"Cut IVF on the NHS" - and fake charities

"Fury as NHS trust says only women between 39.5 and 40 years old can have IVF", reports the Daily Mail.

The 'cruel and bizarre' restrictions were put in place by NHS managers in North Yorkshire struggling to deal with a huge deficit at their health trust.

Guidance from NICE we are told, says that women should be offered three cycles of IVF treatment free on the NHS, if they have had fertility problems for three years, are aged between 23 and 39, are obese and do not smoke. Quite what expertise NICE brings to the table in comparing the joy of an IVF baby with the value of a life saved is a mystery.

In fact there is no mystery. It is a straight value judgement, but one taken by unaccountable quangocrats behind closed doors. One which the equally unaccountable managers of several NHS can't afford to implement for their serfs.

Commenters on the Daily Mail's site are having none of this "fury". Many say roundly that there should be no IVF treatment on the NHS at all. The NHS is for curing illnesses, and shouldn't be taking their money to spend it on anything else.

One who does disapprove of the restriction is Susan Seenan, from Infertility Network UK. Who they? The accounts on their site are draft accounts for the year to 31 March 2008. Out of their total income of £197,909, a whopping £164,527 came from "grants receivable for charitable activities". £30,000 represented the Department of Health core grant. The remaining £134,527 of grants is shown as "restricted funds". Mark Wadsworth points out that most of that also came from taxpayers (see note 11 in the accounts, summarised in his comment to this post). They also received over £60,000 of sponsorship, presumably from their corporate partners.

In 2008 this charity spent £261,763. £217,636 went on charitable activities, the remaining £44,127 (16.8%) on governance costs. What are they up to? Their pseudo-charity status is revealed by their latest news announcement:

Infertility Network UK working with the Department of Health has produced access criteria to help local NHS provide equal services for fertility patients. Public Health Minister Gillian Merron endorsed the access criteria with its key points including smoking, weight and children from previous relationships. The Department of Health also announced the results of a survey of PCTs which shows that the number of PCTs offering three cycles of IVF treatment has increased.

Yes, they are a pressure group for more taxpayer spending on IVF and an arm of the bureaucracy in helping to draw up policy. Wholly without accountability. Almost wholly without accounts. (The CEO has been given an MBE, which is jolly nice.)

Looks like another fake charity. "They've got a little list ...". It's actually a growing list. Fake charities are a fraud. We the taxpayers pay for them. They are unaccountable. They are designed to look independent, as if voicing concerns of the public. But they're not.

Fake charities are a distortion of governance. Certainly one we shouldn't have to pay for in straitened times.

Those comments about IVF on the NHS suggest there may be a bigger appetite for cutting programmes than fearful politicians care to contemplate. Vince Cable repeatedly calls for discussion of which whole programmes should be cut. Here's one for debate.

This is what happens when you borrow too much

One of today's most interesting news items is hidden away in the business section on the Guardian's site. Yes, it does have one. It's for articles with numbers in them. But this is about far more than numbers. It is about hard choices to be made in government, a core concern of politics.

Picking up a Reuters report, the Guardian tells us that "the Irish government is finalising measures to cut its 21 billion euro social welfare expenditure and bring the overall fiscal deficit closer to the EU's threshold".

The International Monetary Fund on Wednesday urged spending cuts in the "sensitive" areas of public sector wages and social welfare programmes, to maintain the confidence of overseas investors who finance Ireland's rapidly rising debt.

This is what happens when you borrow lots of money from the markets - you surrender some of your freedom of choice, otherwise known as sovereignty. Lenders are only willing lenders if they are sure that they will get their money back.

Against the economic background summarised in the report, the government's choice is restricted to the micro level of which cuts to make - the macroeconomics being dictated by events and lenders.

In Ireland tax revenue has been hit by the contraction in the economy just as unemployment has caused welfare payments to rise. Sound familiar? The Telegraph reported only yesterday that in the UK welfare payments will exceed income tax receipts by almost £25 billion this year. Normally, income tax receipts comfortably cover the benefits bill.

The Irish government is to "crack down" on benefit fraud (always a good slogan), especially by foreign nationals (ditto), and it will introduce taxation or means testing of child benefit (another soft option).

According to Reuters, The Sunday Tribune newspaper said a government task force was expected to propose cutting public sector staff numbers by 10% and reducing the social welfare budget by 1.5 billion euros (out of 21 billion - see above; that'll take more than marginal measures). Proposals would include closing up to half of Ireland's rural police stations, cutting defence force numbers by up to 1,000, reducing the budget of the two houses of parliament and restructuring government departments.

