Part of the surveillance culture and the oppressive style of some public authorities is the trigger happy approach to prosecution. Locally I receive many complaints about heavy handed parking enforcement, leading to large fines and clamping fees where honest mistakes have been made because the rules are complex. I hear this week that someone is alleged elsewhere to have falsified their address to try and get their child into a better school, and faces fraud charges. It is all over the top.

I do not condone deliberate misrepresentation to try to get in to a better school. If that occurs, surely the correct punishment is no priority for the better school, no good chance on the waiting list? It cannot make sense to throw the book at the hapless parent, who wrongly went too far in trying to secure a place at one of the better schools. It just shows the frustration of parents with a system which is meant to deliver choice. In some areas there are not enough places at the better schools. People cannot accept the standards of the poorer schools.The local authority should spend more time trying to improve standards, so there are enough places at schools where parents are happy to send their children.

The money spent on investigating and even prosecuting the parents who try to play the system would be better spent on sorting out the underlying problem. Parents understand that they will obtain priority for a place only if they meet certain criteria the Authority lays down. They can’t just say they want their child to go to School X because they think it is better. That starts the search to qualify. The better off can move to get into the right catchment. We do have allocation of better school by postcode. If a single sex school has better results, parents suddenly become champions of single sex education. They believe the authorities will listen to that argument, whilst they fear that simply saying they want their child to go to the school with better results will not cut any ice. Systems of bureaucratic rationing force people to think and say things they think will be within the allocation rules.

When it comes to parking, we all see the need to keep people from parking in ways which block junctions, driveways, or impede the free flow of traffic. It is more difficult to fathom why some places where parking is allowed have such complicated rules that it is not always clear when and on what terms you can park there. In Wokingham the largest number of cases arise from a split car park, where part is available for all of us and some is reserved for private parking. In parts of London you need to ponder long and hard to find out when and if you can use parking places,. Sometimes the attached signs simply do not cover all the cases, being unclear for example on bank holiday or Sunday rules. That’s why people think the authorities are unfair, and often too trigger happy when it comes to minor offences.

I have been spending Saturday mornings walking and talking in support of European Parliament candidates. Today was a particularly pleasant sunny walk.

I found the usual mixture of local and national issues. Many voters are confused by the voting system. They want to vote for their own local Euro MEP, and dislike the regional list system when you explain it to them. Those who want to pull out of the EU are frustrated, seeing there is no way to achieve that even though these are EU elections. I rarely meet anyone who has raised an issue which the EU Parliament handles, and wants the candidate/MEP to do something. No-one I spoke to wanted the EU to do more, or said anything positive about it.

On the doorsteps today I was lobbied about school places, speed limits, planning, some MPs expenses, Council Tax and the state of the economy. I had to spend a lot of time explaining how many candidates there were, how the votes were cast and counted, how the party list system worked. I was usually told the public didn’t like that system! I have news for you – nor do I!

The takeover of Opel – which includes Vauxhall – by Magna (Canada) and Sberbank (Russia) relies on E1.5 billion of bridge loans from the German state. We learn that the four German plants are to be kept open. We await detailed information on the futures of Ellesmere Port and Luton.

At current exchange rates the UK plants should come out well from any business analysis of costs and productivity. Whether that will be sufficient to save British jobs is more doubtful, given the close involvement of the German government in the answer.

The sad truth is that there is far too much motor manufacturing capacity in the world. Some of that surplus is going to lead to closures in the EU. On both sides of the Atlantic governments have intervened. Their actions will not save more jobs or plants in the medium term – indeed they might lose more. However, they will influence the pattern of closures. The UK needs to be aware. Having a cheap currency will not necessarily take the trick.

I have been asked to mention the snub to the Queen from France, who failed to invite her in time to attend the D Day Remembrance this year. Apparently the French also delayed and were less than fulsome with their invitations to Uk veterans from that heroic liberation of France.

The French President may well have eyes only for President Obama and all the TV pictures their meeting can generate. I do not suppose for one moment our veterans – or our Queen – would have stood in the way of the TV shots he wanted.

Uk troops made a crucial and vital contribution to D Day. We will remember them.

There are huge quantities of oil in store and afloat. Russia is pumping more as OPEC tries to throttle back production. Western and Eastern demand has been hit by the collapse of manufacturing output.Yet the oil price climbs and climbs, now almost double the low point reached earlier this year. There is plenty of investment or speculative demand.

