Brooke Masters, chief regulation correspondent, talks about the future of regulation in the UK.

There has been an enormous amount of to-ing and fro-ing in recent weeks between the three parties and the three broadcasters hosting April’s pre-election TV debates; some of which I alluded to last week.*

Philip Webster has a good piece this morning on Brown taking soundings from Joel Benenson, who advised Obama and Biden ahead of their election debates.

The US precedent is fascinating. I’ve found a link to the memo of understanding drawn up ahead of the Bush-Kerry debate of 2004. It should give you a sense of the immensely complicated details which have to be sorted out first.

The memo has 16 main subject issues, each of which has further sub-clauses. For instance number 9, “Staging”, has four sub-clauses, the first of which has 16 further sub-sub-clauses.

The hugely wordy agreement includes arrangements such as:

Pens and Paper: “The candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each prefers and using the type of pen and pencil that each prefers.”

Who goes first: “The order and questioning and closing statements shall be determined as follows: i. The Commission will conduct a coin toss at least seventy-two (72) hours before the first presidential debate. At that time, the winner of the coin toss shall have the option of choosing, for the September 30 debate, either [a] whether to take the first or second question, or [b] whether to give the first or closing statement….”

The backdrop/set: “The color and style of the backdrop will be recommended by the Commission and mutually determined by representatives of the campaigns….the backdrops behind each candidate shall be identical.”

Unflattering shots: “The camera locked at the rear of the stage shall be used only to take shots of the moderator.”

The warmth of the room: “The Commission shall use best efforts to maintain an appropriate temperature according to industry standards for the entire debate.”

The angle of the podiums: “The podiums will be equally canted toward the center of the state at a degree to be determined by the Commission’s producer. The podiums shall be ten (10) feet apart; such a distance shall be measured from the left-right center of a podium to the left-right center of the other podium.”

What type of chairs will they sit in: “The chairs shall be swivel chairs that can be locked in place, and shall be of equal height.”

Rooms for the entourage: “An equal number of each backstage rooms will be available for other staff members of each candidate. Each candidate shall have a minimum of eight (8) such rooms, five (5) of which shall be in the debate facility itself, and three (3) of which shall be located next to the press center.”

Type of microphone: “Each candidate shall have a choice of either wireless hand held microphone or wireless lapel microphone to allow him to move about as provided for in subparagraph (iv) above and to face different directions while responding to questions from the audience”.

* The arguments revolve around how the questioning will work, who will comprise the audience, who will be allowed to talk and for how long, where the debates should take place and so on. All three parties know that their leaders have a lot to lose from a disastrous appearance.

Steve Hilton’s flow of thought has been blissfully uninterrupted by the fuss over his strategy bulletins. The Tory barefoot sage is still on a mission to re-educate senior Tory MPs on the importance of “people power” and gardening. But, as you can see from the last two strategy emails below, his missives have been toned down a bit, at least in language. No more references to “cool stuff”, which is a shame.  Perhaps this is a real life example of transparency changing behaviour?

For those of you who prefer to see your bulletins in graphical form, I’ve pulled together a word cloud. Read on for the full text.

Continue reading "Two more Steve Hilton strategy bulletins"

I’m sure there’s an interesting story to be told today about lobbyists gaining access to the Commons by MPs hiring out rooms to entertain them. The authorities have released the full list of “banqueting office functions” booked from 2004 to 2009. (To be fair many of the guests are charities etc)

But for now it’s mainly amusement value: eg David Cameron hiring Dining Room C for “tea” with the “West Oxfordshire Lady Freemasons.”

Alex spotted that Sir John Butterfill paid back £17,478 despite being asked to pay only £2,364.

Who else has appeared to have gone overboard in an attempt to clear their name? This list is not comprehensive but will give you an idea….*

Phil Hope has paid back a stunning £42,674…..10 times the £4,365 demanded of him.

Keith Vaz has paid back £18,949, more than 10 times the £1,514 demanded of him.

Sally Keeble paid back £4,189, 10 times the £451 recommended.

Humfrey Malins repaid £9,954 8 times the demand of £1,329

Continue reading "Over-compensation: Who paid more than they were asked?"

“Elliot Morley has no issues”

“David Chaytor has no issues”

“Jim Devine has no issues”

If you want proof of disagreement between Legg and Kennedy here it is. I won’t go into the details of Peter Lilley’s mortgage claims - too complex. But Kennedy has struck off the entire £41k claim, saying:

“I am at a loss to understand why the review should state that what you did was not permitted under the ACA.”

Meanwhile Anne Cryer saw her £18,241 demand reduced on appeal to £1,596.

Sir Paul Kennedy says of Cryer, who rented a flat from her son-in-law. “In 2004-5 you had no reason to believe that you could not recover rent paid to a relative…I entirely accept all of that.”

William Cash had been ordered to repay £15,269. That has been reduced to a mere £429 by Sir Paul Kennedy. Cash had paid rent to his daughter from April 2004 to April 2005.

“It was only in the July 2006 revised edition of the Green Book - published more than a year after you made your claim - that there appears for the frist time..anything to indicate that rent paid to a relative would not be recoverable.”

Colin Challen had rented a room from his own researcher. Legg asked for the repayment of £9,158. It was reduced on appeal to £363.

Sir Paul Kennedy rejected Challen’s argument that a researcher did not fall into the category of close business associate, partner or family member (from whom an MP could not lease accommodation). But he said.

“The arrangement which you made was disclosed to and accepted by the Fees Office as a temporary arrangement…any alternative arrangement would almost certainly have resulted in a larger legitimate claim against public funds.”

When Legg first started seving MPs with big bills, one of the big complaints was over the “arbitrary” limit he put on cleaning expenses. One MP told the Guardian: “If you employ a cleaner for five to six hours a week, pay a decent wage and pay national insurance, there are consequences.”

Well, as this excellent graph in the Legg report shows, 93 per cent of MPs managed to keep their cleaning bills below £2,000. (Not sure what that says about the cleanliness of their homes or their terms and conditions.) It is a vindication of sorts for Legg’s limit. Note the sudden fall in cleaning expenses in 2008/9 once the system began to come under serious scrutiny. Britain’s cleaning industry seems to have taken a big hit. Not sure which MP claimed £5,400 in a year.