Without the numbers this sounds like pretty small beer, even though Ireland's economy has contracted by more than ours.

But this is what happens when you borrow a lot of money. You lose your freedom of movement.

If we face the same strictures in the UK, expect economically illiterate backbench Labour MPs (the majority) to rail against international moneylenders. But it will have been their government that borrowed the money.

Accountable transparency

Ben Bradshaw, the new Culture Secretary, has said that the BBC, and all other institutions, needed to "defend every penny" of money spent during the economic downturn:

Transparency and openness is the best and the only policy if institutions that are funded by the public...want to retain the trust of the public they have to be open accountable as to how they spend money.

So far so good. But he refers to this as "public money".

No ... it's taxpayers' money. It's our money. The state took our money from us. That money belongs to the people.

And Mr Bradshaw is correct when he calls for accountable transparency.

Another interesting proposal floated today is that all state employees with salaries greater than the prime minister's should have to publish their expenses.

That would only be a start - partly because sensitive expenses would then get pushed down the chain to more junior employees where disclosure didn't apply. So yes, start there ... and then lower the threshold each year.

Accountable transparency shouldn't cost much to implement - certainly compared to the potential savings.

Gordon Brown a defective politician

Richard North points to a report in The Sunday Times telling us that "Gordon Brown's plans to create a legally enforceable “code of conduct” for MPs are in turmoil as MPs and peers prepare to reject the scheme".

Richard and others have covered the constitutional implications of this rushed bill.

What does it tell us about our prime minister? After two years at number 10, he still thinks he can sit at his desk and issue dictats. This even after the recent fiasco of his proposals for the Iraq enquiry.

Commentators continue to insist that Gordon Brown is highly intelligent. Really? Repeating such an obvious mistake so soon reeks of stupidity and unpuncturable arrogance.

Would I as an undergraduate cared to have been taught by such a man with no patience, no tolerance for others' views, and with such an addiction to casually bending the truth? Even as an academic debating colleague he would be hopeless.

If Gordon Brown goes into some sort of teaching job, I am sorry for his students.

What sanctions does John Bercow have?

Parents of unruly pupils could be taken to court by teachers under plans to be announced by ministers, says the BBC. Mr Balls has been announcing the proposals to The Sunday Mirror.

Deliberately testing Mr Speaker Bercow. Will we all be laughing at him after just a few days in his role?

MPs' second jobs

Being an MP is a full-time job, the argument goes. So you can't have a second job and be a 'proper' MP.

What about being a minister? Isn't that a pretty full-time job in itself?

Just wondering where the 'second job' argument takes us....

Hurrah. Tories promise to repeal a Labour law

The Tories should be promising to repeal unpopular and expensive Labour laws. And now they've started.

A survey by a firm of estate agents suggests that half of home sales may be going through without a home information pack available and completed. Sellers have been required since April to have a full HIP in place before marketing their home.

Councils aren't enforcing the rule. They think they have higher priorities.

Well done, Grant Shapps, Conservative housing spokesman and my local MP:

It was the height of Labour incompetence and arrogance for the Government to impose even more red tape on the housing market during the middle of a recession.

We should not be surprised that half of all house sales are now disregarding this pointless and expensive red tape. This widespread derision and evasion of the regulations proves how HIPs are deeply flawed.

We don't condone breaking the law. But rather than feebly attempt to enforce this bad law, these regulations should just be scrapped.

Town hall trading standards rightly have more important priorities than persecuting struggling home owners during a recession.

Conservatives will scrap Home Information Packs outright. If ministers really wanted to help homeowners, they would use their emergency powers to suspend HIPs and provide a shot in the arm to the ailing market.

More of this, please.

Rather than worry that HIPs incorporate EU rules, let's take a leaf out of the Italians' book.

Pictured is the minister who introduced HIPs. Step forward, useless Yvette Balls. Yvette Balls introduced HIPs, proclaiming that she would not apologise for 'greenplating'.

Yvette Balls, Yvette Balls
We do not want your silly laws
Greenplate your own life if you must
Do not force these costs on us.

Warning: nanny wants to infantilise you again

There's a heatwave coming, we're told. It will last ... ooh, a good few days.

The Chief Medical Officer has warned of an increase in deaths in times of hot weather. (Actually very cold weather kills more people than very hot weather, but let that pass.)

Baffled by heat? Here's some official advice:

Keeping the home as cool as possible during hot weather and remembering the needs of friends, relatives and neighbours who could be at risk is essential.