Banks are still struggling to deal with all the past excesses in their lending books. More of the mortgages and corporate loans they advanced have been brought into question by mounting job losses and corporate profits declines. Bank shares have risen sharply from their lows.

The most violent phase of the de stocking may be over, but there is not yet any sign of output rising again. Confidence for the future is higher, but many businesses are still finding it tough to gain the custom they need.

All this could just be that phase of a normal cycle where financial markets move ahead of the real economy. The real economy will follow later, as the extra money percolates through from the purchase of financial assets into economic activity more generally.

There remain more than a couple of worries. Quantitative easing is an extreme reaction to extreme conditions. All the time the authorities are creating more money, it can sustain higher asset prices. When they stop it might look rather different. The extent of the borrowing needs of both the US and UK governments tower over markets. Despite quantitative easing, government bond prices are not roaring ahead. Investors are nervous of their future prospects, and aware that there will be no shortage in the months ahead. When QE stops, it will be much more of a strain on all markets as investors struggle to come up with all the money big brrowing governments seek.

The imbalances of the main economies have to be corrected. Lower sterling – and now a devaluing dollar – will help cut the balance of payments deficits. Only reducing governemnt spending, preferably by improving government efficiency and productivity, can tackle the major imbalance of some Western economies trying to borrow far too much. Extra government borrowing is not the answer to recession, but at the crux of the problem that needs sorting out between the high borrowing and the high saving countries.

The surveillance society is in full flood. We are more watched than ever. We have to live under an ever larger array of regulations and laws, governing how we park, where we drive, what rubbish we throw away, how much tax we pay, and what we think and say. Even the most law abiding find it increasingly difficult to keep up with all the laws you have to obey. It is a compliance society with a box ticking culture.

Much of it is as ineffective as it is oppressive. Making everyone xerox copies of passports and gas bills before undertaking simple transactions does not stop well funded big time crooks from operating. Setting and enforcing tight speed limits does not stop accidents which are often caused by something other than excessive speed. Picking on individuals for saying the wrong things and going in for public denunciation does not stop all nasty thoughts. All this and the rest does spawn ever larger bureaucracies, and makes it more difficult for the energetic to do things that might make life better.

The need to control public spending will reinforce the mood to sweep away more of the needless bureaucracy. We have no need of unelected reigonal government, as we have often agreed on this site. An incoming government needs to look at the satrapies of the public sector, the large quangos, and cut them down to size. It needs to simplify the tax system drastically, by removing taxes that raise very little and making the principal taxes more straightforward – lower rates and no reliefs.

In areas like education and health, more of the money needs to go to the individual schools, surgeries and hospitals. There should be more diveristy and choice, less central control and fewer instructions, advice and guidance from Whitehall.
Every facet of government activity should b e looked at to see what contribution it is making to better services, to sensible regulation or to transfers of income to the less well off. If it is not making a decent contribution to one of those, and providing good value, there is no need of it.

Individuals want access to medical care when and where they want it. They want to be able to choose a good school for their children. They want their rubbish collected regularly, roads to be able to drive on and decent care for the disabled – all at a sensible price. If the government tightens the surveillance, keeps on increasing the complexity of comnpliance, raises the taxes and delivers poor services, they should expect a big backlash against them.

The press has done a good job exposing the expenses of MPs. The system has been far too generous, and some MPs have made bad judgements about what to claim. As someone who believes in transparency and value for money, I want to see reform and a much tighter system. I was one of only 25 MPs to oppose plans to exempt MPs’ expenses from the Freedom of Information Act, which would have stopped the truth from coming out.

I am glad David Cameron and Nick Clegg both offered to pay back some money they had claimed and have told their MPs to do the same where the claims were unreasonable. It is good to see more than £200,000 has already been promised back from MPs of all three parties, with more MPs still to be investigated. David Cameron was right to apologise on behalf of MPs, and to understand the importance of this issue to Parliament and the public we should serve. He was right to say Conservative MPs should only claim for mortgage interest or rent, Council tax, and service charges on a second property they need for their job.

