Hazel Blears has suggested that Labour MP’s should “get a grip” in relation to gossip about those seeking to take on the top job when Gordon Brown steps down. Like that is going to happy any time soon!

However, in my view it is Gordon Brown that must get a grip, of MP’s expenses. At a time when everyone is tightening their belts to ride the storm that for the most part has been created by this government, its policies and Gordon Brown’s mis-management, many MP’s are filling their pockets with tax free expenses. These expenses are funded by the hard pressed taxpayers of this country. I am not suggesting that MP’s are not following the letter of the rules, but they are quite clearly not following the spirit and that in my view this is an abuse. To make matters worse, people right at the centre of government are also abusing a set of rules that were introduced to assist MP’s in their out of pocket expenses, not enrich their lifestyles.

Take Jacqui Smith for example. She claims that the decision to call her sisters home her main residence is within the current interpretation of the rules and that may even be the case. But this woman is the Home Secretary, surely someone that sits at the top of the food chain in terms of law and order should act strictly within the rules, not simply in the spirit of them? She, with her fellow cabinet ministers, must set good examples, not simply sit with their noses in the trough. Members of Parliament are in the unique and privileged position of bring able to claim expenses quite freely that those in the private sector could only dream of.

It is estimated that Ms Smith has been able to claim as much as £116,000 tax free as a result of this interpretation of the rules. If an ordinary member of the public were to be asked how they would determine someone’s principle place of residence, they are likely to state that it would be where the rest of their family reside, where the kids go to school, where all the household accounts are held, where your banks and credit card statements go to etc. So why is it, that MP’s are given so much latitude? Simply this, that instead of MP’s expenses being a method of reimbursing out of pocket expenses, it has become a ‘perk’ of the job and that is completely and utterly unacceptable. The Jacqui Smith debacle follows, of course, directly on the heels of the uproar over Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper’s interpretation of the rules that allowed them to elect which property was their primary residence (subsequently upheld by the watchdog). The bottom line is MP’s cannot and should not be trusted to vote on and determine their own allowances or expenses.

MP’s expenses must be further simplified, instead of a second home allowance, they should be provided with a ‘fixed’ overnight allowance. That is to say, if they elect to stay in a hotel then the maximum allowance is, for example, £120 with a receipt, if they stay ‘with a friend’ etc., then this would be reduced to £50 per night, for which no receipt would be required. All other second-home allowances must cease, they are an unnecessary expense. In terms of travel expenses, MP’s should follow similar rules to most private companies, flights under 4 hours, they must travel economy class, using the cheapest possible airline. Another very generous allowance is vehicle mileage, instead of MP’s maximising the benefits of this perk, the reimbursement should be limited to what the cost of a standard fare train ticket would cost for the same journey. In other words, if it costs £100 for a return ticket from Nottingham to London and the mileage allowance for using a car pays £260, the MP can only claim £100.

Unless or until members of parliament start to live and operate to the same standards that everyone else does, the public will continue to view  them with mistrust and scepticism. That is not in the interest of our democracy, nor is it in the longer term interests of our MP’s. Gordon Brown needs to stop protecting his cabinet colleagues and instead, start to ensure that they operate to the same rules and standard as ordinary members of the public. Because, in my view at least, there is little difference between failed bankers of publicly owned banks paying themselves bonuses out of public coffers and MP’s who have failed to protect the interests of the electorate claiming massive expense allowances, especially.  In all of these cases, the final bill is paid for by hard-pressed taxpayers. Gordon Brown needs to understand, that at a time, for example, when he is going to fail to meet his reduction in child poverty targets, his MP’s are filling their own pockets with the same money. How does he expect the general public to view such duplicity?

At prime minister’s question time, Gordon Brown told MPs: “We should agree as a world on a monetary and fiscal stimulus that will take the world out of r…, depression.” David Cameron did not immediately pick up on the use of this word, but when challenged later by George Osborne, the PM’s spokesperson said that it was a slip of the tongue.

Perhaps so, but it must have been on his mind, otherwise he would not have used such emotive terminology. Particularly given he had just finished lecturing Cameron on talking the economy down. It is however, precisely this sort of ’slip’ that must give the people of this country cause for concern over Brown’s capacity and ability to see us through this downturn coming, as it does, hot on the heels of his ’saving the world’ comment. When Gordon Brown makes errors like this, I cannot help but be reminded of Vince Cable’s comments referring to Brown as “Mr Bean”. Gordon Brown seems to go from one crisis to another in the spectre of a battering ram, rather than a well practiced, experienced politician. In my opinion, even his outbursts at PMQ’s are reminiscent of a spoilt child having a temper tantrum.

Little wonder then, that Gordon Brown has had problems, by his own admission, in getting Obama and the Indian Prime Minister to take his calls. Could this be because they are sick and tired of him lecturing them on economic fixes, when Gordon Brown and Labour Party policies have actually lead to the UK being in the worst position of any developed country to recover from this recession? From an outside observers perspective, I see Gordon Brown as a man of conviction, however, this appears to be offset by a man incapable of humilty, one that is unwilling to answer direct questions and a man who looks as if he will explode if anyone challenges him, so long as there are no members of the public or cameras present. Little wonder then that he appears to have surrounded himself with weak, self-obsessed people. Classic signs of a schoolyard bully.

In my view, Gordon Brown has few, if any redeeming features. I have never considered him to be a good chancellor, even when most of the newspapers, desperate for a scoop, kept pandering to him and what were the New Labour spin doctors. I also thought he would make an appalling prime minister, but in that respect, he has outdone himself, because I cannot find any adjective that could accurately describe his term…other than, perhaps, Mr Bean without the comedy. Time to go Gordon, do us all a favour!

In the meantime, David Cameron should prepare for office. By that I do not mean he must send all his friends details of his new address, I mean he needs to get some quality, experienced, heavyweight people behind him, ‘real’ people, not toffs or Oxbridge cast-off’s. Otherwise he will never shrug off the label ‘lightweight’ nor will he ever convince the people of this country that he knows what he is talking about. As I have said before, I believe that New Labour will lose the election, it will not be Cameron winning it, therefore, once in office Cameron must ensure that his key advisers and the people around him are ‘real’ people, because otherwise a man who has not experienced a recession, belt-tightening or poverty will find that whilst he may hold the office, he cannot claim to lead the people.

Which means that Cameron will just end up talking at us and continuing to use new phraseology that only he and his Conservative cronies fully understand.  Cameron has a real prospect of becoming PM, but I so hope he has the ability to understand that people will be voting New Labour out, his chance will come as a consequence of Labour’s failure, not his engaging personality, depth, sincerity or policies. It doesn’t really matter how he gets in, so long as Cameron listens, surrounds himself with people that will engage and challenge him, rather than blindly follow him. It is a strong leader, not a weak one, that is confident enough to surround himself with strong people and that is the BEST way to get rid of the lightweight tag.