Fool you once, shame on you. Fool you twice, shame on me- Weird old nursery rhyme
Expenses Scandal-Will it ever end?
What's £17 to you? Dinner for two? Cinema tickets? Everything as it turns out, if you live in the constituency of Rotheram, because your MP is claiming expenses on poppy wreaths... For Help for Heroes... Good appointment.


Don't get me wrong here, this is only £17, and won't exactly affect the taxpayer badly. But the morals and principles behind the scandal are beyond outrageous, and who's to blame? Well in 2009, it was the MP's. They were caught out clearly claiming expenses beyond reason, and created the legacy of duck houses to long remember. One incident since was in 2013, when a Conservative MP (whom I can't remember the name of) claimed expenses on party donations. However, I exclude her in this instance, because it was clearly accidental and immediately apologised to the Commons, her constituency and repayed the money claimed. This was more down to the clampdown of the expenses on MP's, creating a minefield of problems on claiming expenses, rightly or wrongly.


But this story does make me sick. Not with Labour (not this time), but my faith in British politics. The MP in question is Sarah Champion, who claimed the £17 poppy wreath as "office costs", and that the Independent Parliament Standards Agency (IPSA) had actually accepted it. I don't know what I find more disgusting. The fact that Champion made the claim intentionally, or that IPSA actually accepted the claim. If Parliament is to regain any of its broken reputation, then Champion will bite the bullet in May and lose out on her safe seat.
Another day, another rant at British politics for most. Where's the morality, they ask. Where's the humanity, they ask. But more importantly, where is common sense? Constituents have the right to hold their MP to account, then why not allow them to regularly check their expenses? IPSA release all claimed expenses, but incidents like these are still common place in British politics. It's time for politics to grow up. Stop being little children over your pocket money, and actually use your money for the better of your constituency.
Jordan Ifield (and it's a Labour MP, just had to put that out there)

Don't worry, it gets worse- Alida Nugent

British Economy- I thought this was solved?

Now they're back, and from our favorite Labour scapegoat, Ed Balls. I must agree with David Cameron and say that Ed Balls is the most annoying person in British politics, and today he justified why, because his claims are not justifiable and the ones that he proposes aren't much better either. He "claims" to have estimated Tory spending cuts on unprotected Whitehall departments to £70 billion, if they win a majority, and that the Labour alternative would be stopping winter fuel allowance for those "better off" and limiting rises in child benefits. Let me start examining....

Like many of us, I was suspecting the British economy to take a step back from the General Election this year, it's been in the headlines more often not for the wrong reasons, and now that's it back on track, we should just leave it alone. But Labour come riding in, again. I've long protested Labour's argument with the economy, simply because it stands up to as much scrutiny as paper does with water, it fall apart. Promise good social reforms. Spend investment. Deficit increases. Recession. Up sticks, better luck next time. And to say this has been a repeated time and time again is an understatement.

Ed Ball's face upon examining the deficit he created

I must agree with David Cameron and say that Ed Balls is the most annoying person in British politics


Firstly, Mr Balls deserves the sack for contradicting a statistic. It would only cost £30 billion to cut the unprotected Whitehall departments, and being Shadow Chancellor, I think he should get his numbers right. Secondly, if he doesn't like that statistic, limiting child benefits isn't going to help his record as a left wing politician, and whilst his winter fuel allowance restriction is aimed at "better off" pensioners, he's going to get some wrath from his own side. That's not the answer to a failing economy, that's not even going to save those "unprotected" Whitehall departments, all it will do is give more publicity towards Labour's economic policies, and their evident failures.

Justified by the ISF (Institute for Fiscal Studies), the Tories would cut around £23-30 billion, and Labour wouldn't barely make a cut. This is why Cameron's ideology of Labour is being accepted, More tax, more borrowing, more deficit. And where have we heard that before? Congratulations Labour if you get in, but if you do, be prepared for me to say: "I told you so!" if another recession comes along. Good day.

Jordan Ifield (Mr Balls would make a good Nazi, wouldn't he?)

We need arrogant people who like showing off. They can cover us from bullets in the line of fire - Toba Beta
Labour... You big show offs
I remember the run up to the 2010 election well, and for me at least, it was straight forward. Campaign, TV elections, Brown calls supporter a bigot. Conservatives win. A bit condensed I know, but it was the TV elections that were a big step in the right direction at the time. They gave a close up analysis of each candidate, held them up to accountability and scrutiny in front of a live audience. This separated the men from the boys, with Brown looking sheepish, and Cameron being the prominent professional with Clegg following up as a refreshing alternative. However, that simple ingredient has been spoiled, and won't be as tasty. Or effective.
The 2010 TV debate was successful because it was simple. 3 biggest candidates. Live audience. No fiasco. Scrutiny and accountability. It was also the first time this has ever been attempted, and it was a remarkable success in improving Cameron and Clegg's opinion polls before 2010. However, to say the 2015 will be different would be an understatement. 7 parties in 2 debates, and a supposed head on head between Cameron and Miliband separately. I must admit, I haven't blogged about the TV debates sooner I because they're unnecessarily confusing and more than a fiasco to care about in contrast to legislation. But, Cameron's stand has taken more off guard, and has left him vulnerable to accountability.
Having caused enough stir by demanding 7 parties, that should've been enough to accept. But dragging out the process over the head to head, and not participating is more of a joke than Alex Salmond. It gives Miliband a leg above Cameron, presenting him as a more willing and courageous leader, which is the complete opposite of the truth. But Labour have shot themselves in the foot... Yet again. By saying that they'll pass these debates into law will pressurise Miliband to be in Cameron's position if he were Prime Minister (god forbid). No Prime Minister wants to stand up head to head for 90 minutes against their main rival, in front of a live audience being scrutinized and held accountable, and it's law! What Labour are doing is making Cameron look like an idiot rather than pressuring themselves, but it is a big leap into law, and one that which will kill off nearly most Prime Ministers. Opinion polls will be the decider, and if Cameron/Miliband etc bottle it in the future, they can say buy to No10 Downing street and say hello to No10 Drowning Street in the Thames. Labour have overhyped their position so much, to the extent of it backfiring on Miliband in 5 years time... Welcome to the short career of politics.
Jordan Ifield (why not just 1 debate on immigration, that would be fun, wouldn't it?)