In 2007-8 I claimed a total of £105,917. This made me the 19th cheapest MP, claiming around £40,000 less than the average. One fifth of that claim was the mortgage interest costs, the Council Tax and service charge and maintenance on a bedsit flat in Pimlico. It is entirely used to enable me to work longer days in London when there is important Parliamentary business. During my ownership it has only been slept in by myself. I do not need it for any other purpose. The deposit and repayments of capital are of course paid for out of my taxed income.

Some people locally think that I should travel to and from London by train on days when Parliament is in session. I have given this serious thought. My nearest station is Crowthorne. On two days a week business of the House continues until 10 pm, often followed by two votes. I am not able to leave until after 10.20 pm on such occasions. If I caught the 10.50pm from Waterloo, I would arrive in Wokingham too late to catch the last train to Crowthorne which departs at 11.43. Sometimes important business can go on even later. During the budget debate on the 12th May I made my first speech just before 4pm and my last at 1:15am. It was long after midnight that the issue that had generated the most correspondence from constituents finally came up. I was back at my desk at 7am the next morning.

With the flat I am able to be in my office by 7am to deal with emails and letters, and to write my daily blog to keep constituents informed about what I think and am doing. I can be back in the flat ten minutes after the Commons business finishes for the night. It enables me to save on staff and travel costs, as I can do more of the job myself. I write all my own speeches and all the daily web pieces, and do most of my own research.

I decided early in 2008 that although my claims were low by reference to others, I could do the job to a good standard whilst cutting my costs. I set myself the target of cutting my total expenses by 10% in 2008-9 and by a further 10% in 2009-10. As an advocate of getting better value for taxpayers across the public sector, I felt it especially important to show I could practise what I preach. I have preliminary figures for 2008-9 which show that I have cut by more than 10% in that year, which will put me more than £50,000 a year below the likely average MP claim.

Throughout my time as an MP I have always had a second job. The nature of Parliament often requires it, as for years I was a Minister, and then a Shadow Cabinet member. These were very demanding jobs requiring substantial travel around the country and a great deal of case work, meetings and reading. Like being an MP, these jobs require you to be on call seven days a week, and to undertake numerous evening meetings and events. When I have not had these responsibilities I have been a non executive chairman of a company, which has always made much less demand on my time and can be arranged to avoid any conflict with the Parliamentary diary.

At the beginning of last year I agreed to chair a new company for a friend of mine who had been made redundant, for no fee and light duties. Unfortunately he died young and suddenly of pancreatic cancer towards the end of last year, but not before he had expanded the company, creating nine new jobs and brought in outside shareholders. They have asked me to do more to help them, for reward. I have agreed a contract which states “There are no fixed hours of work. Parliamentary duties always take precedence.” I have therefore decided to do more for them at times of my choosing. There is more time available for example when Parliament is in its very long recess. I will make no further claims for Additional Cost Allowance, and pay for the flat which I think is wholly necessary for my job as MP out of my other taxed income.

I trust the proper scrutiny which is currently going into MPs costs and expenses will also be undertaken throughout the public sector. We need to ensure that everyone who is in public service, as MPs are, remembers who pays the bills and uses public money wisely.

The UK government has spent more money than it should on supporting some banks. Now it comes to the car industry the cupboard is bare, and competition rules are applied.

Meanwhile, the German government is in the drving seat on the General Motors discussions, apparently willing and able to assist.

If there are fair rules to prevent subsidy and intervention in the EU, they should have the same effect on the German and the UK governments. As a long standing critic of government equity support for UK banks, I am not suddenly an advocate of equity support for Vauxhall. As a believer in avoiding subsidy and finding solutions to industrial and banking problems which will produce stronger businesses in the longer term, I am worried that one government is leading the way on the GM Europe disposals and ours is fighting from the side lines. The UK government must make sure a Vauxhall factory is not lost through politics.

Grants and aid for new technology and for green purposes are allowed within the common rules. Short term support against proper security may be permissible in some cases. If there is any kind of common market that works, both Germany and the UK should have a place round the table, and should be operating under the same pro competition framework.

It is good news that David Cameron wants to tackle the feeling of alienation from politics and government that so many people share. He is right to say we need power back from Brussels, we need to transfer more power to people away from bureaucracies, and need a stronger Parliament to challenge and influence government.

Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell set out a radical agenda for much of this earlier in this Parliament. I praised it at the time, and many of you thought their agenda contained good things. It is time to them to get it down from the shelves and use it to inform debate, as they are doing. I wish them every success.

