Ooh, Shouldn't be Allowed

To the House of Commons to observe the Members' Allowances debate. Gordon Brown had initiated this event following his excrutiating venture into Youtubeland last week. If all things were equal, he would have been in the chamber himself. Yet, after the previous day's defeat over the Gurkhas right to settle in the UK, he must have thought, only more misery would coalesce around his presence.

So Harriet Harman opened, supported by her keen deputy Chris 'Underpants' Bryant. Opposing was the twinkle-toed and self-satisfied Alan 'Ewing' Duncan (left). Alan fancies himself as a bit of a gag-meister and impressionist and regularly makes a damn fool of himself on HIGNFY. (On last week's show, he said he would like to kill a particular homophobic campaigner - only he forgot to make a joke about it and Paul Merton just eyed him tensely). In the debate, Duncan looked under instruction to adopt a more dignified approach and so left his 1970s jokebook at home.

HH tried unsuccessfully to 'make progress' under a welter of interventions. The Government had set out a series of resolutions but before they could be debated effectively the House had to consider the amendment put down by the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is certainly very rare for an entire Committee to lay an amendment, but these are strange times. Essentially it said, ' it is this committee's role to continue its review into allowances: let us finish the job.'

Hattie then said, she was "minded to accept the amendment." In other words, complete capitulation. Brown's assertion, only eight day's before, there would be a flat rate attendance allowance, was stone dead.

But then a pall of confusion descended on the Opposition benches. Surely it meant all the resolutions and votes on receipts and staffing et al, were not needed now? Speaker Martin said no, even if it were inconsistent, the resolutions would stand for a vote. Duncan said gravely that, "we are entering the realm of lunacy...this is now a feverish shambles."

Brown's revised tactic was to be able to say at the end of the day's business, 'we have voted to make big changes'. So it went on. Most resolutions were quite straightforward; all receipts being recorded is unanswerable and could not cut across the Standards and Privileges Committee inquiry. But there were other more complex and strategic questions, such as whether all MPs' staff should be employed centrally by a new Commons HR Department. The issue involved about 2,500 staff, presumably their future administration would require determining common policies on pay, pensions, grading, terms and conditions. So much for the objective of saving money. They would also be expected to be 'politically neutral' like the Civil Service. No-one explained why.

Backbencher Meg Munn asked, so politely, what discussions had taken place with lawyers on the status of current contracts and the employees' rights. Lawyers, I am sure, would insist staff were at least consulted on the changes. Clearly that had not happened either.

The bearded David Heath, staked out the Lib-Dems objections. Heath, resembling a slightly batey gamesmaster, pointed out there was one matter which the whole house agreed needed reforming immediately - curtailing Ministers' ability to claim second home allowances when they were already provided with 'grace and favour' homes. Yet that point was not to be voted on; Brown decided the Ministerial Code should be amended accordingly - meaning the scope of the change remained in the PM's power.

Brown just couldn't get anything right. At present the PM is acting like a inebriated passenger, shouting directions at the driver as they hurtle unerringly into the darkness.