Gordon Brown's position may soon become untenable

As more and more expenses claims continue to surface in the Daily Telegraph, British politics has never looked worse.

Many governments have been damaged by allegations of sleaze, John Major's for example in the 1990s, but today's scandal cuts deeper than rows over brown envelopes and affairs.

The problem for Gordon Brown right now, is that he has to be seen to be firmly in control of his party, but with each new allegation his influence seems to weaken.

Brown indecisive

Take the example of Hazel Blears, the MP for Salford. Brown called her actions "completely unacceptable" but then appeared to give her his full backing. Pardon the electorate for feeling confused over what he really thinks.

There are now rumours that Blears will be moved on in the next cabinet reshuffle, which would only make Brown's decision making process look even more confused. Many may well ask, if he can't control his own party, can he be expected to keep control of the country?

Of course one should add some balance here, this expenses scandal was not solely a result of Gordon Brown's mismanagement of the system, although one could argue that he (and others) only want to make changes now because the revelations have come out.

Parliament still in the dark ages

It is very easy to blame the Prime Minister for the problems, and ultimately in a self-regulating House of Commons, one could argue that the buck stops with him, but this is far too simplistic.

The fact is that much of what goes on in the Commons is well and truly past its sell-by date, and the expenses furore could just be the shot in the arm that politics in this country needs.

Sadly for Brown though, he has not really been able to seize the initiative, and instead the younger more articulate David Cameron looks to have come out on top. With an election only a year away (or sooner depending on who you talk to) the Labour party is in deep trouble.

Labour left dejected

It looks almost as if Labour have given up the ghost, resigned to their fate of being the opposition party after the next election; but does it really have to be this way? There could just be a twist in the tail.

The most popular theory doing the rounds at the moment is the idea of Alan Johnson the Health Secretary, putting himself forward to be leader. Johnson would be a popular choice, and he could just give Labour a much needed boost in the polls going into an election.

Significantly, Johnson put himself well and truly in the shop window this week, by talking up political reform and suggesting perhaps the use of Proportional Representation.

Johnson wrote in the Times "we need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery," but does he mean removing Gordon Brown as leader? He of course denies this but for many, a Johnson led Labour party would be a welcome relief from the burden of Gordon.

So now we can sit back and await the next round of expenses revelations. Only this morning there was the news that the Labour MP Frank Cook allegedly claimed for a £5 church donation, a kind gesture indeed, I am sure you will agree.

Brown's political raft may have been set adrift by Labour, and it looks like his party would rather puncture it than throw him a lifeline, but have they got the guts to do it? Only time will tell, but if the Prime Minister does sink, expect to see some political careers go down with him.

(photo courtesy of telegraph.co.uk)

Calls to force out the Speaker may be misguided

Today things really began to hot up in the House of Commons, and this was not because they were afraid to claim for air-conditioning expenses.

18 MPs have so far signed a motion of no confidence in the Speaker Michael Martin, and several of them have openly attacked Mr. Martin. Among them, David Winnick MP said, "your early retirement sir, would help the reputation of the House".

Mr Martin replied that was "not a subject for today", but that was all today was about for many MPs. Significantly, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has now added his voice to the ranks of dissenters, calling for 'Gorbals Mick' as Martin is known, to stand down . Martin however, has so far stood firm.

Scapegoat

But is this really fair on the speaker? It is true that Martin has not covered himself in any glory over the past few weeks, and many see him as a roadblock to reform. Indeed, there were calls for his resignation when the Damian Green affair unfolded.

But wait a moment, is there just a hint of the commons looking for a scapegoat here? There is a great deal at stake for a still growing list of MPs that have become embroiled in the sordid expenses revelations, and they will not want to lose their seats.

So by blaming Mr. Martin for standing in the way of reform and allowing the murky culture of expenses claims to develop, are the MPs trying to deflect attention away from their own dirty deeds? It seems like a distinct probability.

Taking responsibility

Surely the MPs can not continue to blame the system for their own failings? Well if they do then it will just not wash with the public, and only make things worse for them. They have to admit their failings and this means taking responsibility for their actions.

An MP claiming for a non-existent mortgage can not really blame their actions on Michael Martin, but at the moment Parliament look hopelessly detached from the real world.

This was perfectly illustrated by the bizarre argument in the House today, over "early day motions" and "substantive motions". If there is anything that is sure to turn the electorate off, it is a squabble over arcane Parliamentary practice.

Parliament out of touch

There is no doubt that the House of Commons needs reforming. It is an institution that clings fiercely to tradition, but perhaps this whole affair really will force some changes through.

Michael Martin has not been a good speaker and neither has he acted professionally in his dealing with the issue of expenses, but will removing him now really make a difference to public confidence in parliament?

I suspect not, and this is where MPs are misguided. By obsessing over Michael Martin's job, they have forgotten about their own job, representing the public.

How many people on the street really care about the speaker of the house of Commons losing his job when they may well have lost their's? The answer is probably very few, and parliament should recognise this.