Gordon Brown has said he is "very disappointed" that MPs voted against plans to curb their "second home" expenses. His remarks have surprised some Labour MPs, who say there was an unofficial Brown whipping operation to oppose the proposed shake-up. "We have two whips offices - the Government one headed by Geoff Hoon [chief whip] and the Brown whips office led by Nick Brown [deputy chief whip and a close ally of the PM]," my Labour mole tells me. "The same thing happened on 42-days detention. The Brown whips office even held their own party after the vote to celebrate the narrow victory."
Why did the PM allow his acolytes to alienate the public by voting against the reform plans? The word is that Nick Brown advised him he was set to lose the votes on MPs' pay (despite demanding restraint) as well as expenses. He judged that pay was more important because it would be harder to keep the lid on public sector rises if MPs had accepted an inflation-plus increase. But the only way to win that vote was to do a deal under which MPs kept their "second homes" allowances and their payments for furniture and fittings from the "John Lewis list."
The double-whipping operation could also explain why 33 ministers voted against the expenses shake-up. Perhaps Brown is not as disappointed as he makes out.
UPDATE: Downing Street, which monitors this blog closely, has just rung to categorically assure me that Brown did not endorse any unofficial whipping operation and was genuinely upset by the MPs' decision on expenses. "Disappointment is an understatement", his official spokesman insisted.
It seems bizarre that if Brown is genuinely disappointed, then why did he at least not order his ministers to vote AGAINST the proposals? 33 ministers is an awfully large amount, and there are some fairly big hitters in there too - Jacqui Smith and Andy Burnham.
The whole thing seems to be a bit of a mess, I almost wonder if Brown actually knew what his own whips were doing.
Posted by: Labourboy | Saturday, 05 July 2008 at 03:17 PM