Taking some time off
I am following Gordon Brown's example and taking some time off. I expect you'll hear from him again before you hear from me except, that is, if you tune into broadcast on 91热爆 Radio 4 at 11am on Saturday, 22 December 2007 or listen to it via the website.
Those who've criticised my reporting of 鈥渃ash-for-honours鈥 may be surprised by its tone. Those who've cheered me on may be disappointed. The programme hears from those who've given money, raised it and spent it about why they feel they're being traduced and continue to believe that the British system is cleaner than most. There are not new headline-grabbing revelations but, whilst justifying what they do and why, those interviewed do, I hope, reveal rather a lot.
As ever I look forward to your comments. Have a good Christmas and here's to another stimulating New Year.
I'm 
Comments
Merry Christmas Nick!
Dear Nick
Have a lovely Christmas and a healthy and happy New Year. You are one of the bright sparks in an increasingly grey and lack lustre political scene.
Looking forward to seeing and hearing from you after your break.
Have a good rest.
2008 was always the year that the New Labour project came off the rails.
Why ? Basically, Keynesian demand management when the world economy was expanding was always a false premise on which to build an economy. The master would be turning in his grave.
The pain to be endured by the 'Great British' will be greater for believing the false prophets who praised the way New Labour developed the economy and those who voted for them.
Enjoy
Ah, Nick - I cheered you on but didn't know then it required infinite patience - waiting for the real story to be told.
I got so impatient a while ago, I even thought Tony Blair would become a Roman Catholic before that happened. And guess what?
I wonder what Gordon will say when we do hear from him again. I've heard a rumour that senior Labour party members, including former cabinet ministers, might be paying a visit to have a little "chat" following Labour's continuing slide in the polls.
It may not just be turkeys for whom the knives are being sharpened. Have you heard anything about this?
I heard most of the program this morning and it followed the lines expected. I just cannot understand why the MP's cannot get it right. Surely the simple method to be used in donations and expenses are to declare all and from whom. Publish the register, problem over. I know there is a privacy issue, but if the rules are followed, the donors know and will have to work on the rules. If you look at the register of interests, the labour deputy leadership contest only resulted in about 20 to 30 donations per candidate. Not exactly onerous. Many of the general public have to keep more comprehensive accounts for the Inland Revenue. More excuses I'm afraid. As to funding by the tax payer. An absolute no. It would be impossible to treat the matter fairly, and I for one wouldn't want my money going to the likes of the Green Party, BNP or similar. Who would control how the money is wasted. If the parties don't have the funds, then they can fall by the wayside. Perhaps a few more independants would see a better form of democracy for the country. Furthermore, we have just heard that 拢40 million was not available to honour the police pay award, but it would be available to the parties. I think not.
Happy Christmas, Nick .... and while you're away. give a seconds thought to why some politicians views, dotty though they may be, are taken up by the media, where as other peoples sensible views are dismissed out of hand ... Tony Blair becomes a Catholic .. good luck to him ... but, Anne Widdecombe, as loopy as they come, in my view, maintains that because Blair has said he's pro-abortion and pro- gay partnerships, shouldn't be allowed to become a Roman Catholic. .... there are millions of catholics who are pro-abortion, pro-gay partnerships and, above all, pro contraception .. the fact that they dont state these views publicly doesn't make them worthy of excommunication .. heresy is the new orthodoxy, Anne ... but then only being a convert to the faith, I expect you find that hard to understand.
The problem for Labour is that when you come in saying you're going to be "Whiter than white, purer than pure," anything less than that very high standard is going to immediately attract heavy criticism.
I wrote to my MP, Derick Twigg, on this very issue asking for parties to be entirely tax payer funded.
It is the least bad of a range of bad options.
It is debatable as to whether large donations do indeed buy influence. What is not debatable is the public perception that they "must be getting something for their money."
As you've said many times on this blog, in politics sometimes perceptions matter more than substance. On this issue, I believe this to especially true.
