure on many of the economic committees.

Having criticised Parliament for not devoting enough time to debate the economic and financial crises we find ourselves in, I have to praise it for moving quickly in the wake of yesterday's Pre-Budget report. The Speaker has agreed that there should be a three hour debate tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon but only after intense pressure from the opposition.
It does seem extraordinary that such a major statement on the overwhelmingly dominant issue of the day shouldn't have been automatically followed by an extended debate as, indeed, the Budget itself is. Alistair Darling's speech yesterday was hugely significant in so many ways that it deserves to be debated properly. It marks an end to 30 years of tax cuts, the opening up of a yawning chasm between the two main parties on economic and fiscal policy for the first time since the early 1990s and a massive gamble on short term spending heading off a deep recession. We might as well have closed Parliament down if it couldn't hold a debate on that lot.

As hard as he might try, it looks as if Gordon Brown has already lost control of the debate on the future regulation of the world's financial services industries. His pleas to President Obama and the US Congress for a co-ordinated global response sounded very fine but lacked substance and, crucially, lacked credibility. His hopes of pulling off a deal at the G20 Summit next month now look very slim.

Most of the rest of the world is not looking to the UK or the United States for a lead in reforming the way financial markets and the firms that play in them are regulated for the simple reason that they think the Anglo-US approach of the last 25 years has a lot to do with the mess the world's economies are currently in as many leading commentators are starting to point out. Europe, in particular, does not want a UK or US solution and is already busily working at its own. Last week's Larosiere report spells out a new approach that has quickly won approval in the European Commission and among key national governments in mainland Europe. The Larosiere Report?  You haven't heard of it? You can be forgiven because the coverage in the UK of this key report for the European Commission by former International Monetary Fund managing director Jacques de Larosiere has been poorly covered here. Yet, it has set the EU on a course to create three new pan-national regulatory bodies - the European Banking Authority, the European Securities Authority and the European Insurance Authority.

These new regulators will be given wide powers to impose supervisory standards on national regulators, make binding decisions on technical issues (very likely to include powers over product design) and enforce adequate prudential supervision in conjunction with another new body, the European Systemic Risk Council. Certain pan-European organisations will find themselves closely regulated for the first time with credit ratings agencies at the top of the list - they are in for a very nasty shock if these recommendations go through. For the time-being, the EU envisages micro-level regulation of individual firms being left with national regulators but it sets out a course towards far greater control in the future, threatening to bring a range of other market and conduct of business issues under the remit of its new structure.

The report and the Commission make a nod in the direction of the world outside Europe's borders by urging a "deepening of the EU's bilateral financial relations with all its major partners" but here, in the very next line, is the key statement of intent "There is an opportunity for the EU to seize global leadership". This is where the battle lines will be drawn and it is hard to see Gordon Brown's voice being heard above the noise of that battle.

There are some scores to be settled with the UK among many regulators in Europe dating back to the creation of the Single Market in financial services in 1992 when the UK won a protracted argument over the balance between prudential regulation and product regulation, with the EU rules coming down firmly in favour of the former. At the time, many financial products in Germany, France, Italy and Spain were tightly regulated in terms of design and rates. All of that was replaced by a more UK orientated system of prudential supervision and it is that system that many in Europe believe has now failed, no more so that in the UK. Larosiere comes back time and again in his report to the need to regulate at much more detailed level, especially when it comes to hedge funds, over-the -counter derivatives and credit default swaps. It also has things to say on the need for greater risk retention by the issuers of securitised products and calls for common rules for what it rather vaguely refers to as "investment funds".

The UK has given a lukewarm welcome to the Larosiere report but merely praising it as a "good basis for further discussions" as Alistair Darling did this week is hardly going to win friends at the European Commission, especially as he goes on to dismiss the idea of given any new pan-European bodies powers over national regulators. Europe sees it as the agenda for those discussions and we can expect to see France and Germany pressing this at the G20 summit. They are not interested in the sort of wishy-washy talk of global co-operation that the Prime Minister peddled to the US Congress this week: they want firm action with tough new rules and see how to deliver that as the starting point for debate, not merely as an option for discussion.