The elderly and those who are ill, are particularly vulnerable during hot weather and the most oppressive conditions occur in our towns and cities.

Windows should be kept shaded and closed when the temperature is hotter outside than inside.

People with respiratory problems should stay inside during the hottest part of the day.

And if anyone is worried that their home or that of a relative or neighbour is too hot they should contact their local environmental health officer!

Other advice in the government's heatwave plan (sic), the BBC tells us, includes to drink cold drinks like water or fruit juice regularly and avoid tea, coffee and alcohol.

Don't forget to breathe. And don't fulminate about money wasted on infantile guidance, it can be bad for your blood pressure, so keep those statins at hand. Get some nice fresh air, but don't expose yourself to the sun. A burka is particularly recommended for screening yourself from the sun.

I made that last paragraph up. Unbelievably, all the rest is true.

Bercow will have to censure Balls

Balls has been on The World At One talking about his new policy to push some power out to head teachers.

Come on, Bercow, why haven't you summoned Balls to the Commons yet?

Brown on another planet

We're short of money ... in a recession ... all but two people agree our state spending will have to be cut, and cut heavily.

On planet earth there is no global warming. There's climate change and always has been. Recent falls in temperature bear no clear relation to the rising amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Far away on planet Brown, global warming is gathering pace, and there is plenty of money to throw at this problem which everyone understands. So it's a good time to "set up a £60bn annual fund to help poor countries deal with climate change".

Back on planet earth this is the proposal of a man madly denying reality. Yes really, Brown increasingly seems clinically insane. What other explanation could there be?

Bumptious Bercow has a death wish

Does Bercow understand nothing about neutrality?

“I confess for somebody who’s historically and perhaps even legendarily independent-minded that that is frankly something of a relief,” Bercow told a gathering of venture capital investors last night on Parliament’s terrace overlooking the River Thames.

It's just inappropriate for a Speaker to belittle any of the parties in the House, let alone one whose members gave him little support in his election as Speaker.

Is it just mere stupidity, or something else? Does he really think he's invulnerable now?

A jackboot government incapable of learning

The government appears to have jumped proposals for "Regional Committees" on the Commons with no opportunity to debate timings or places.

Tory chief whip Patrick McLoughlin questioned the timing, adding: "Indeed, some of these regional grand committees are taking place when both the Liberal Democrat party conference is and the Conservative party conference, yet none are taking place when the Labour Party conference is taking place."

He was told there was "no possibility of discussion and debate, merely a vote" as the items were on the Commons order paper.

Is this the new democracy and openness?

Can we afford them? Should we?

Perhaps opposition politicians should boycott them and expose them for the farce they are.

BBC doesn't get it either

The BBC is poised to provoke a fresh row over expenses by refusing to disclose how much its executives spend on entertainment for their stars, says The Times, going on to outline expenses claims by highly paid BBC executives.

Even the establishment chairman of the supposed watchdog BBC Trust doesn't get it. He spent £9,800 entertaining George Osborne, Nick Clegg, and others at last year’s Wimbledon men’s final. The BBC, embarrassed by the disclosure, said it would not entertain at Wimbledon this year.

Have they learned any wider lessons from that (apart from not entertaining at Glastonbury either)? None that they're rushing to tell us. And how could they not have got this before? They're just pulling up the drawbridges and opposing any top-slicing of the BBC licence fee.

Incidentally, it's ironical that this spat concerns TV Regional News, which generally is both anodyne and patronising.

The watchword for all taxpayer funded bodies should be austerity.

Taxpayers should be able to police this through accountable transparency.

Tory planning for cuts looks businesslike

The structure of Tory planning for cuts looks businesslike. They certainly need a way to make full use of Ken Clarke in this process - he's been round this block more times than the rest of the shadow cabinet put together.

Should discussions be in full cabinet or in smaller inquisitions? The party should be sorting out its broad spending priorities before it gets into government. Thus the outlines of its budgets should be clear before it gains power. It shouldn't matter which shadow minister gets which portfolio.

Against that background, full cabinet would be an unmanageably clumsy way to manage the detailed discussions on spending. The "star chambers" are the right way.

The Keens should be out

There is a delicious irony in the expenses problems of the Keen's, Mr & Mrs Expenses.

The empty homes legislation under which they have been approached was brought in by the unlamented John Prescott. Doubtless they voted for it. (The law doesn't apply to jags, or to dresses which haven't been worn for a while, but let that pass.)

