Last week I caught Roy Hattersley on Newsnight dismissing the possibility of more independents in Parliament as a waste of time because we would finish up with a load of single cause campaigners who could decide nothing. Party politics was what was needed, not celebrities. In similar vein Clare short had a go at Lynn Faulds Wood on Womans Hour. She in effect dismissed Lynn’s possible candidacy to stand for Parliament as naive, by asking whether she was right or left wing? This is all arrogant nonsense from yesterday’s people.
Thinking that only political parties have the answer is misguided. With the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer and the world going to hell in a sieve, I don’t think they do. Why should political dogmas derived from the 19th century, whether from Marx or Adam Smith still be thought to hold the solution to our growing problems. If they do, they seem to be taking a long time about it.
Traditional politicians think that the move to have independent people in the political fight would achieve little. Political parties are no more than structures for organising a list of objectives which individual candidates must adopt when presenting themselves for election. In fact it is from within this idea that the contradiction arises. What or for whom is the voter voting? In practice it will always turn out to be the alleged wish list from which the leadership will draw from when forming a government. It is a convenient way of both organising and funding the bid for power by those who have rallied round the manifesto. Unfortunately the individual within this group is seen as a threat.
Those who might now seek a place in Parliament might think that their judgement will be better than many of the present members. Let’s face it; some of them seem to have no judgement at all as to morals or even political sensitivity. A new intake would have to work hard to adopt worse judgements than those who took us into a war on the incompetent reading of so called intelligence, all in the face of the largest demonstration against government policy in the history of political action in these islands.
Dacier
Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts
Friday, 5 June 2009
Thursday, 28 May 2009
‘I was only doing what the Fees Office told me guv’
‘If at first you don’t succeed, give up’, might have been good advice to an MP who lamely claimed that his or her purchase of some idiotic luxury was within the rules, but now the, ‘try, try again’ bit has kicked in. The latest fashionable defence is that everything was approved by the Fees Office, whether for living quarters for the gardener or childminder relative. It also turns out that the failure to declare financial assistance from the taxpayer for filling in your tax form, as part of your earned income, was all the fault of the Green Book itself, which did not take into account the Inland Revenue’s rules.
Three things strike me about this. Firstly, how can we expect any of these characters to run the country when they or their advisers don’t have the ability to apply rules which already apply to all of us? Secondly, how do they find the time to do all this shopping and property dealing? Probably because they are making a pigs ear of running the country. Thirdly, if I had been advised by an accountant that various dealings were all within the law and it then turns out that I have lost my reputation and job and that I now risk a prosecution with penalty payments for arrears, I would sue the accountant.
So all these aggrieved MPs who have apparently been landed in it by the Fees Office should sue the fees office. They might say that they were only doing what they had been told to do by their employers. You would then have to join them as co-defendants. All you would need to do would be to get the names and addresses of all your other colleagues in the House of Commons and issue proceedings against all of them in person (yourself included) or at their principal residence. Are, I thought there would be a snag....
Three things strike me about this. Firstly, how can we expect any of these characters to run the country when they or their advisers don’t have the ability to apply rules which already apply to all of us? Secondly, how do they find the time to do all this shopping and property dealing? Probably because they are making a pigs ear of running the country. Thirdly, if I had been advised by an accountant that various dealings were all within the law and it then turns out that I have lost my reputation and job and that I now risk a prosecution with penalty payments for arrears, I would sue the accountant.
So all these aggrieved MPs who have apparently been landed in it by the Fees Office should sue the fees office. They might say that they were only doing what they had been told to do by their employers. You would then have to join them as co-defendants. All you would need to do would be to get the names and addresses of all your other colleagues in the House of Commons and issue proceedings against all of them in person (yourself included) or at their principal residence. Are, I thought there would be a snag....
Monday, 18 May 2009
At Last, a Reason for Everybody to Vote!
Suddenly we are living in interesting times. We are now living through a Rump Parliament, but this time it will not be a Cromwell that storms in and shouts, ’for Gods sake go!’ It will be the electorate.
Some might be thinking of abstaining. This is the option for the sulking fence sitter. My attitude to abstainers is that they haven’t thought it through. Granted, some just can’t be bothered. Some might be intellectual or moral cowards. Some might be anarchists and don’t like the fence. This is nothing new. Fence sitters are well known in political history. Indeed Benjamin Franklin had a name for them, ‘Mugwumps’ these are people with their mug on one side of the fence and their wump on the other. It was such people he probably had in mind when he said, ( I am quoting from memory here), ‘Gentlemen, we must all hang together because, if we do not, we almost certainly will hang separately’. This seems apposite in the present constitutional crisis.
When the going is getting tough we do not want apathy. We need more people involved, not less. We don’t want the tough guys to get going because they will exploit our divisions for their own, sometimes extreme, political agendas. So come the General Election, all political parties must get their acts together. May I suggest they address the main problems confronting us and spare us their favourite lunacies.
