There is no doubt that out of this expenses scandal, Cameron has sold himself extremely well as the 'Messiah of redemption' and architect of major change. He is clearly a bright guy and has packaged together a lot of revolutionary-sounding ideas which really are a mish-mash of stuff floated often before. But anything more than opportunist sound-bites? I doubt it.

I feel I should like Hari's writing more than I do. I'm too often left a little cold by what I read and this is no exception.

"If you bother to read Cameron's statements, it's clear..." why? Because Johann said so?

He fails to mention that Labour also looked into scrapping the EMA.

Tony Blair likewise was not convinced by the effectiveness of Sure Start centres, but to Hari it seems that the success and failure of 'redistributive programmes' is a zero-sum game, so it's not a 'failure' unless it is total failure.

If Sure Start can be shown to have a few positive outcomes (and I accept that it is more than that) then the whole programme should be above reproach. The idea of value for money seems absent from the critique.

In a section of the article here Hari also raises the 'Cameron's worth £30m' line, even though the guy himself has said that's not the case. The guy's wealth has no bearing on his ability to be PM, but effectively this article perpetuates an untruth, which is, unfortunately, symtomatic of the intellectual dishonesty that Hari seems to rail against.

I seem to recall Noam Chomsky talking of Hari reverting to "idiotic fabrications" some years ago. It's a shame to me that someone with such a fine intellect continues to feel the need to do so, so often.

Adrian: you say that a person's wealth has no bearing on their ability to be PM - I beg to differ, but then I would I suppose, being an unrepentant old leftie.

Yes there are a few odd souls among the independently wealthy who may do alright by ordinary working people when in office and there are a fair few of politicians of humble origin who have sold their souls for a bag of silver (or a maxed-out expenses claim). But there are far too many toffs and ex-public schoolboys & girls at the head of all three main parties for them to have any real sense of what life is like for the working classes.

Let's hope that there will be a few deselections in the Labour Party over the coming months so that we have a chance of at least one bench in parliament looking a little more like those that elected them.

Yes but that’s just wrong and frankly stupid , the reform that we do not need is PR which dis-empowers voters and empowers politicians. No-one wants it
Ian McNee is right the Labour Party do not look remotely like their voters but then Parliament does not look like the country. I am not talking about the colour you happen to be but who you are.
Where are the estate agents, builders Computer Programmers , the ordinary people . The Labour Representation Committee was a heroic organisation in its day a day in which over 90% of the working population was unionised and considered itself to be working class London Clerks habitually voted Labour as you will see in HG Wells ‘ characters , there great grandsons hardly recognise New Labour as from the same planet.
23% of the working population is now in a Union and that is almost entirely Public Sector , they are retransmitted , the rest of us arte exploited and pay for their pay rises at twice our rate and above al their pensions .

Its easy to be cynical but reconnecting Parliament with the country seems to me to be a pressing concern amd open Primaries are a bold move ( That I doubt will be followed up….sigh)

Hi Ian,

I guess one's social & educational background would impact their empathy towards the working class, but I don't think that it would uniquely make them a 'better' or 'worse' PM.

I try to imagine the decisions that pass across the desk of the Government of the day and there must be issues that would be beyond the wisdom of Solomon. As long as the people 'in control' are smart, patriotic & have integrity I honestly couldn't care less what their background was.

Having said that:

You allude to the moral vacuum that exists within Parliament and I agree whole-heartedly. Both parties are so firmly entrenched in the centre ground that it is virtually impossible for conviction politicians of any persuasion to get a look-in, which is a crying shame.

Now is probably as ripe a time as any we will get for a wholesale renewal of our democracy without a popular uprising! Whether in itself good, bad or indifferent the Telegraph's expense series has re-ignited mass interest in the political process. A written constitution, (a new) Bill of Rights, PR, Europe, even Republicanism to name but a few could all be laid before the people.

Self-evidently this wouldn't be a short process, but with the Mother of Parliaments needing a retirement home, and Lady Justice apparently on extended holiday, at least we could end up with a political system that was a product of the will of the people.

Allowing a continuation of this emaciated excuse for a legislature would be a crime on a par with the scandal of the last couple of weeks.

NM: Open Primaries - yes, absolutely :)

Good. Johann Hari is a worm, a vile little left-wing shill. If he doesn't like David Cameron, then it must be because Cameron is doing an excellent job!

My commiserations about coming third, by the way. Mssrs Piper and Hari must have been blubbling into their lentils. 15%, good God...