Gerri Peev: MP takes the Pisces...

Could this be the least down to earth expense claim so far? Tory David Treddinick has claimed £510 for astrology consultancy services. Apparently, it was because he was interested in complimentary health care and its relationship with Indian Ayuverdic medicine and astrology.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/tory-claims-for-astrology-cd-15460.html.

Surprising that the MP did not attempt to disguise his expense claim...He must have known that this one was coming (well, if the software worked).

David Maddox: Revealing - Full details of MPs expenses published below

Gerri Peev: Is Cameron on the mummy?

David Cameron's response to Julie Kirkbride's resignation is interesting. He seems to be trying to push the mummy buttons by agreeing that he hoped more women would not be put off entering parliament by the expenses scandal.

"It is also extremely important that part of that reform should include better ways of enabling women to combine the roles of politician and mother."

This could spectacularly backfire, not least because the majority of parents, let alone working mothers, do not ask their employers to subsidise their childcare arrangements.

If anyone can afford a nanny or an extension to house their au pair, it should be an MP who has claimed £170,000 in living expenses over the last four years.

Margaret Moran, the Luton MP who was forced to quit over her home flipping and her claims for dry rot treatment on her partner's house, which is 100 miles away from her constituency, also tried to pull the female martyr card.

She said she had to work hard and needed to spend time with her partner. Welcome to the real world. Most people struggle to juggle. Perhaps her partner could have shown some support by moving to London or her constituency.

There was talk at Westminster some time ago of installing a creche at the site of the underground shooting range that still exists beneath the Sport's and Social Bar. It was vetoed.

With talk of MPs being "suicidal" over the expenses furore, we can now understand why.

David Maddox: Why are the Nationalists so keen to defend the Speaker?

Tomorrow (Monday) is a defining day for the future of the embattled Speaker Michael Martin (pictured right) as he makes as statement on expenses to MPs and faces his growing number of critics.

But one corner where he does have some friends appears to be among his historic die hard opponents in the SNP

This blog has noted before how SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson gave his backing to the Speaker Martin at another time of beleaguerment.

And this week his colleague Glasgow East hero John Mason (pictured below left) has been saying the same thing as the same thing on Good Morning Scotland and on the Politics Show today.

It is surprising considering that there is little love lost between Scottish Labour (especially of its West of Scotland variety) and the Nationalists. It is not even as though Mr Mason, unlike Mr Robertson, has had his snout in the trough.

Both Mason and Robertson at different times have pointed to the snobbery against the working class Glaswegian Speaker, but also paid tribute to his fairness.

"He always calls me to speak when I want to," said Mr Mason today, echoing the words of his Westminster leader a few months ago.

But interestingly of the Scottish contingent only the Lib Dems have taken a pop. the sole Scottish Conservative David Mundell has also supported Speaker Martin.

All of which gives the impression that possibly there is concern within the Scottish ranks cross parties that their opportunities may be more limited if he is replaced by a new Speaker from south of the border.

Tom Peterkin on MPs' expenses

Re David Maddox's latest Foulkes sake posting, I was interested to see Lord Foulkes attempt to defend the indefensible. I suppose he, at least, is one of the few prepared to put his head above the parapet and talk about the scandal.
When writing about MPs' expenses for last Sunday's paper, getting politicians to speak on the record about their allowances was a tricky task.
Normally, politicians are desperate to see their names in print pontificating on anything at all - no matter their ignorance or otherwise on the topic.
Perhaps it should not be surprising that getting politicians from any of the major parties to condemn the abuse of expenses proved difficult. After all, it is the one issue that unites them all.
The deafening silence merely reinforces the impression that they've all been "at it".
To me, it is the detail of this story that makes it so fascinating and infuriating. Claims for chandeliers, swimming pools, gardening, tennis courts, groceries, not to mention their second homes - just incredible.
Despite David Cameron's attempt to take the initiative and Gordon Brown following suit - one still wonders whether some MPs "get it"?
By that I mean whether they "get" just how annoyed the public are about the extent to which they've abused the system at our - the taxpayers'- expense.
I know that Foulkes is no longer an MP, but the defence offered by this Labour MSP and peer would appear to indicate to that the political classes have still some way to go before they "get it".

Gerri Peev: One in three MPs on the fiddle?

THANK God for Ken Clarke. The Tory High Command had been reminding hacks to get up early to watch the Shadow Business Secretary on the Andrew Marr Show today. This triggered suspicion that this time he would be disappointingly gaffe-free and on-message. Especially after his last appearance during which his words on inheritance tax cuts (that it was an "aspiration" not a pledge) triggered coronaries at Conservative HQ and in the grassroots membership.
This time, though, after a bland start, he came out with this gem on MPs and their expenses:
“We have an exaggerated public view that they are all thieves, they are all rogues, they are all lining their own pockets.
“Two thirds of them, I am quite sure, are doing nothing improper at all," he said, before hastily adding "At least two thirds I hope".
Is Mr Clarke saying up to one in three MPs is a crook?

David Maddox: Sandi Thom and the First Minister

Anybody who thought that Alex Salmond's recent performance of Caledonia with the SNP supporting pop star was cringeworthy or was outraged by the £10,000 expenses she got from his Scottish Government should read this "scrapbuke,"which some wag has constructed out of the weekend's furore.

If you are a fan of either Mr Salmond or Sandi Thom (right) you should definitely not click on to the link, unless you want your blood pressure raised further.

Needless to say the saga of the "Sandi Thom war" and those expenses continues in tomorrow's Scotsman.

Ross Lydall: Mystery remains over ex-Labour MP's expenses

ONE consequence of the Government's wish to exempt MPs' expenses from freedom of information legislation is to further delay the truth surrounding the final claims made by the former Labour MP David Marshall.
Mr Marshall stood down as MP for Glasgow East last June on grounds of ill health, sparking a shock SNP victory in the subsequent by-election. Conspiracy theories quickly emerged that Mr Marshall - and the Labour party - had been facing embarrassment with the imminent disclosure of eye-wateringly large claims, potentially involving Marshall family members, and that this was a factor in his sudden decision to quit.
Mr Marshall certainly had "form" in claiming large amounts. He claimed £363,080 in the three financial years to March 2007, though his claim in 2006/7 was about £6,000 below the Commons average for the year.
As of today, Parliament is yet to publish MPs' expenses for 2007/8. Normally they would have been released in the autumn. The release of these figures will largely depend on what happens next Thursday, when MPs - and peers - vote on Harriet Harman's proposals to free parliamentarians from the obligation to make public their receipts.
In the interim, we remain uninformed about how public money was used by public servants, and sleights against Mr Marshall cannot be proved or disproved. Justice delayed is justice denied, as campaigners often say.
Time will tell whether justice has been denied to Mr Marshall - or to his former Glasgow constituents, who remain in the dark about whether they were taken for a ride.