David Aaronovitch's fury that erupted in The Times on Tuesday was doubly distressing. First, it was just riddled with factual errors some of which I tried to deal with in the letter which The Times published yesterday.

But, secondly, it was also unfair as well as being so inaccurate. Balanced Migration is not a front for me as Aaronovitch claims. Our genesis is as follows.

I had noticed in our debates in the Commons that Nicholas Soames was the brave lone spirit raising questions about the impact of the rate and scale of immigration on British society. He was initially heavily criticised by Ministers replying to those debates.

As I sympathised with Nicholas' position I joined in these debates so that he was not a lone figure trying to bring into the House of Commons the views of the vast majority of voters.

It was directly as a result of these initial debates that the idea of a cross-party group on Balanced Migration was conceived.

Nicholas was the initiator of this move. I was simply somebody who wished to support him.

Since then we have both tried to offer leadership for our campaign and no decision is made and no communication released without both of us agreeing to it, irrespective of which side of our partnership suggests the initiative.

When the history of this time is written up and historians try to understand why a desperately out of touch elite tried to impose their views on the vast majority of the community and who was first in the parliamentary arena to challenge this dangerous nonsense the name of Nicholas Soames will stand tall.

Open Primaries will change how voters view general elections. My guess is that open primaries will only operate in safe seats.

In the couple of hundred seats that will very rarely change hands voters will want a direct say in selecting the candidate who will carry the colours of the certain winner.

The practice I guess will be different in marginal seats. Here closed primaries will operate with only party members choosing the candidate. The electorate then will decide which of the party candidates they prefer in a general election.

But in safe seats the voters will know the real contest will be in the primary. They will push to select a candidate nearest to their views.

This will not only make controlling MPs in Parliament more difficult - people will have direct mandates for their particular views from their own constituents - but I guess that once open primaries are established in safe seats, the voters' interest in general elections will largely collapse.

We will therefore have as we did in the middle of the nineteenth century a very large number of seats being uncontested at the general election.

Shouldn't the money for open primaries therefore to come from the same source as general election funding? If the cost of general elections fall as a result of open primaries, what would be wrong in transferring those 'unspent sums' to financing open primaries?

When Labour came to power in 1997 we were fixated with the idea of spending to save, i.e. spend now to save lots of money later.

Shouldn't such a similar campaign begin in spending some of the general election money up front in order to safeguard democracy?

Click here for more information

Soon after I joined the Child Poverty Action Group in 1969 I began preparing our pre-budget report. When completed it went under the title The Poor Get Poorer Under Labour.

The Wilson Government took very little notice of us deriding our claims by asserting that nobody in the country would believe our findings

In the run up to the 1970 election Peter Townsend, CPAG's chair and I lobbied Iain McCleod the Shadow Chancellor to respond to our Poor Get Poorer Under Labour McCleod pledged to increase family allowances.

McCleod died weeks after the Heath Government was formed and his successor, Tony Barber, ratted and introduced what was then called the Family Income Supplement. Later it was named Family Credit and now it flies under the flag of Tax Credits.

How was CPAG to lobby a government that had ratted on one of its main election pledges? Access to a Prime Minister is always very limited.

One task I did every day at CPAG was to read the court page of the Times. Information was much fuller then and would give me not only the billing of official dinners, but also the guest list.

Access to Number 10 might have been very limited for CPAG. But who were the friends that Heath liked to have around him at official gatherings.

I noticed how two names regularly occurred. One was Dame Peggy Shepherd and the other was Diana Elles. Diana was the first person I contacted.

She proved herself to be not only wonderfully professional but a committed social reformer. Our link with Number 10 was made, but also to other Ministers as well.

I well remember in those early days asking Diana to come with me when I went to see Sir Keith Joseph. During the meeting he disputed one aspect of CPAG's work.

Diana intervened. If he doubted what the CPAG said he should stop the meeting now to go with her and visit area where she was a voluntary worker.

The Department for Health and Social Security as it was then named had headquarters in Elephant and Castle, and Diana waved her hand to the window described where she would take Sir Keith.