If the UK financial services sector wants to engage in the real debate over the future of regulation it will be much better advised to look to Brussels rather than to Westminster.

There is no coherent argument that can be offered for defending Sir Fred Goodwin's pension and it was disappointing to see yesterday's hearings of the Treasury Select Committee largely wasted in pursuing the City minister Lord (Paul) Myners over the Goodwin pension.

While the very public rows about the causes and consequences of the economic crisis continue to grab the headlines, we can see one of the key battlegrounds for next year's General Election emerging: tax policy.

I am still struggling to see where this consensus the Prime Minister keeps talking about over fiscal stimuli and international agreement on future regulation is going to come from. His current mini-world tour in the run up to next week's London Summit doesn't seem to be getting him anywhere very fast. It is almost as if he is saying the same thing over and over again in an attempt to convince himself that everyone agrees with him but he is actually beginning to look very isolated.

I have been watching the current frenzy over stories of MPs expenses with a growing sense of despair. We are already facing a crisis because of the lack of respect for politicians and political processes in this country which is causing an accelerating disengagement from the democratic dialogue between citizens and Parliament. This is a cause of huge concern and should be at the forefront of MPs' minds. Instead,it seems that all too many of them have their own pockets as their first concern.

There will be hundreds of thousands of words written over the next few days analysing the outcome of yesterday's G20 Summit in London and I will be looking hard for an answer to this question: who is in charge of the new, tougher, regulation that has been promised?

I am totally unconvinced by the new Conservative policy of breaking up the partially state-owned banks as their ownership is returned to the private sector. Shadow Chancellor George Osborne's speech advocating this earlier this week was full of glib phrases - "too big to fail but potentially too big to bail" - but desperately short on substance and an understanding of the consequences of pursing such a policy.

The Treasury Select Committee looks to be pursuing an interesting strategy when it comes to reporting on its in-depth inquiry into the causes of the banking crisis.

One of the most fascinating aspects of tomorrow's Budget Statement is going to be who will come out on top - Alistair Darling, George Osborne or Vince Cable?

The initial reaction to Darling's Budget speech has to be that he has demonstrated that the government has now run out of ideas on the economy. He will score with left of centre voters for his attacks on high earners with the cap on pensions tax relief and the 50% rate of tax but he will get widely criticised for being too timid on the public sector deficit and for the tax increase on booze and fuel. Unfortunately for him, Labour needs to do alot more than appeal to its core supporters.

I've been trying to pick my way through the detail of yesterday's Budget statement to find some good news and have been getting ever more depressed as I do so. I have come to the conclusion that we are heading for a decade of economic gloom against a background of political and, perhaps, increasing industrial conflict.

Despite one commentator's optimism in response to my predictions that we are heading for a decade of economic misery and industrial conflict on a par with the 1970s, there is plenty of expert opinion this morning lining up on my side. Alot of what the IFS says in terms of the approach that needs to be taken to public spending reflects the thought-provoking Reform report published on Monday.