The only way to stop the rot with party funding is to ban any donations. The only way to fund a party should be through its membership fees and via tax payer's money.
Unfortunately, I had to agree with Mr Twigg view in his reply when he said that he remains to be convinced that the public would back such a plan.
Almost everyone I have talked to on this issue hates this idea with a passion. Primarially because their tax money would fund parties like the BNP
Why do you blog so infrequently? Are you a really an MP who is simply job-sharing his holiday?
I think we should be told :)
Happy Christmas, Nick! x
Lets see: tax payer funded politics.
Well we would require our politicians:
1. to tell the truth - always.
2. to account for all (ALL) the money was spent
3. to ensure all (ALL) the money is spent legally.
Since they will never do 1 and appear incapable or unwilling to do 2 and 3.. I see no reason to fund them.
Ever.
If they decide to change their minds on 1,2 And 3.. I'll change mine.
Anyone who can account for expenses as MPs can and do by saying "expenses 拢250"
and get away legally with it..
is NOT getting anymore of my money.
Regardless of what people think about the cash for honours or anything else, you're a great person to have in the political blogosphere.
Have a great Xmas and New Year.
No political party can be clean, fair and impartial while they are supported by funding from people with agendas to push. Give political parties state funding and hopefully they (like the 91热爆) can become impartial and well respected. I would also like to see MP's allowed to vote with their conscience, and not because of two and three line whips forcing them to toe government line, which reduces 'democratic' government to no more than an elected dictatorship.
Taking time off Nick??
Does world politics take time off?
Don't you have mobile blogging down yet?
I am disgusted!
Only kidding have a great New Year.
Cash for Honours is totally unethical. Perhaps there should be an incorruptible board headed by a Chairperson,a respected judge perhaps,respected by all Parties, who should scrutinise all the names before the Honours list is decided on.Otherwise the whole system will soon become a topic for ridicule.
A Happy New Year to Nick and all.
There only way to sort this sleaze out is to kick everyone out involved no inquiry 鈥 nothing, and he wants transparency!
Lets face it if he starts kicking folks out then there's only him and a handful left in the cabinet, can鈥檛 have that can we?
Wonder what鈥檚 it like to be a Prime Minister or a member of the cabinet and having PC Plod knocking at the door...
... I would be wanting to hang my head in shame and nothing to do with them or wanting a good clear out, why hasn't anyone resigned in disgust or are they there for what they can get?
Nick, it was good, on listening to the programme, to find that you had at least noticed the elephant in the room. Why on earth should we worry about the financial crises of the major parties when they spend money like water in election campaigns? There is no democratic need for them to spend anything like so much. Democratic principles do not allow for those with more money to buy more influence: so there is no good reason for our political system to be organised to enable it.
In addition, to clean up politics, donations need to be restricted to small, openly declared, sums. If the major parties find that leads to financial crises, then they need to keep their spending under control, and democracy would be strengthened.
If the wastefulness was dealt with, I would support a funding system that included state funding of all serious political parties (2 or more MEPs/MSPs/MPs/etc, which therefore currently excludes BNP). But in the end the real need is to bring party spending by the major parties back down to what is compatible with informed democratic debate, rather than bombarding voters with loads of advertising images.
Since Christmas is the time for a little light reading, you might enjoy an excerpt from Margaret Drabble's recent novel, "The Sea Lady" in relation to the name of Clegg.
p295 "I changed my name because ... Clegg is an unfortunate name. It's not a pretty name. It's a heavy name, an ugly name. An inferior-form-of-life sort of name. Do you know what a cleg is? .. A cleg is a horsefly. Cleg-flies are bloodsuckers. Well the females are. The female is more dangerous than the male"
After what I hope has been a restful break, I was wondering if you could explain something. What is the difference between targets and payments by results? It sounds like in one you don't get your money unless you hit targets, while in the other, you get the money when you produce results. Results and targets, targets and results. Not sure I understand the difference.