Well done the Lib Dem PPC who raised this with Hounslow council - which, like much of local government, is Tory. This is what local opposition should be doing to sitting MPs - ruthlessly laying bare any wrongdoing. And what the Keens are doing is certainly wrong morally. Probably politically too.

Let's hope the Keen's are finished as MPs.

Why the state sector has to be cut

The Financial Times has a piece about something we've got to stop calling the "public sector".

Politicians are vying to fight the next election on the size and boundaries of the state. Consensus reigns on the need to shrink it but there is no detail on what should be cut and which services protected, reflecting a lack of understanding of what the modern British state does and how it has changed.

It concludes that the state is "an unsustainable leviathan", but this is far from being a crude polemic. The story of government spending and assets is told largely in interesting graphics, including one which is enjoyably interactive.

Have fun while the FT helps you think.

State organisations' profligacy

We know the taxpayer funded BBC pays Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton millions of pounds to host the sort of programmes which could perfectly easily be on commercial channels.

Graham Norton's business partner denies they are paid too much.

I say it’s the opposite; they are not paid enough.

Remember, the entire TV industry is based squarely on the shoulders of a very few talented people with special skills and with longevity. I say cutting their pay is a major mistake.

Let them see what they are worth to ITV.

Actually they are being paid more than their headline fees already. We knew the BBC paid their production companies to make the shows (on BBC premises). Now The Sunday Times tells us that Ross picks up fees when his shows are sold abroad - most of them seemingly the BBC's own overseas channels. Moyles even got paid extra when he broadcast his own jingles on his Radio 1 show.

Junior BBC presenters - apparently on a mere £100k - are complaining they may have to take a pay cut when their contracts are renegotiated. That's how contracts work, boys and girls. Not apparently for senior functionaries. Director General Mark Thompson had a package worth £816,000 last year, while his deputy, Mark Byford, took home £513,000. Director of vision Jana Bennett collected £536,000 in salary, bonus, expenses and pension contributions.

Scorpion used to be a supporter of the BBC but its snooty arrogance has become unforgivable, both financially and in its politically correct agenda.

Meanwhile BBC journalists are taking money from NHS organisations - and doubtless others - to chair their events. The Mail reports "critics claim that the broadcasters risk compromising their impartiality by taking money from the very organisations they are supposed to scrutinise for the BBC".

The BBC loftily says

It is for the BBC to be the interpreter of its own rules and no evidence has been put forward to suggest any of the people mentioned have done anything which could compromise our impartiality.

No hint there then that acceptability to taxpayers might be a consideration. What an agreeable spot planet BBC must be.

But the biggest story here is not about the BBC. We know they're haughty and wasteful. It's the exposure of waste in the NHS.

Which BBC journalists are scandalously conniving in.

Taxpayer funded bodies don't need to pay celebrities to chair their conferences. They must have plenty of employees who can do it for nothing. Taxpayer funded bodies should have austerity in their DNA.

But probably the visible profligacy is the tip of the iceberg: it shows us their mindset.

The ministerial merrygoround swings too fast for any minister to stay on board long enough to grip this waste. Though what a fascinating task it would be.

These bodies' spending should be published on the web. If the celebs don't like it, don't rifle our money.

Meanwhile, the government should say that any more such spending will be deducted from the pay of the organisation's chief executive. And when the BBC is complicit, that will apply to Mark Thompson too.

Tories should repeal this bill

Harriet Harman has been given an official warning for exaggerating the pay gap between men and women.

She claimed that women were paid 23% less, but Sir Michael Scholar, the statistics watchdog, says 12.8% would be a more accurate figure. Harriet Harman's figure includes part time workers and more of them are women.

On top of race, disability and gender, (public bodies) will have to promote equality in sexual orientation, age, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment.

Schools, hospitals and other organisations with 150 or more employees will have to report annually on their gender pay gap and employment rates of black, ethnic minority and disabled staff.

They will also have a legal duty to use public spending totalling £ 175billion a year to 'drive equality'.

As with home education inspections (see post below), the Conservatives should say now that they will repeal this costly and discriminatory bill if they gain power.

Home education inspections

Douglas Carswell suggests that Ed Balls' proposed "clamp-down" on home-education is prompted by a new scheme in Essex.

Scorpion's first reaction is that the Tory education spokesman should simply promise to repeal this if they win the next general election. It's not obvious there's a problem and we can't afford more state spending anyway. Just make about a 20 word speech in parliament.

This inspection regime would probably go in the same direction as it has for childminders. The politically correct regulators (for regulation attracts that type of person) will make more and more rules and it will cost parents more and more.