It is clear from the leaked information on the expense claims of ministers in the Daily Telegraph this morning that MPs are in for several weeks of constant, almost humiliating scrutiny of their financial affairs. It is hard to have much sympathy for them because almost any sane reasonable person can see that even these claims, which were apparently within the threadbare rules, go far beyond anything that can be justified by reference to normal practice elsewhere in the public or private sector. There was a real conspiracy at Westminster to keep quiet about the inadequacies of the system so that many (how many will be come clear over the coming days) could rape the system for all it was worth.
Clearly, these people did not enjoy the benefit of the advice I all too frequently received from my headmaster: 'Beware your sins will find you out'. Well, those sins are finding them out big time right now.
It is hard to keep a sense of perspective about this sorry mess: every revelation raises the blood pressure and further lowers the standing of politicians in the eyes of the people they represent. This was already at a low ebb having sunk to the stage where alarmingly high numbers of people are disengaging from the democratic processes: this matters, it really matters. In the toughest economic times for three generations we need a government that can take the (right) tough decisions and in doing so inspire respect so that everybody understands the need to work together to steer through the crisis. We are a very long way from having that sense of leadership and common purpose. We are almost looking at the nightmare of the sort of political vacuum in which extremism can flourish.
One example of the consequences: there has rightly been alot of criticism of many senior bankers for making sure they looked after themselves with excessive bonuses while leaving their institutions and the financial system of which they are a key element hit the rocks. But who is going to hold them to account? It certainly isn't going to be MPs in this Parliament because they are now stripped bare of any collective moral authority to criticise anyone for selfish greed. Maybe a few will be shown to have resisted the temptation to exploit the system and they might come to the fore. If so, we have to hope that they are among the more articulate and well informed breed of politician. But, collectively, they have thrown away any authority on this issue, just one of many.
In the meantime, we will all have to look to the press, with all its flaws and partisanship, to hold banks and politicians to account. Many journalists' expenses claims would occasionally raise a few eyebrows - I do remember trying to explain to my then boss that a helicopter from Nice airport to Monte Carlo was really a cost-effective and efficient way to travel once but at least I had to explain it to someone - but the harsh public scrutiny that the Parliamentary expenses and bankers' bonuses are being subject to by the press is the best chance we have of stopping such abuses.
As I said at the beginning, we need to keep a sense of perspective and mustn't let this turn into some form of mob rule and wild witchunt akin to Chelsea fans and their death threats to referees everytime they lose a high profile European match. We must seek to hold them to account while at the same time allowing both MPs and the bankers to develop better, fairer systems of remuneration because we need good people in both jobs.
There is a danger in this row about expenses and the huge public pressure for reform that we end up with a system that takes us back into the last century when only the wealthy or those with steady second incomes could afford to be MPs. It is an expensive business representing constituencies a long way outside London, especially if they are rural, and we need to ensure that people are properly supported to do this or we will end up with an even more unrepresentative Parliament.
There is a degree of urgency about this but not so much so that we need the Prime Minister to think up a scheme over breakfast again and rush onto You Tube. It needs to be thought through and we should leave it to the inquiry under Sir Christopher Kelly that has already been set up. That has promised to report during the summer and that is a tight enough timetable for such an important issue.

I suppose it was inevitable that one of the long-standing members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Insurance & Financial Services would be caught in the expenses scandal and it happened last night when the Daily Telegraph revealed that Sir Peter Viggers, Tory MP for Gosport, was being featured in this morning's edition for his excessive claims for garden expenses, including a floating duck house. In political terms, Sir Peter was summarily executed with David Cameron instantly telling him that he would not be standing at the next election after a 35 year career in Parliament. Whatever you think of the claims that is a huge personal blow to Sir Peter.

I was going to leave the subject of MPs' expenses alone for a few days at least but I can't let Nadine Dorries' hysterical outburst today pass without comment.
Quite simply, Methinks she doth protest too much.
I can understand her point about MPs being told by the fees office to claim for what they could, as that is obviously what happened. But, like my mother used to say, if someone told you to stick your head in an oven would you? Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. Many MPs didn't take the ludicrous advice offered to them so that rather negates that point.
I think alot of journalists had an idea that some pretty dishonest and disreputable things were going on but no-one was ever going to come clean voluntarily which is why the Freedom of Information Act was needed. Don't forget it took a four year battle to get this information out into the open and it was journalists that led that campaign. Without hard evidence on the precise number of ducks living in unaccustomed luxury and where, any paper that published its suspicions as allegations would have risked a fortune in lawyer's fees defending just one story. And who tilted the libel laws against the media again with the no-win, no-fee regime? Oh, what a surprise, MPs.
As to the Telegraph's tactics, what do MPs expect? They have blocked every attempt to open up the way Parliament works to the expected levels of scrutiny in the 21st century so you cannot expect the Telegraph to pussyfoot around. The acid test is: Have they got it right? So far, yes.
If they published the whole lot all at once, as Nadine Dorries suggests, many of the perpetrators would escape unnoticed amid all the conflicting headlines. I think you can only pick them off one at a time. If Parliament doesn't like this then it should publish all the expenses now - after all, its had four years' notice that this day was coming.
I do have some personal sympathy for MPs as people as I mentioned in the piece I did on Peter Viggers yesterday but they have brought this on themselves and must expect to reap what they have sown.
I was struck by the tone of the BBC Question Time last night which really brought home the extent of the political crisis we are in. I agree with the view that an early election would be chaotic but I think we do need one very soon. I suggest that the political parties cancel their September party conferences as no-one but no-one is going to want to watch them preening themselves before the adoring faithful (few) and instead hold an election then.