I myself have set out an agenda for less government on this website, in the Economic Policy Review, and elsewhere. Today I will look at how we could transfer power from Brussels. Tomorrow I will look at how we can reduce the power of UK government and make it more accountable.

The origins of greater EU power came through the introduction of qualified majority voting. If we still enjoyed a veto on every measure Brussels proposed, a sensible UK government could avoid all new EU law that was damaging or unwanted. The first task is to make clear the UK will not accept any more erosion of the veto, and that the veto does have to apply to all Foreign Affairs, defence and taxation as a bare minimum.

This government has given away so many vetoes, that simply stopping the rot is not sufficient. We need our veto back over employment and social law, over immigration and Home affairs, and over other areas central to the tasks of self government.

Restoring the veto for future laws is no longer sufficient, as too many laws of a kind we do not want have been passed already. A renegotiation for powers back has to encompass the right to remove EU laws we do not like in areas where the veto has been restored.

Two big areas of spending are fishing and agriculture. Neither of these policies have worked well. We need our own control of our fishing grounds, as I have often argued. We need agricultural reform, which should include more being done nationally and locally.

The loss of part of our rebate was one of the worst features of recent hopeless negotiating by the UK government. If we cannot reach general agreement on a lower budget for the EU overall, we willl need to raise again the issue of our contribution.

Some of you will have items of your own you want to add to the list for renegotiaiton. Some of you just want to pull out of the whole thing. That would still require negotiation, as the UK is now so interwoven with the EU that all sorts of issues would need to be decided for a new bilateral relaitonship between the EU and an independent UK. Those who think it best to call for immediate withdrawal need to tell us what kind of arrangements they would want on tariffs, market access, transport links and rights, competition policy and other areas requiring agreement across borders and how these can best be secured.

I think it best to have a renegotiation, and then to put the results to the people. It is high time the people could express a view on the value of our relationship with the EU. We might get that on Lisbon, if it remains unratified and there is a change of government. If not, let’s have a referendum on any renegotiation. That will concentrate Brussels minds on the need to give us real power back, if the people are going to judge the outcome. As a minimum we need full control of our social and employment policies, taxation, foreign and defence policy, and of Home afairs.

Yesterday there was good news for Wall Street with better consumer confidence numbers, and bad news with further falls in house prices. Some pundits used to tell us the government had to find a way of stabilising home prices before the banks could be steadied and the markets coaxed back to life.

That does not seem to matter so much at the moment. Wall Street looked at both sets of figures,and decided to concentrate on the Confidence numbers. The index headed upwards again. That must be the wonder of quantitative easing.

The Revenue have made clear that if any MP has paid for personal tax advice, they need to pay tax on any claim they made for public reimbursement. The Ministers concerned have to demonstrate that the advice they bought was advice on the tax position of their employees, not for their own affairs.

If there is any uncertainty about the tax position of employees it would be best for that to be sorted out for all Commons staff by the executives in the Department of Resources. Any cost involved could then be controllled, with all MPs and their staff benefitting from the single piece of advice.

The wider issue is the attitudes towards tax and public spending it reveals. Many Labour MPs have made speeches telling us all that it is good to pay more tax for public purposes. They have said that those on higher incomes , like MPs, should pay more. They have told us the tax system is not over complicated, whilst passing Finance Bills with ever more pages of complex drafting. They have never said we should pay more tax so more MPs can have free tax advice for their offices.

I have regularly complained about both the overall level of tax rates, and the growing complexity of tax law. The adverts telling us “Tax need not be taxing” have not gone down well with some of my constituents struggling to keep up with the legislative outpourings and the demands for more tax.

Any suggestion that the architects of all this, the Ministers themselves, have decided it is all so complicated that they need special advice at public expense is not an easy sell for them. They should have found an easier way of designing their tax system, and they should have avoided the need for individual MP tax advice at taxpayers expense.

If any Minister takes tax advice at taxpayers expense to minimise his or her own tax he or she would be in an untenable position.

It is good news that at last, after years of criticism by many of us, even the EU has decided its Common Fishery Policy is wrong. Fishermen have got angry, despaired, lost their livelihoods over the years of mind boggling incompetence and aggressive obstinacy. We have been told for too long that throwing back dead fish into the sea is the way to “conserve” fish stocks!