So far so easy. But then you think: suppose Karen Matthews had taken her kids out of school for "home education"? What then?

Is this a law abiding society?

The BBC reports that an operation by police and government agencies using ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) has seen 150 vehicles stopped, two dozen cars and vans seized, and 15 people arrested.

Arrests included offences of drink-driving, drug possession and theft. Three disqualified motorists were also stopped and arrested, along with six people who had failed to pay fines. A further 25 vehicles were seized for having no insurance, while eight were taken off the road for having no valid tax. The operation issued £1,800 in fines for drivers overloading light-goods vehicles, and three people face further investigations for possible benefit fraud.

The report then stresses the general scope of ANPR - though it doesn't explore its big limitation - there just aren't enough enforcement officers to deal with all the leads which extended use of it would throw up.

Doesn't this need to be rethought?

BBC balance?

Rather than the smug 3-party monolith patronisingly telling the electorate that voting for the BNP is unacceptable, it would be greatly preferable to hear BNP representatives properly questioned by journalists.

The BBC thinks it perfectly all right to choose hostile questions about the BNP week after week on Question Time without any BNP representation.

Balance, anyone?

They should be exposed to scrutiny rather than mere abuse - like any other party which has got so many votes. Just like the barmy Greens.

As it happens, I suspect that this would cause the BNP's support to drop. But that is up to the voters.

Ann Widdecombe for speaker

She's standing. If she's the runaway voters' favourite, will MPs take it upon themselves to ignore us?

Of course we all know there will be spending cuts

The Sun says

The weekly pantomime of Prime Minister's Questions does nothing to improve the image of our discredited Parliament.

Telling the truth is near the bottom of the agenda.

The Tories were forced to come clean on their planned cuts in public services only after health spokesman Andrew Lansley blurted them out in an interview.

But at least their cards are now on the table.

And, frankly, where is the disgrace in making cuts? Who really believes some services WON'T need cutting to pay back the monstrous debts we are running up to beat recession?

More unedifying was Gordon Brown's desperate and deceitful attempt to paint Labour as the party of endless investment battling to keep out the cost-cutting Tories.

This is complete fiction.

Both parties will be forced to make substantial cuts after the next election, no matter who wins it.

Mr Brown knows this very well - his Treasury's own figures admit it.

His poll ratings might improve if he stopped taking us all for fools.

To hell in a handcart

Businesses continue to leave Britain because of Gordon Brown's taxes; ministers deny any plans to cut state spending, as if it could go on rising for ever; the City fears for its future under EU rule; and Labour casually blows £7m on setting up the new DIUS department for 20 months.

Can we consider a possible Tory government as our saviours? No. Tory policy remains to increase spending in real terms on the inefficient NHS and on even more ineffective international aid, while its rich, under-powered smooth cheeked leaders take as much mortgage interest as they can from taxpayers poorer than them.

All the mainstream parties subscribe to the expensive politically correct shibboleths on large scale immigration (opposed by most voters), EU membership (which they know most UK voters oppose) and man made global warming (no scientific basis, even as global temperatures drift down while cardon dioxide in the atmosphere rises).

But evidence based policymaking on these issues seems limited to the racist BNP and the corrupt and under-powered UKIP.

Where to go? Australia?

He's an elected MEP

You may not like Nick Griffin. I find Hazel Blears pretty odious.

But they've been elected. The BBC reports that

Members of Unite Against Fascism, a new group supported by trade unions and MPs from all parties, including Tory leader David Cameron, and veteran left wing campaigner Tony Benn, said they wanted to "defend democracy" against what they regard as the "fascist" and "racist" policies of the BNP.

One told the crowd his message for Mr Griffin was: "Wherever you go in this country we will make sure you are welcomed by demonstrations."

Protest organiser Weyman Bennett, national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, said he believed it was important to stand up to the BNP.

"The majority of people did not vote for the BNP, they did not vote at all. The BNP was able to dupe them into saying that they had an answer to people's problems."

Who next? There isn't a political party which has been voted for by "the majority of people". So do they plan to disrupt meetings of the Greens next? Or the Lib Dems?

This is self righteous thuggery. Political leaders should not associate themselves with it.

Brown to propose constitutional changes

Tomorrow Gordon Brown will unveil plans for an independent body to police MPs' expenses, a legally binding MPs' code of conduct, and plans to strengthen Commons committees, the BBC tells us.

All seemingly planned in the typical Brown way, behind closed doors with minimal consultation. "Mr Brown is also expected to address the issues of House of Lords Reform and electoral reform in the statement to MPs."