It seems that very few MPs will escape without having to do some explaining in the wake of the Daily Telegraph's continued sifting through the minutiae of their expenses claims over the last four years. Among the latest to blush a little is John Greenway, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Insurance & Financial Services.

The government has been very slow to put any flesh on the bones of the Prime Minister's statement on Building Britain's Future yesterday, in which he set out the draft legislative programme for the session that will start in November and finish early with the General Election, most likely in June next year.

The initial reaction to the Chancellor's announcement of a relatively tame and limited package of reforms of financial regulation has to be that the most significant aspect is actually the Tories' response. The Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, told the House of Commons that an incoming Conservative government would scrap the tripartite regulatory system - FSA, Bank of England, Treasury - and replace it with a system where all prudential supervision of major financial institutions goes to the Bank of England, including banks, building societies and insurers. This would leave the Financial Services Authority as a "powerful regulator to protect consumers". Mr Osborne specifically said that it would have a brief "to stamp out unfair practices like mis-sold payment protection insurance and excessive bank charges".
This opens up a huge gulf between Labour and Conservatives on financial regulation as the centrepiece of Mr Darling's proposal is a further development (I hesitate to call it strengthening, although he did) of the tripartite system. This would see the Financial Services Authority retaining the principal role as the prudential regulator as well as taking on new powers to regulate hedge funds and other derivative products - at that level it would be a stronger system. Financial stability would rest with a new Council for Financial Stability, the tripartite arrangement re-invented. It is hard to see how that would work any better than the previous incarnation which failed to prevent last autumn's crisis.
The only common ground between the two major parties is over their hostility to the European Union propsoals embodied in the Larosiere Report. Both see this as potentially damaging to the UK and the City of London in particular and favour a much less prescriptive model of global co-operation. There is an element of heads in the sand over this as the EU is making  a massive land grab on the regulatory front and may have its new institutions up an running before the dust has settled on the next General Election in the UK.
The big danger in this is that the political uncertainty will actually cripple the current system, with the FSA unable to restructure and recruit, the Bank not able to develop its role and the Treasury sitting on the sidelines with civil servants not keen to do too much work that will be wasted should there be a change of government.

The Storm: The World Economic Crisis and What it Means is a breathtaking tour of economic policy that amply demonstrates why Vince Cable has eclipsed all other politicians with his response to the financial and economic crises of the last two years.
He puts our current problems in an historical and political context that helps the reader understand how we came so close to financial meltdown during the autumn of 2008. His almost effortless grasp of economic theory and policy can almost dazzle the reader at times and there isn't a page in this book that doesn't impart a fresh insight into the issues. Perhaps his greatest achievement is to pack so much in and yet always keep it accessible to the interested layperson, even if you do occasionally find yourself having to re-read a couple of pages because you haven't quite kept up with his relentless analysis.
True to form, he doesn't offer any glib, easy conclusions but lays out the challenges intelligently with emphasis on global action to tackle systemic risk while ensuring we do not fall into the trap of narrow economic nationalism or don the straitjacket of state capitalism.

Neither the government nor the insurance industry will be rushing to stick the "privatisation" label on the proposals from the Insurance Industry Working Group, chaired by Aviva's Andrew Moss, which were published yesterday but that is what they are. It makes a pitch for a further 5% of state provided benefits to be shifted to the private sector by 2020. This represents about £17bn of government expenditure annually at current prices.

I have watched, waited, searched and searched again for signs that our three main political parties are looking for answers to some of the key issues surrounding the future of the financial services sector. My wait appears to have been just about in vain.

If ever there was a day when this discredited and demoralised Parliament - and that includes the government - should have realised that its number was up, yesterday was it.