He was obviously just testing our argument and he immediately changed tack. But it was telling of Diana that she was not only at that meeting, but that she was prepared to challenge her Secretary of State in front of CPAG.

I never lost touch with Diana. She continued the work that Eleanor Rathbone had begun to equalise the distribution of income within families. Her high intelligence, brave heart and noble spirit marked her out from many of her contemporaries.

Diana's obituary was published in The Times on Friday.

A new group, Open Up, is calling for all MPs to submit themselves to an open primary before the next election. This is the one move, the campaign claims, that would do more than any other to purge the political system of the expenses scandal.

All campaigns overplay their hand. Open Up is no exception.

A renewal of our political system will take more than open primaries. But the campaign's message is a thoroughly good one and would begin the long process of reform.

How can it be taken forward? Take my own case. I have long campaigned for open primaries, especially in safe seats.

When I first mentioned this idea to colleagues a Parliament ago I was accused of simply wanting to draw attention to myself. "You know you will win so what's your point?", was the common retort.

I would now like an open primary in Birkenhead more than ever. I have been accused, with polite language, over my expenses.

I have replied to Sir Thomas Legg about the cost of my second home.

I await his reply but I still feel unclean. His letter bangs around in my head incessantly. This is the basis of my renewed interest in an open primary.

Such a move would allow my constituents to pass a specific judgement on the question of my expenses, but also my record as their MP. They would have a choice between me and other candidates wishing to stand in a safe seat.

This is not a choice that my constituents get in a general election. Whenever that occurs they also have to consider how their vote will affect the formation of a government and who will be Prime Minster.

So, over to you, Open Up. If I can persuade my local party to back me, will you come and organise the contest?

The Totnes open primary cost £40k. Does your campaigning extend to raising the money to put your idea into practice?

For you not to respond positively would be a lost opportunity to expand the means by which democracy is renewed in our country.

Failure to respond positively would also label Open Up as part of the campaign that is much enjoying denigrating MPs but which is not coming up with anything positive.

As MPs we have much to answer. But there is a huge danger in this expenses campaign. It is doing much to boost newspaper sales, but it has yet to begin influencing the renewal of our form of representative and responsible government.

How fair is my comparison of Sir Thomas Legg's imposition of a retrospective 5 year claw back on MPs' housing claims with a similar retrospective decision to change the speed limit?

I have likened Sir Thomas Legg's application of the rule on expenses to the scenario of a motorist who drives at 25 miles per hour in a 30 mph limit zone then five years later, once the speed limit has been changed to 20 mph, discovers he has been fined for speeding following a decision to back-date the claim.

Emails have pointed out that I'm wrong to use this analogy. The speed limit should not have been 30 mph in the first place. It should have been 20 mph all along. Yes, that is presumably why the Highways Agency has taken the decision to reduce the speed limit. But should the change be introduced retrospectively and fines imposed?

I have never made an ACA claim which I thought was unfair to the taxpayer. I would be ashamed if I had. Indeed only by assuming that I was intellectually inadequate could one take the view that I was using my housekeeping bills as a means of boosting my personal income. The total of all of my claims over the past five years have ranged from 50 per cent of eligible sums to 30 per cent last year.

The main point that I was attempting to make in my column for the Liverpool Echo was that Sir Thomas has arbitrarily imposed a cap on only cleaning and gardening expenses. At no stage has he explained this, nor why he has restricted his cap to only gardening or cleaning costs.

If his precedent had been followed consistently Sir Thomas would have applied his retrospective rules to all the main headings allowed in my claims. He has not done so.

Robert Verkaik in today's Independent goes further. He argues that Sir Thomas Legg's decision is not akin to retrospective changes to the criminal law, but to the changing of tax loopholes or windfall charges on corporations who have benefited from unintended legislative consequences.

The charges arising from the closing of tax loopholes, however, are never retrospectively imposed.

But if Robert Verkaik's argument is to hold, and there is much attraction to it, shouldn't the new retrospective rules be applied consistently across all main headings of expenditure?