And his moral basis for this is what, precisely, after being trounced at the polls?

BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said Wednesday's announcement must be outline plans - as the whole question of was being looked at by a "national democratic renewal council", which met at Downing Street for the first time on Tuesday.

It looks like more clunking unaccountable bodies at our expense - the only sort of reform clunking Gordon Brown can understand (except when he wants to keep the FSA off the banks' backs).

Accountable transparency is much cheaper and much more effective.

And institutional reform should wait for the next parliament.

UPDATE The BBC now says

Prime Minister Gordon Brown will announce plans for a new Westminster voting system, the BBC understands.

He will unveil an alternative vote system to choose MPs to replace the first past the post method, BBC political editor Nick Robinson said.

This is outrageous. Brown has no mandate for this AT ALL.

Philip Stephens - the outdated oligarch

After an absence one forgets just how snootily anti-democratic Philip Stephens, the FT's political commentator, is. He talks today of Cameron sleepwalking towards Europe's exit.

The core (unsubstantiated) argument is that rejecting the Lisbon treaty would put the UK in the departure lounge.

On the way he calls UKIP "europhobic". This patronising description is only valid if you assume the EU is an obvious good. But people who want to leave the EU are not suffering from some nervous condition to be christened europhobia. We have no fear of Europe. With Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell, authors of The Plan, we believe in localism (a shorthand for the clumsier 'subsidiarity'). Thanks to the hard work of Richard North and Christopher Booker over the years, we understand the thrust of the EU project - only too well.

If an EU-centric label is needed, we are Rejectionists. But it would be wrong to accept an EU-centred label. UKIP are too stunted intellectually to broaden their withdrawal platform (Nigel Farage couldn't hack it), while UKFirst spring from a similar 'Jerusalem' mindset with their antiquated slogan 'Country Before Self' - who believes in that any more? But the policy of withdrawal from the EU (not 'Europe'!) proposed in 'The Plan' grows out of the broad localism approach.

Stephens suggests that

The timing of the government’s demise could mark the difference between a serious argument about Britain’s relationship with Brussels and a rupture that would set in train its eventual departure.

If the Lisbon treaty is ratified, he implies, there could then be "a serious argument about Britain’s relationship with Brussels". This unlikely proposition is left unargued and uncorroborated. So let's just ask, what would the terms of this "serious argument" be, and if it is to be had then, why cannot it be had now? But we know Philip Stephens is lying or deluded, so let's move on.

Stephens argues that the decision to withdraw from the EPP grouping in the European parliament shows a desire "to derail the process of European integration".

To move Britain to the sidelines of influence is one thing. To threaten to blow up the Lisbon accord is another. This is what Mr Cameron proposes by pledging to campaign for its rejection in a British referendum.

This is the tired old "influence" argument. The "influence" that has been so very effective thus far. The "influence" whose fruits we see all around us. An "influence" in fact we would no longer need if we left the EU.

For Stephens the timing of a general election thus becomes crucial. "Few doubt", he concedes, "that Mr Cameron would win both the election and a referendum".

It should be said that there is something inherently barmy about the referendum plan, even by the terms of the eurosceptics. I cannot recall a precedent for a government holding a plebiscite on a proposition it opposes. A newly elected Tory government could, after all, simply claim a mandate to reject the treaty.

It is actually a clever political move. Look, says a new Conservative government, you were promised this referendum by Labour and we are giving you the freedom to make the choice that they promised. Let Labour now campaign for the decision which they arbitrarily took away from you.

Stephens then scales even loftier heights of disdain. Mr Cameron might argue, he sniffs, that earlier versions of the treaty were rejected in referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. "But" - the italics are mine - "these were not conscious acts of government". Which evidently for him is the clincher.

This is why, in the view of the oligarchic Mr Stephens, "neither Britain nor Europe needs an autumn general election. Nor, unless he wants to sleepwalk towards Europe’s exit, does Mr Cameron".

This lordly, de haut en bas attitude already looks old fashioned in the light of the debate about the BNP's electoral successes. The emerging theme is that the main parties ignored voters' concerns about immigration and employment policies, so voters lost patience and voted for a party that expresses understanding.

EU membership is part of this disconnect. If UKIP had been able to accommodate talented people to frame and promote a broader policy agenda, it would be in a far stronger position now than it is today.

Lord Snooty Stephens slips comfortably into the cosy oligarchical club. But his exclusivist, oligarchical approach already looks out of date.