As one of the proponents of getting fishing back under UK domestic control, I would like the British government to pursue that option,. If the masters in Brussels now know they cannot carry on with their damaging policy, isn’t it time to allow member states to have a go? They tell us they believe in subsidiarity, they believe in devolving power. What better test of their good intents than to tell them to give us back our fish?

Our once great fishing industry has been badly damaged by the CFP. In the case of some ports and some species and fishing grounds it has been all but destroyed. Elsewhere in the world more enlightened policies followed by national governments have enabled fishing grounds to recover or to be maintained. It is high time we did this in Britain.

What is the government’s line on this? Doubtless they will once again fail to speak up for Britain, preferring to await some new compromise which will fail to restore our fishery to its former glory.

As I reached London before 7 am to avoid the £8 tax for coming to work called the Congestion Charge, I looked forward to another day with a broken Parliament not even bothering to meet to try to mend itself.

It beggars belief that the government will use its majority to send Parliament away as often as possible. It is particularly damning at a time when everyone else in the economy is having to work harder to keep their jobs and to preserve their businesses. It’s not as if there is a shortage of things to discuss or to put right.

It’s yet another day as an MP when my only option to say what I think needs saying is the web. No wonder so many people are fed up with Parliament, and think it offers such bad value for money. If Parliament was able to do a better job tackling the government, and was able to do so more of the time, maybe more people would think MPs needed office costs and back-up to do the job.

If all they see is an empty Parliament, closed owing to lack of government interest, they are not impressed. If at the same time they read some MPs think office costs include personal tax advice on the taxpayer, no wonder there’s such a gap between electors and elected.

There are signs that this big story about the expenses of the public sector is not going to stop at MPs. The Telegraph doubtless has more to say about what MPs have claimed for office costs and staffing as well as for second homes. Meanwhile the Sunday Times is working away revealing more about the claims that peers make in the Lords. I am told various local newspapers are now sending in Freedom of Information requests over Councillor and senior executive expenses and remuneration in local government. Doubtless some other media outlets, not to be left out, will be trying to find out more about the expenses, salaries, entertainment and travel for the quangocracy.

Never again will a politician be able to say with a straight face that there is no waste in the public sector. Never again will they be able to say all spending is essential, and targetted on front line services the public value. The answer to that is a luxury rocking chair or a fee for media training for an MP. These individual items may be small against the totals of public spending, but when multiplied out across the upper eschelons of the whole public sector they amount to large sums. Throughout many parts of the public sector there is a willingness to go on seminars and conferences, to hire consultants for work that could be done in house, to have extra senior staff and to spend more on IT in the hope of a solution. None of these things are wrong in themselves, and when done in moderation some may be useful. When done to excess they create serious problems in public budgets.

I assume the jolt to MPs as a whole from this story and the new rules being put in will lead to lower MP claims overall this year. Sensible people throughout the public sector would be wise to see that the same pressures could apply to them, and start to look at how they can also do more for less.

Meanwhile one or two of you have expressed worry about the idea of fewer MPs. I think we do need fewer, but with Parliament meeting more often so we each have more chance to make our points in Parliament in a timely and effective way. For much of the year I have to make my points on the website, because there is no Parliament to attend, let alone one with a debate where I could be called and make them in order. The idea of fewer MPs must not be a weaker Parliament. There should be fewer Ministers as well, and more opportunity to cross examine them. Above all Parliament needs more control over the timetable, so we can discuss what we want when we want to. The government should be able to pass its business, but only after scrutiny and when it has made its case to justify it to its majority.

Recently I wrote on this site

“In the age of the internet (government is) now discovering that the cameras which point at the public can also capture them. When people ask the old question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who will watch the watchers themselves – we now have a new answer. The watched can watch the watchers”

MPs should be used in the Commons to the automatic submission of every fine sentiment they express to the humbug tests. MPs listening – or researchers watching – immediately ask has he or she lived up to that requirement in what they have said and done personally? If a Labour MP waxes lyrical about the duty of the better off to pay more tax for social purposes – as they often do – people are bound to ask if they have been paying CGT when they sell their second homes. If a Conservative says you can cut public spending without damaging services, he or she might now expect a question on whether they have managed to do that with their own small part of the public budgets.