Interesting to see that the Treasury Select Committee chairman, Labour MP John McFall, has tabled an Early Day Motion (no 2008) in the House of Commons calling for the big banks - those deemed 'too big to fail' to be broken up.

There are many honest, hardworking MPs. There. I've said it and I know it to be true.
Sadly, there are also far too many who have been exploiting a woefully inadequate system for dealing with the many challenges and legitimate costs of being an MP. What really shocks me is the inability of many of those in that second category to understand what needs to be done to start the very long process of rebuilding respect and trust among the people who elect them. The complaints about the likely shape of the recommendations from the Independent Committee on Standards in Public Life and row over the refusal to allow MPs to vote on them vividly illustrates this gulf.
From what I have seen of the proposals they largely make sense. I think there could be a legitimate debate about whether MPs from outside London should be allowed to buy or rent in London so long as the scope for making excessive profits on property deals is brought to an end. To me home "flipping"  has been one of the most distasteful aspects of the whole scandal because it seems to be a very deliberate attempt to make as much money as possible using the public subsidy they enjoy and, in many case, avoid paying taxes that the rest of us have to pay. I still struggle to understand how that isn't fraud.
The rest of what has been rather clumsily leaked over the last week is reasonable. I especially like the idea that MPs who live no further out of central London than I do will no longer be subsidised for second homes in town. It will be a pleasure to see them join the rest of us commuting on most days - remembering that they don't have to go to Parliament on as many days of the year as you and I have to go to our place of work because they often (rightly) have to work in their constituencies as well. I am afraid I don't buy the late night working argument as I, along with tens of thousands of others, often have to work late or attend functions as part of my job. Last night I got home after midnight having attended a City function but I do not feel I need a second home to do my job.
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the argument going on at the moment is the feeling that those MPs arguing that they should be able to vote on the committee's proposals next week are trying to have one last hurrah at our expense.
The House of Commons will change dramatically after the next election. With the numbers already standing down and the likelihood of a dramatic shift in electoral fortunes almost half of MPs could be new next year. It will be a great opportunity for Parliament to make a fresh start and it shouldn't be saddled with an expenses system voted in by people who are no longer there. Unfortunately, some of those opposing the reforms are undoubtedly looking to the potential impact on their own pockets and worrying about what they will get in their final few months as an MP and as a severance package when they go or lose.
The government is right to resist all attempts to force a vote on the reform package. 

The political arguments about the Queen's Speech might still be raging but my plea to the insurance industry is not to be fooled by those into failing to have a good look at what is coming up in Parliament in the next few months. There is an easy trap looming for those inclined to dismiss the the government proposals set out last week as more of an election manifesto than a serious legislative programme. Fall into that trap and you will overlook some bills of major importance to the insurance industry.

There is only one way to sum up the shake-up in the European Commission portfolios from a UK perspective - we were totally stuffed. We lost out lock, stock and barrel, leaving the UK financial services sector looking very exposed to attack from those who believe that its free-market 'Anglo-Saxon' approach to regulation and market behavior lies at the heart of the financial crises of the last two years.

Today seems already to have been declared the official start of the General Election campaign with a barrage of announcements from all the major parties. I wonder how this will play out with the electorate?

Barak Obama has clearly run out of patience, not just with Wall Street but with other governments and financial regulators around the world. His shock announcement yesterday of a a radical new regulatory regime for the banking sector has obviously been brewing for a long time and, one imagines, has been discussed, at least in principle, with other governments in the G20.

The colourful, shaming saga of the abuse of Parliamentary expenses just refuses to go away. It is hard to see how it can until several things happen. A new Parliament has to be elected; a new expense system has to be put in place that is fair to MPs and also acceptable to the people who elect them; the perpetrators of the worst abuses have to be held to account; and, greater transparency has to be applied in the future.

Just how important is social media going to be in the forthcoming General Election campaign? After the huge excitement generated by the Obama campaign's use of social media during his successful campaign in 2008 all three main parties in the UK have been gearing up to exploit these new channels - and all three have proved very keen to talk about what they are doing.