The Speaker

There are no clear favourites. It could be interesting. Richard Shepherd looks an interesting choice, but Bercow has relative youth on his side. Most likely - Sir George Young, as a bit of stop gap.

But first we have the by-election. I still think Labour "hold" it. I think the SNP are has beens. Glenrothes - I was right.

Yawn yawn yawn - expenses

OK - after a week I am finally bored of this "scandal". Yes, I will grant you, some have pushed the expenses to the limit, and several deserve investigation. But the public have swallowed it as if they are all criminals.

I don't suppose anybody watched Question Time yesterday. It was full of very angry, very ill-informed people. All looking for a reason to vote BNP or UKIP. And glad they have found one,

Of course the need to change it is huge. But how big a problem is it all? If every MP took the maximum £24,000 a year - and they don't - it would still cost less at £16,000,000. However many Gulf Wars could we have funded with that?

Yes, the expenses - a bit of fun, and a few rotten eggs - but can we return to politics? I mean - finance, education, NHS, Sri Lanka, Pakistan...

LD just about getting away with it

So we have the latest on the expenses of MPs. This time it is the shocking details of the Liberal Democrats. Well, there is not a lot of substance there - although Ming has looked a bit profligate.

Yes, there is the fact that there are fewer LD MPs, so fewer stories. And who will have heard of them? But there is also the fact that traditionally LDs are normally “local candidates for local people” - so less likely to milk the system. Of course things may be different with Clegg and Huhne parachuted into seats - others will surely follow.

Joanna Lumley... where art thou?

It is funny that she was top of the bill as regards news yesterday, yet has vanished without trace today.

Today's Telegraph story about expenses seems very tiresome, but the Beeb seems hooked up on this.

Nice to see Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne get plenty of coverage, though. With Vince Cable, the LDs will show they are more than a one-man band; better than having CK as the sole figure (when he could manage it), as in 2005 GE. Christ that was grim!

Pensions

This should be the thorny issue in the Budget. Back in the old days, just after WWII, life expectancy was much shorter than days. This meant very little was paid out in the way of public sector section. Some received none, typically dying while on the job, some a little pension before they died, in their 60s, and a few did pretty well living to a ripe old age. Health, and longevity was certainly not enjoyed as much as today.

Now we live longer, and enjoy healthier lives, we have to work longer. It is simple as that. Still, in the public sector, there are many expecting to retire on full benefits age 60 to 65. There are those who are expecting to retire younger, indeed - police, fire brigade (50 I believe), nurses... I agree that you may not want either of sticking to that job to 109, but they can do something to pick up the bills. You don't have to give at working completely.

Now in the private sector, you hardly ever find a new job with a generous final style ("public sector") pension. While average pay in public and private sector is very similar, the public sector's pension shifts the "package" massively in their favour. In fact, the last 5 years, no employer of mine put a penny towards my pension.

Even those private sector employers who do put in a derisory amount usually, compared who to the public sector, who put in 15-20%, and are increasing that amount to fund ther scheme.

I am afraid eventally the public sector mention will be expected to take a hit, but I am afraid any government will take their time, for fear of the unions.

An alternative would be to run down the health service. People would die younger, and save government money on public sector pensions.

PS: Thanks for all the messages on the blog. There may be periods when it goes fallow for a while. It probably means I'm feeling lousy or found something better to do. It doesn't mean I'm dead!

The Budget

The Budget used to be such an occasion, but there are now few surprises. Well, I'm expecting few.

Darling criticised the LDs for changing financial policy from September, saying they were inconsistent. Well, the world has changed since September... they would have changed the policy if they had NOT changed it. And they have not overhauled? I have lost count of the number of times the Tories since.

I hope Osborne wears a dark suit. He all too often looks as if he is going to wet himself when he hears economic bad news. Doesn't affect the carpet industry, who he springs from, obviously.

Alcohol

I have always been quite partial to booze. From the age of 16, some twenty plus years ago, I would enjoy it. A Friday night would consist of a few pints, a small bottle for the way home... for about a fiver. Don't think I was irresponsible, though.

So there does seems to be a problem with some young people now. Fair enough. Why is the media's response to talk about putting duty on all booze up. What is it that cause the problems among the teenagers? Super-strength cider, cheap lager, alcohops? Or £5 bottles of wine, £2 bottles of bitter?

Don't put duty on booze up. Some of it is expensive enough. And we can always stock up abroad. What I do think is wrong is selling booze as a loss leader. You would not sell fags as a loss leader. And why is cider's duty so much less than beer? Work out what these young people drink, and tackle that.

Funnily enough, all three parties more or less agree. The media don't have a clue.

Little to choose among front benches

It may be that I now find politics boring. And betting. I won't do long term betting, and I am not certain of my own long term future, with this brain tumour. I would hate to land a cracking bet on the next election and not be around.

But... politics is certainly becoming. And so is news. It is always about the recession (and the odd murder). It was not like this in the 1980s or 1990s.

Because the recession is universal, the opposition are not have so much opportunity, it is true. Every country is getting a recession. Vince Cable at least tries to say some things that are constructive; George Osborne is merely trying, very trying. Eighteen months ago the Conservatives looked well placed - full of confidence - but look at them now. Where is Davis? Why can Cameron not appoint him to the Shadow Cabinet? Look at the three main parties front bench... there is little to choose between them compared front-bencher for like.

Now the Alliance or LDs traditionally have had mad or maverick MPs. Russell Johnston, Clement Freud, Cyril Smith, Alex Carlile etc. (There is still Opik, I will grant you). But now most LD MPs are sensible. However, the LDs only have 63 to choose from to get a front bench. It is going to be hard.

The Labour are the largest in parliament. After years in power, they are exhausted. That's their excuse. But with 3 times as many MPs as the LDs, the Tories should have a better front bench than them. They don't.

Heathrow? Or no?

After a month off, I start on some chemotherapy tomorrow. The last lot was a mammoth stretch of six weeks of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, with daily hospital visits. This time it will last just five days, and I don't need to pop into the hospital. That's good; it may make me tired, but I will still have to find ways of amusing myself. So what is going on in the news... ?

The Heathrow expansion seems to be the hornets' next at present. There are, it appears, three schools of thought:-

• There are those, including the Government, who back it. We know where they stand with them.
• There are those oppose it, and oppose every alternative plan. The Greens do this out of conviction, as they want to stop flights. But those who do like progress and the twenty-first century are being disingueous if this is their approach.
• There are those who oppose it, and want to built an alternative. Boris Johnson's idea is that this would be in Kent. It is true that Kent is more conveniently located than Heathrow, but the environmental damage, in terms of wildlife, could be substantial.
  

So what is the political reasoning behind the parties' viewpoints.

• Labour are untroubled by their decision. It is difficult to see how such a decision could cause them to lose Labour seats.
• The Conservatives are desperate to win seats in London, particular south-west London Liberal Democrat seats. But do they realise that the seven Labour seats in Kent that are meant to fall like dominoes to the Tories will be hurt by Boris's plan? The people of Cliffe or Sheppey, two purported sites, would far prefer Heathrow expansion. And so would the RSPB.
• The Liberal Democrats are tussling in south-west London, over the same seats as the Conservatives. I can't see an alternative they have proposed yet - they are sitting on their hands.

At least the Green are clear, although deluded.

Heathrow is far from ideal, but you can't uninvent it. I go with Heathrow.