It is this characteristic which has made the expenses files such compelling reading for the public.At a time when people feel especially oppressed by heavy taxation, heavy regulation, prying government and the damage being done to their own job prospects and finances by the recession, they suddenly have access to material showing some MPs spending their money on expensive rocking chairs and duck houses. They learn that cabinet members have used public money to seek tax advice on their allowances, and at the same time some have sold homes without having to pay CGT. The anger reflects the excessive and excessively costly government imposed on the public, and the feeling that some MPs see themslves as above the rules.

In the age of the internet those who govern have to learn that they too are on camera. If they wish to impose ever more rules and requirements on the rest of us, they need to be especially careful about obeying them themselves. If they favour higher taxes from the better off, they have to understand they are amongst the better off and need to show us they are paying them willingly.

Let me spare my Labour and Lib Dem critics the trouble of applying the humbug test to me on these matters. I did pay CGT on the home I sold. I have cut my total expenses every year since 2005-6. I give the figures beneath.

Total costs 2005-6 £116,162
2006-7 £105,928 minus 8.8%
2007-8 £105,917 minus 0.02%
2008-9 £91,000 minus 14.1% (provisional Fees office figure)

2005-2009 minus 21.67% (provisional figure) In 2007-8 this was around £40,000 below the average

I intend to cut further this year, as the public deficit is so large.

Before the expenses row blew up I led a discussion on this website of how much MPs should be paid. Some of you thought MPs should be paid more. Some MPs themselves think the answer to the current mess is to pay them more by way of salary, cutting back on the expenses allowed. I would like to say why I think a pay rise would be quite wrong.

There is no shortage of people wanting to be MPs, so there is no overall recuitment case for lifting the pay.

Given the state of the public debt it is clear the overall public payroll has to be contained. MPs acting as Ministers would have no moral authority to demand pay sacrifices elsewhere, if they are putting their own pay up.

The current basic pay for an MP is only part of the pay of many MPs. All Ministers, government Whips,The Leader of the Opposition and Committee Chairmen enjoy second salaries for their second official jobs. Other MPs earn money from journalism, advisory positions, non executive directorships, legal and dental practise, public speaking and other activities. An MP has to be on call seven days a week, work at week-ends and in the evenings, but has flexibility over when to do the job and has much more spare time in the many weeks of the year when Parliament does not meet.

There are three types of people financially who take on an MP role. Some come from jobs that pay less. Clearly the MP pay level is no barrier to them. Some are independently wealthy, from inheritance or past financial success. They often want the privilege of representing people and the interest of the job. The third group are people who are following a more lucrative professional career who will make some kind of financial sacrifice. That is their choice. It would be very costly and wrong to set the salary of an MP at a level which meant lawyers, bankers, media figures and business executives no longer were paid less.

Some favour banning all second jobs for MPs, though I think they mean banning all private sector second jobs. That would have an impact on the type of people coming in, limiting it more to the first two groups. It would also mean fewer people in the Commons with a current knowledge of many walks of life based on contemporary experience. It would mean more career politicians, even keener to follow their party lines and to engage in the media/political spin game.

We need to get a grip on total public spending. That is why MPs are right to be cutting back the generous scope of the current expenses regime, and why Mr Cameron is right to call for fewer MPs. It is only when people think MPs are offering good value for money that Parliament will have the authority it needs to get value from the rest of public spending.

If an MP wants the taxpayer to fund a website there should be no party politics or strong opinion on it. If an MP wants to send out a free newsletter paid for by taxpayers, it has to avoid political comment and is best submitted to neutral assessors in Parliament first before being sent out.

An MP, paid for by taxpayers, can be political, but his or her staff must not be political during time in the office paid for by taxpayers. These distinctions are important to the expenses system, but not always understood elsewhere.

When I am undertaking a school visit, for example, I need to ask the basis of the invitation. If they want me to visit as MP and representative of all my constituents, then my Parliamentary office can organise it for me. I have to remember not to make political remarks. If they want me to talk to students as a Conservative politician, I need to ask that they have invited in people from other parties on other occasions to balance , and to remind the pupils that I am speaking politically. In that case the visit should be arranged by the MP or by a political assistant paid for from party money and is probably only appropriate for six forms.

The Parliamentary office can help organise the diary, but again this should be the Parliamentary side of it. MPs have poltiical and private lives, but they should not ask taxpayer funded staff to help with these other aspects.

