I have, by my own admission, been a critic of those MPs who have been "manipulating" Parliamentary financial arrangements to their own advantage. But this week things have reached new and somewhat silly heights which have, to my shame, made me see things in a slightly different light {and from a slightly more askance angle}. The braying hysteria surrounding Bromsgrove Tory MP Julie Kirkbride is at once distasteful, hypocritical, duplicitous and opportunistic. True, R4's coverage - particularly some of the comments from constituents has been to some degree measured, but the prominence given to the "Julie Must Go" lobby is unfair and lacks subjectivity. It's difficult to believe that the same people who are so vigorously organising petitions {even to the extent of encouraging the signing therof outside the constituency} to curb the "financial excesses" of Ms Kirkbride by the expedient of depriving her of her livelihood are the same people who were only too happy to massively reward Jade Goody {£50,000 against how many million?} for doing significantly less. Fuck all, in fact.
Well, I never thought I'd be defending politicians or their expenses. But this has become far too similar to some nasty little reality TV show where we have taken to "voting off" our local MPs.
Why is it that as a nation we now so badly need figures to hate?

"Hate people with money" is the easy and lazy meejah route. Righteous indignation. How dare they be richer than me?

Now how can I fiddle a few more expenses past my boss?


We need to reread Animal Farm.

I think that it is quite feasible that Julie's sister did some clerical work for her at the cost of £16,000, even though she was 100 miles away. Haven't these people heard of remote access and networking. Thousands of computer systems are written in Britain to be used in the uk.

The 'Julie must go' lobby invited Julie to a discussion to answer questions about her expenses. However she declined. I can't blame her, with a name like 'Julie must go', this lobby has obviously already made up their mind.

Quite simply she broke the rules.As a member of parliament we have a right to expect honesty.If that fails then we have the right to expect them to pay the penalty.
I quite enjoy seeing these fat cats under pressure.Had we put them under scrutiny before perhaps we wouldn't have had all the bad legislation coming out.
The fact is that the public are angry,and are looking closely.If only we can keep some of this attention going then we hold them more accountable,then perhaps they'll be more independant,and not mere lobby fodder.

If "julie must go" the only logical conclusion is that around 400 MPs must go who have done naughty things with their expenses ( Jackboot Smith a prime example and even Gordon Brown paying his own brother to get a cleaning discount )

So GENERAL ELECTION should be called if "Julie" does go.

IA, while I agree with you as a general principle {the principle being "if you're on the fiddle and you get found out you should be prepared for the consequences"} I have to disagree that this issue has been as clear cut as you suggest. Here there has been no due process, here there has been no level-headed assessment of the facts. There has been only a witch hunt, organised at a local level and picked up by a media which is itself hardly a paragon of virtue. The only thing that is clear in my mind is that Julie Kirkbride has been driven out of her job by mob mentality. If this is the future of democracy at work then God help us all. No evidence. No justice {unless you are a fan of kangaroo courts} and no examination. Julie Kirkbride has been, according to many sources, a good constituency MP. She hasn't been anything like as arrogant as has, say, Anthony Steen. Her reluctance to face a braying mob who have already pointed the sword in her direction is, perhaps, understandable. No, this isn't justice at work. There are those out there who would like to string me up for things I've done without asking if I'm sorry or finding out if I'm a better human being now. Thankfully the same legal process which rightly punished me now acts as my protector. I would hope that you get the same protection under the law for something which, no doubt, other people have already prejudged you, no matter how unjustly. I am horribly aware that mob rule is a singularly worrying prospect. Should we ever see the sorrowful spectacle of trial by local petition become the norm - and the assumption that Ms Kirkbride had to go because a minority of her constituents have decided that she needed to be hounded is an acceptance of that principle - then our already broken political system is far from being fixed. If anything just one more part of it has just fallen off.

And, as if to prove a point, a Bromsgrove correspondent to R4's "PM" has just said how much he hopes she won't go because he's "looking forward to voting her out". This is just Big Brother, isn't it?

We are currently getting a really good insight into the total calamity facing the media at present, which will get worse over the coming years. I visited a friend today at the Sydney HQ of News Ltd..he says the atmosphere gets worse every week and it feels like who next will face the gallows. Old-timers are desperately working out retirement deals and fleeing.

3 year contracts given to cadets 5 years ago are now only for 18 months.

The original tale of the MP's fiddles was offered to the greatest editor on the planet..Rebecah Wade of Sun fame. I think she must have been far too busy on her "abused men" campaign and her battle for beaten husband's rights (something she has personal knowledge of)

She turned it down so the seller picked up £90K from The Telegraph. Wade has gone on the rampage with middle level editors and journalists hding out in loos, cupboards..anywhere to avoid the harridan as she screechs from desk to desk demanding to know why she wasn't advised on the importance of the tale.

All newspapers are like sheep and immediately follow the lead and then play a game of leap frog as they try to out-do each other.

Thus a story that should have died a death in a fortnight is allowed to linger until the readers are pleading for another tale of sex and sin, Jordon, Jade...anything.

And to prove that there is really no such thing as bad publicity..an Oz TV station is now trumpeting the arrival of Jonathon Ross's show as featured in the BBC non-scandal of the year.

At least we will get to see the brilliant Russell Brand twice a week now..his profile rocketed here after the Manuel saga.

I'm a firm believer that while this was started by the media the real tide of anger is genuine.Remember MPs conspired to keep these things hidden.
Reminds me of the anger after Diana POW died.It was genuine,and the monarchy only survived by learning a lesson.Seems politicians are doing that now.
To say it's only the meejah is wrong.Talking to the people I meet I feel a very real anger.They want justice,and better accountability.
Not sure how guilty she really is,Andrew her hubby has always been a low life,out for himself.Met him back in '82,didn't take long to form my opinion.
Still she's at best used the system to the max,and hubby,how much did she know about his expenses?