Julie Kirkbride - No, No, NO!

It is often claimed that in some constituencies a pig could get elected if it wears the right coloured rosette. From the news today it looks like one MP is so determined to keep her snout in the trough that she wants to put that claim to the test. (ConservativeHome: Julie Kirkbride tells Bromsgrove Conservatives she wishes to be their candidate at the general election)

My response to this is: No, No, NO!

Kirkbride was rightly forced to announce her retirement back in the summer and the only thing that has changed since then is that she's dropped out of the headlines for a while. But that does not mean it is right that she can try and just retract her announcement and hope to sneak back into Parliament as though everything is now all right.

We don't yet know for sure what her association will say but nigel hastilow: It works for Julie makes the interesting point:

Still, I don't suppose for one minute all this local support has anything to do with the fact that the association's chairman's wife and his daughter both work for her.

Grassroots Conservatives nationwide played a role in forcing her original announcement and can do so again. Whether it is persuading the local association to stick her application in the cess pit where it belongs or getting the national party to exercise its powers and Howard Flight her, it can be done and it must be done. She is completely unacceptable as a candidate.

King Herod's Nursery

I've generally sought to avoid commenting on the issues surrounding MPs and their expenses as I believe the issue is in danger of being over sensationalised and some of the details need to be exposed. But the announcement of the Commons committee to look at reform is really quite astounding. Only one of the six has not been embroiled in one scandal or another. (Daily Mail: Commons Speaker accused of fix as 'dodgy' MPs are put in charge of sleaze reform) This is like putting King Herod in charge of a nursery!

Michael Martin has come under heavy fire lately with many blaming him as the mian obstacle to full disclosure about MPs' financial arrangements. He is also known to be vindictive hence no MP is willing to speak out against him or make moves to depose him. Surely it's time he was replaced?

And if MPs won't do it, then why not see if the voters will try? There is a sometimes recognised convention that the major parties do not contest the Speaker's seat, although Labour have rarely observed it (and the Scottish National Party don't). But if the Speaker is no longer providing the best service, perhaps it's time to abandon this convention and challenge Martin in his own seat at the next election. Or what about an independent, pro reform candidate?

Are the Lib Dems facing their final point?

You've got to hand it to the Liberal Democrats. Despite over a year of being allegedly led by Ming the Meaningless it seems that their eventual destruction is rooted in the Kennedy era. Charles Kennedy himself has not exactly been totally denying the possibility of a return to the leadership, but given the circumstances one has to wonder whether he has the judgement to lead a party, let alone present himself to the public pretending to be a potential Prime Minister.

Kerron Cross has details of how the Lib Dems are facing the disaster of not only having to repay a £2.4 million donation from Majorca based businessman Michael Brown (who famously declared that the party were "Muppets" for getting rid of Charles Kennedy) but also have to pay another £2.4 million fine. (KERRON CROSS - The Voice of The Delectable Left: Lib Dems To Go Bankrupt Due To Dodgy Donations? See also Scotsman.com News: Lib Dems face ruin over £4m 'fine') With the party already £1 million in the red it does not have an easy £4.8 million to spare. Individual members could end up having to pay between £50 and £60 each.

In a way this is good news for Ming Campbell though. As well as helping to further discredit the possibility of a Kennedy comeback, it also makes yet another leadership election financially undesirable for the Lib Dems. So his gain is the party's loss. But the party remains in a mess and no court is going to fall for a Lib Dem bar chart "proving" they can't pay.

Once again the Lib Dems' sums don't add up. Kerron says it best:

...it would be rather amusing that the Lib Dems would now be both economically and morally bankrupt.

Well it couldn't happen to a nicer party...

Indeed.

Is this what the loans were needed for?

The official spending figures for the election campaign reveal that the Labour Party spent £275 a day on Cherie Blair's hair, coming to a total of £7,700. So is the culture of extravagance that generates spending like this one of the reasons why the Labour Party needed to borrow so much money?

Here's some advice for the Blairs in future: Use an ordinary hairdresser. At the same time as getting a good service for a much more reasonable rate, they might actually come in contact with ordinary people and understand how government policy is operating on the ground.

Still the Blairs could have been even more extravagant. Tony could have nominated his wife for a peerage. But no self-respecting political leader would ever do that would they?