Many MPs have contracts with political offices to provide Parliamentary services as well. These need to be clearly recorded, and the office providing the service needs to understand the different roles and to provide value for taxpayer money when acting in the Parliamentary capacity.

There could be more issues over the use of taxpayers money to appear when all of this territory gets examined in more detail. Reform of the system will not just be about second homes.

How many more wake up calls does the government need, before they recognise the seriousness of the UK’s debt situation?

In government circles it is fashionable to dismiss arguments that we need to control the deficit. They believe that spending whatever it takes will prevent or limit the recession. They think they can go on printing money to get them closer to the next election. They say that of course the UK will never default on its debt. All it has to do in their world is print some money so it can meet the debt bills.

There are two ways a country can try to default on its debts. It could stop paying the interest, or literally cancel the bonds. The UK does not do such things, and it is unlikely to start any time soon. The other way is to undermine the currency and the value of the pound, so the money can be repaid in depreciated notes. Some in world markets are now worried that this is exactly what the government will do. There has been a steady stream of overseas sellers of UK government debt, selling it back to the Bank of England as they do the buying.

At a certain point buyers of Uk government debt want a higher rate of interest to justify making a further investment. The government gets itself into a nasty spiral. It is spending too much, so it borrows too much. The amount spent on interest payments goes up, requiring yet more borrowing to pay the interest. The rate at which it has to borrow goes up, again increasing the interest charges and requiring yet more borrowing to pay the interest.

In Opposition Labour used to know this. They rightly pointed out that the then government spent too much on debt interest, and too much on the “costs of economic failure” – welfare benefits for those without jobs. Many people are now very nostalgic for the relatively low levels of debt and the lower costs of welfare of those days. By its own former rhetoric this government has got itself into the wrong situation. Its own budget deficit is now ballooning through too much debt interest and too many people out of work.

They are about to discover that it is easy to get into a vicious circle on debt, but much more difficult to get out. If you borrow £417,000,000,000 gross debt in just two years as they are doing, you have to pay £12,500,000,000 a year in interest at 3%. If you had to borrow that again at 5% the interest bills soars to £20,850,000,000 a year. And that’s just the interest on two year’s borrowings!

The President lost the vote to close down Guantanamo Bay. It is a reminder of just how difficult it is proving, for him to be different from President Bush.

I always felt he was going to be very similar to his predecessor in policy in major areas. It was clear he would continue with the high spend high borrowing policies of Mr Bush. It was stated he would intensify Bush’s war in Afghanistan, as they both wound down the more intense operations in Iraq. His bank rescues and monetary policies have built on the wobbly legacy of his predecessor in similar ways.

It was clear he would be different over issues like abortion, and I hoped he was going to be different over detention without trial. Today, five months in to his first Presidential year, he is no further forward in closing down Guantanamo. To some Guantanamo is a symbol of the West’s willingness to be tough. To others it is a bad departure from our principles of liberty, where people are innocent until proven guilty, where they have a right to a fair trial. The President needs to sort this out urgently, to show he is the change he promised.

In recent days quantitative easing in the USA has got to the US dollar. It has started to fall against other currencies. I guess the US authorities are relaxed about that. It will correct the balance of payments more quickly, and put more pressure on the exporting countries.

Over the last year the US economy has fallen much less than the European economies, less than the UK and much less than Japan. The US still has strengths from its huge continental market, and from the energy and productivity of its workforce and from the entreprenuerial nature of many of its people. The successful exporters, led by Japan and Germany have hit worse turbulence, as they were very dependent on western demand for their range of products.

Even China has struggled. The impact of the collapse in demand must have been quite severe in the first quarter of 2009. The world can only make economic progress when the big exporters spend more of their savings, and borrow more to finance more consumption. That is happening very slowly, if at all.

In the meantime, it is quantitative easing which is providing the only drink at the wake. Today Sterling, the other QE currency, fell back from its recent rises. A ratings agency has said “We have revised the outlook on the UK to negative due to our view that, even assuming fiscal tightening the net general governemnt debt burden could approach 100% of GDP and remain near that level in the medium term”.

If only that were the limit of it. As readers of this website know, the true indebtedness and liabilities of the UK state are well above £1,500,000,000,000 already. It now costs £80,000 a year to insure £10 million of UK government bonds against default!