From honourable member to rogue.  That, thanks to retrospective and unprecedented changes Sir Thomas Legg has made to the rules on MPs' expenses, is how I feel. 

You may remember that last year I was part of the small band of MPs who voted to make details of our expenses public. It was a mystery to me why the then Speaker and his allies opposed being open to taxpayers. They were later defeated in the courts. 

As soon as the details of our expenses were given to MPs I put mine on my website.  The Daily Telegraph who bought all of this information published a ‘rogues and saints' gallery.  Having considered the evidence, they placed me in the latter category. 

For the last five years, I claimed, for my home in Birkenhead: £11,250; £12,006; £11,509; £9,573 and, for the year ending April 2009 my claim was £7,303, 30% of the total allowance. I did not claim anything approaching the maximum annual £24k simply because I did not need to claim such an amount. 

However, late on Monday I received along with other MPs a letter from Sir Thomas Legg. He recommends I repay just over £7,000: £1,000 housekeeping costs for each year; £1,800 of other household bills, and £230 which I should have claimed from other allowances. 

Sir Thomas correctly points out that over the five year period I claimed twice for three bills amounting to £117.  The bills shouldn't have been presented twice nor paid. I regret this and have paid the money back. 

My concern is that nowhere has Sir Thomas explained why he has changed the rules which have resulted in his recalculations.  No matter what the cost of maintaining a second home in my constituency has been, a £3k cut-off point was retrospectively imposed. 

Imagine that you have been driving, perfectly legally, through a 30 mile an hour zone at a speed of 25 mph. Imagine then your reaction when, five years later, you receive multiple fines as a decision has been taken to change, retrospectively, the speed limit to 20. 

Sir Thomas has also suggested that other household bills were wrongly claimed telling me that the Fees Office had told me such claims were invalid.  Sir Thomas is simply wrong. There is nothing in the file to support his assertion. He has misread a letter between Officials dated after this period relating to another issue. The actual file shows that at no point were objections raised to my claims. 

Last week I replied to Sir Thomas. I was dazed that, as someone who has always been open about my expenses, his arbitrary decision should link me with the abuses known all too well to voters. I have requested that he withdraws his suggestion, but I am not holding my breath. 

I share the electorate's anger with how some have played the system. But the Legg Review does not seem to have taken on the abuses. What he has achieved is simply to move around some of the characters in the honourable members and villains galleries.  

• Frank would very much like to read your feedback on today's article.  If you would like to respond, please click here to visit our feedback form. 
  

Smoking tobacco can kill. There is no question about that. What the House of Commons has to decide today is what further steps it will take to prevent people from smoking which will kill some of them.

Up until this point the Government's campaign has been to prevent people from smoking in public places. I have supported these moves, with some reservation.

Most people do not now smoke, and I guess the majority of us now do not like being in public places where other people are smoking. The ban was well judged and I cannot recall a single prosecution for breaking the new prohibition.

This restriction has meant, however, a severe curtailment of the freedom of smokers. They have to smoke outside the doorways of cinemas, pubs and places of work.

The House of Commons today has the opportunity to ratchet up the restrictions against smoking. Today we could cross a threshold.

From early days minors have not been allowed legally to purchase tobacco. But most of the Government's anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent people smoking in places where it can either damage the workforce - bar workers in pubs or colleagues in shops and offices - or where it is unpleasant for the general public.

MPs are now being asked to ban any signs that tobacco is sold at newsagents and other outlets. Retailers will be able to stock supplies of tobacco but will not be able to have any of these stocks on display.

I shall be voting against these further restrictions on the grounds that the ban will prove pretty futile. I cannot believe that selling tobacco from under the counter is going to prevent anyone from acquiring a smoking habit. Indeed it might increase its attractiveness.

My vote against these proposals is based on different grounds. I think we have reached the end of the line in a free society in trying to curtail the smoking habits of our fellow citizens of which we do not approve.

I am not against using sanctions, but I do believe they should be proportionate and above all they should be effective. I do not believe these rules will lessen the numbers of people smoking.