Frank Field opposes Brown again

Brown looks likely to survive, if only for reasons of internal Labour politics, but Paul Waugh points out that Frank Field has returned to the attack on him.

I was one of the seven who would not support his coronation after Tony Blair was shoehorned out of Number 10. But even I didn't think a Brown administration would be as inept as this one.

This is the narrowly political angle which also interests the Spectator's blog, but it's incidental to his main message that voters have to be taken seriously. He points out that in the Wirral

the two parties standing in the election who hold the strongest views against our present relationship with Europe far out stretched the Labour vote, and almost toppled the Tory vote.

This has to be taken seriously, he says.

He claims a replacement leader for Gordon Brown could achieve legitimacy by naming a general election date immediately on appointment. But his concluding paragraph is the most interesting.

Similarly, the failure to deal with immigration and Europe is poisoning our political system. I have set out in the Balanced Migration campaign how we should counter positively the BNP. Similarly, we need to cut loose European politics from our domestic politics. Voters have no party to represent their worries on this score, only the BNP with their evil interests.

I don't understand what cut loose European politics from our domestic politics means, so I have asked and will post any clarification.

But I don't foresee any of the three main parties addressing these issues with anything but cant - or, as Richard North would say, elastoplast.

Gordon Brown does something right shock

The papers gasp at Caroline Flint's stiletto attack on Gordon Brown. But Caroline Flint should be a laughing stock.

On Thursday night she was swearing eternal fealty to G Brown, looking straight into her interviewer's eyes, no dissembling. She was emphatic in her loyalty.

But less than 24 hours later and she is lambasting him ... for what exactly? Not giving her a cabinet post. After all ... she is a woman.

In Labour's time warp politically correct parallel universe that makes her more entitled to a cabinet post.

This from the Europe Minister who hadn't troubled herself to read the Lisbon treaty. This from the Housing Minister who walked up Downing Street with a briefing paper about house prices on display.

Caroline Flint may have risen without trace, but petulance has marked her fall.

Her letter wasn't even much good.

I am not willing to attend Cabinet in a peripheral capacity any longer.

This doesn't attempt to disguise her motive for resigning - thwarted ambition. Nothing more.

So how does Caroline Flint look now? Judging from some comments, women don't appreciate being roped in to her pleading.

And she emerges as a politician happy to tell barefaced lies to achieve an ambition she has shown no signs of deserving. Caroline Flint is discredited.

And she did it all by herself.

Gordon Brown was right not to promote her.

Brown caught on expenses

So, around 06-07, Brown claimed the allowance for his constituency home while also charging the taxpayer for council tax and other bills on another property in London.

It's not about the amount of money he claimed on the London property - some £512, certainly a mistake - but the principle of it: after all, this is the misdemeanour which Darling was charged with earlier in the week, and the Chancellor had to both explain himself and pay back the extra money.

That was inadvertent. It's just what happens if your claims get a little complicated and you're poor at numbers with no eye for detail.

The disgusting angle is: what was any minister with grace and favour accommodation doing claiming for any second home anywhere?

Greedy Brown now says no one living in grace and favour accommodation should make a second home claim.

If it is wrong now - and obviously it is - why was it right then?

Ministry of Defeat

Richard North reports that his book about our army's role in Iraq is out.

Doubtless it will reflect Richard's thoroughness and his instinctive anti-establishment stance!

Scorpion wishes his book well.

Geoff Hoon's expenses: the devil's not in the detail

The Telegraph has Geoff 'Tyke' Hoon bang to rights today in that he had claimed expenses for one home for a period during which he changed his claims to another property. But he didn't repay the claims for the period after which he 'flipped' his claims. He has repaid a meagre £384.

This is the least of Tyke's moral crimes. Geoff Hoon always chose the option which was most beneficial to Geoff Hoon and most costly to taxpayers - most of us poorer than Mr Hoon.

During his time as Defence Secretary and Leader of the House, Mr Hoon lived in a grace-and-favour apartment in Whitehall yet claimed costs for his home in Derbyshire.

Within months of losing his grace-and-favour apartment in 2006, Mr Hoon bought a new London townhouse. He then claimed that his Derbyshire home was his main property and designated the new house as his “second home”. This allowed him to fund the London property using the expenses system.

He now stands accused of exploiting the system by switching properties on his parliamentary declaration, enabling him to claim close to the maximum allowable amount most years. This is how he took advantage of the system:

At his Derbyshire family home between 2004 and 2006, Mr Hoon claimed thousands of pounds for renovations and refurbishments. In that time he redecorated and re-carpeted the property, which he has owned since 1986, and claimed for regular visits to DIY stores.

In 2005, Mr Hoon attempted to claim £1,199 for an LCD television — only to be told by the parliamentary authorities that he would receive a maximum of £750.

It can be disclosed that the property has a mortgage worth only £30,000 — costing less than £300 a month. However, during the 2004-05 financial year, Mr Hoon recouped £20,902 from the taxpayer for the property — the absolute maximum allowable. The then Defence Secretary regularly claimed £400 a month for groceries consumed at the Derbyshire home. The taxpayer also picked up his gardening and cleaning bills.

The property was bought for about £135,000 but is now reported to be worth more than £600,000.

In London Mr Hoon moved out of his grace-and-favour home in Admiralty Arch in the summer of 2006, after losing his job as Leader of the House of Commons in a Cabinet reshuffle.

He is thought to have sold the London flat he had owned, but rented out, during his time in Admiralty Arch. The property was bought for £150,000 in 1991 and sold for £475,000. He is understood to have claimed for the flat as a second home during the 1990s.

Mr Hoon then bought a Georgian townhouse in a square close to Parliament. He informed the Commons authorities that this was now his second home — and began claiming thousands of pounds. His monthly mortgage interest bill — which had previously been about £270 a month — more than tripled to almost £900 a month. He also claimed hundreds of pounds on new equipment for the flat.

In the two years after purchasing the property he paid more than £500 for new flooring, bought a wardrobe, lighting, a washing machine and bedroom furniture. He also purchased a £449 television — the second television he claimed for within two years. The taxpayer also spent more than £800 cleaning curtains and carpets.

In 2007-08, the last year for which aggregate records are publicly available — Mr Hoon claimed the maximum £23,083 allowance. He has apparently continued claiming heavily following the furore over MPs’ expenses.

In June and July 2008, he claimed £1,878 in mortgage interest, £800 for groceries and £135 for cleaning.

Mr Hoon’s wife is also reported to have bought a holiday cottage in the fashionable Suffolk coastal town of Walberswick. The Transport Secretary, the son of a railwayman, and his wife are estimated to have a property portfolio worth £1.7 million in total.

In a statement yesterday, Mr Hoon said: “Accommodation at Admiralty House was provided rent free but there were significant costs that I had to meet in order to live there. These were comparable to the costs I would have incurred if I had continued to live in my own property, therefore a claim under the ACA for my constituency home was not unreasonable. I was told by the House of Commons fees office that this was entirely within the rules and that previous ministers in my position had made similar claims.”

Taxpayers have subsidised Tyke-Hoon's property empire up to the hilt.

Best value for Geoff Hoon but not for taxpayers.

Rebel MP barred from standing again shock

Surprise surprise. The BBC is reporting that rebellious Labour backbencher Ian Gibson has been barred from standing for the party at the next general election, following questions about his expenses.

The Norwich North MP is said to be "very upset" at the news, which follows an appearance before a disciplinary panel set up by Labour's ruling body.

He reportedly claimed for a flat in which his daughter lived rent-free.

Margaret Moran, Elliot Morley and David Chaytor, who already said they would not stand again, were also banned.

An internal Labour party panel - dubbed the star chamber - had been considering five MPs' cases, following allegations over their expenses claims.

The BBC adds that they have yet to rule on backbencher Jim Devine.

And Jacqui Smith. And Hazel Blears. And Alistair Darling. And Geoff 'Property Tyke' Hoon.

Isn't democracy grand. And the thoroughness of BBC impartiality.

State sector wasting money

Here's a project ripe for the chop which we are paying for - behaviour tests for taxi drivers. Trialling in Derby, it's doubtless intended as a prelude to a national "qualification".

It's a waste of money. We don't need it.

The market will quickly weed out those who smoke and swear in front of children. We don't need more regulation.

One problem for a reforming government will be how to get down effectively to the level of officialdom in quangos which actually spends our money on this tripe. We're talking about relentless, detailed chiselling out of projects, against the ethos of the organisation.

Who would do this? A determined junior minister keen for advancement? Or a gimlet eyed cost cutter careless of unpopularity? They would certainly need visible enabling authority from ministers.

Teachers trotting round Europe at our expense

The Taxpayers Alliance has picked up a report of an EU-funded (that means us, by the way) project financing teachers to travel to other European countries to see how teaching is done there.

Is this a priority? No.

Could the school have spent £11,000 better? Yes.

And why was Turkey included?