I also believe they are now disproportionate in respect to the various mortality values. When one looks at death rates we see a growing number of people dying from heart disease and its consequences, and yet we take very little action to prevent people stuffing themselves with poly-saturated fats or trying to encourage people not to join the mega overweight brigade.

How do we as legislators justify yet more penal actions against smokers, while we are as yet unwilling to take the first simpler action to prevent people dying from excessive obesity?

There is scope for governments to try and modify our behaviour but the limit to this approach has, I believe, now been reached in respect of smoking. Our attention should now be focussed on the other big killer in Western Societies that is linked to overeating.

George Osborne gains marks for being the first front bench politician of either of the two main parties prepared to spell out the details on the cuts which will have to be made to balance the budget in the longer term.  Brave certainly, but not brave enough.

 The Government is spending way beyond the revenue it raises.  It calculates that when the economy has returned to growth a £90bn deficit will remain despite the increases in revenue that growing economic activity will bring. 

The question for British politics is how to eliminate this deficit before the country succumbs to the next recession.  

Putting the question like this shows how modest George Osborne's contribution is.  By far and away the biggest cut is a single year freeze in most public sector pay - £12bn.  

But this is a one off saving.  There won't be a £12bn saving the following year unless the freeze is continued.  

What is required are permanent cuts in expenditure if the deficit is to remain reduced, and on a course to elimination. 

Ita is misleading to report the Osborne package as a £22.5bn savings over a parliament.  For once we need to keep focussed on the early cuts total.  How do the cuts shape up to a permanent £90bn reduction? 

Apart from a year's public sector pay freeze, a further £12bn from cuts was announced.  £1bn of that comes from savings on incapacity benefit which have proved in the past notoriously difficult to achieve.  Even more questionable is the £7bn savings from cuts in the Whitehall bureaucracy.  This Government has been trying to cut the bureaucracy and yet the cost of government continues to rise. 

The only clearly deliverable and sustainable cuts in the whole package amounts to £3.5bn: £1.5bn scrapping of child trust funds for families earning over £16k a year and the £2bn savings in cutting back on the eligibility to tax credits.  The cap on top civil servants' pensions is estimated at a £1bn saving but is calculated over a decade. 

Full credit to George Osborne for starting the debate on the theme ‘we are all in this together', but these spelled out savings are tiny in comparison with what is required. 

The next big cuts speech better take the theme: you haven't seen anything yet. 

Labour last week understandably played down the loss of The Sun's endorsement.  But an understandably laid back response shouldn't hide the seriousness of this loss of support. 

Look at Peter Kellner's piece in the current issue of Progress.  Kellner is vice president of YouGov and has analysed the difference between those voters who previously voted Labour, and who say they won't this time around, and those who have remained faithful. 

Kellner, I believe, misjudges his main conclusion.  He emphasises that most ex-Labour voters have not been attracted to the Opposition, so not all is lost. 

So why aren't these voters putting their X against Labour candidates?  The finding is pretty damning.  78 per cent of the one-time Labour voters say Labour used to care about their concerns while only 14 per cent still believe so.  

This is a more important conclusion I believe than the finding that these ex-Labour voters are not positively being attracted to the Conservatives. Analysts who pushed this line seem to forget that it is the government in power and who makes the news, reminding us of their presence 24 hours a day. 

This is where the loss of The Sun's support is so important.  Of those reading a morning paper over a third are The Sun or The Star readers.  In other words a third of one-time Labour voters will be reading a newspaper that shares their view that the Government doesn't act for people like them. 

By all means let's cheer ourselves up by publicly saying that the loss of The Sun's endorsement doesn't matter that much.  But don't let's be fooled by our own propaganda. 

We have a Herculean job on our hands to win back those one-time Labour voters.  Prattling on that we are the underdogs and that we have got a fight on our hands mustn't hide from us the basic fact that voters want us fundamentally to change if they are to support us.  

And if you still need persuading here is one last point.  Nearly thirty per cent of those who remain loyal to Labour do not believe the Government cares about people like themselves. 

Over to you Gordon Brown.