Environmentalists should stick to issue which would achieve their environmental aims. Promoting legal brothels and funny fags will not concentrate minds. George Orwell showed in his book, ‘1984’ how a population can be kept down by means of alcohol, pornography, and gambling. We need clear thinking, energy and a strong grip on reality if we are to stop this crisis becoming a disaster. Both main parties should give us a break from trying to deregulate, regulate and privatise in varying degrees and serving us a dog’s dinner which no one wants. Might I suggest that they do a few important things well? Achieve something approaching social justice and avoid exploitation and scapegoating of the weak, inadequate and vulnerable. Make serious headway in environmental renovation. Dealing with freeloaders would give encouragement and hope to ordinary hardworking people who feel they get little reward for their decency. I’ll vote for any honest competent candidate who holds such values Any policy outside those values should be dumped and even those within them should be prioritised and only then put in a manifesto.
In seventeen days time we can vote in the European Elections, so vote. Encourage others to vote. Don’t take the Tebbit route and vote for small parties out of spite. Vote for the party who you see as having the right policies. A big thoughtful turnout would be a better shock than the Tebbit treatment for our political classes and more effective than abstaining. None of us want extremists to dominate any more than we want a Cromwellian outcome. A Peasants Revolt at the ballot box is what we need. The message to the politicians at the EU elections should be a fulfilment of Mr Shirky's prediction, ‘Here comes Everybody!’, so look out, we cant wait for the General Election.(See Book Review below)
Dacier
Some might be thinking of abstaining. This is the option for the sulking fence sitter. My attitude to abstainers is that they haven’t thought it through. Granted, some just can’t be bothered. Some might be intellectual or moral cowards. Some might be anarchists and don’t like the fence. This is nothing new. Fence sitters are well known in political history. Indeed Benjamin Franklin had a name for them, ‘Mugwumps’ these are people with their mug on one side of the fence and their wump on the other. It was such people he probably had in mind when he said, ( I am quoting from memory here), ‘Gentlemen, we must all hang together because, if we do not, we almost certainly will hang separately’. This seems apposite in the present constitutional crisis.
When the going is getting tough we do not want apathy. We need more people involved, not less. We don’t want the tough guys to get going because they will exploit our divisions for their own, sometimes extreme, political agendas. So come the General Election, all political parties must get their acts together. May I suggest they address the main problems confronting us and spare us their favourite lunacies.
Environmentalists should stick to issue which would achieve their environmental aims. Promoting legal brothels and funny fags will not concentrate minds. George Orwell showed in his book, ‘1984’ how a population can be kept down by means of alcohol, pornography, and gambling. We need clear thinking, energy and a strong grip on reality if we are to stop this crisis becoming a disaster. Both main parties should give us a break from trying to deregulate, regulate and privatise in varying degrees and serving us a dog’s dinner which no one wants. Might I suggest that they do a few important things well? Achieve something approaching social justice and avoid exploitation and scapegoating of the weak, inadequate and vulnerable. Make serious headway in environmental renovation. Dealing with freeloaders would give encouragement and hope to ordinary hardworking people who feel they get little reward for their decency. I’ll vote for any honest competent candidate who holds such values Any policy outside those values should be dumped and even those within them should be prioritised and only then put in a manifesto.
In seventeen days time we can vote in the European Elections, so vote. Encourage others to vote. Don’t take the Tebbit route and vote for small parties out of spite. Vote for the party who you see as having the right policies. A big thoughtful turnout would be a better shock than the Tebbit treatment for our political classes and more effective than abstaining. None of us want extremists to dominate any more than we want a Cromwellian outcome. A Peasants Revolt at the ballot box is what we need. The message to the politicians at the EU elections should be a fulfilment of Mr Shirky's prediction, ‘Here comes Everybody!’, so look out, we cant wait for the General Election.(See Book Review below)
Dacier
Friday, 15 May 2009
They just don't get it
Harriett Harman tells us they have got the message. The Prime Minister is angry. So much so he had to repeat it three times. That was John Major’s technique. Watching ‘Mr Three Time’s’ government sink was rather boring. Watching the McMillan government go down against the back drop of the Profumo affair had great entertainment value. The final months of this government as it sinks into the depths will be painful. If only the waters were as shallow as some of the politicians it is consuming. Some of them still haven’t got the message.
The big mistake some MPs are making is that they don’t realise the questions voters are asking themselves. Why cant MP’s understand the simple words, ‘wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of your Parliamentary duties’? Why should voters believe them when they try to convince us they know what they are doing? Competence, judgement, and honour are now being questioned. Even some senior politicians are clearly unaware of how ordinary people have to cope in a recession where keeping a job and a home is a losing battle for increasing numbers.
Politicians fail to understand that voters have a good idea of what is acceptable in the work place. To hear Sir Ming Campbell tell the Newsnight audience that the rules are in fact only guidelines, came as a shock. This from a respected MP and a Barrister. He is of course not the only lawyer in Parliament. Lawyers will exploit ambiguity and spurious justification in the performance of their professional duty. This doesn’t always work in a court, but to try it in the current public arena was a lapse of judgement.
For politicians to tell the public that this is all a distraction from major world issues is to state the obvious. The voters also know who has, in part, caused those problems. Government jumped into a war on doubtful grounds, failed to see where the money markets were taking us and then gave loans to the banks without seeking guarantees The present PMs talent for dithering and/or making policy on the hoof, compounds this poisonous mixture. We need a cooling off period not a General Election. Why? Because the deep waters which are consuming the worst offenders also contain more incompetents, especially those nasty sharks who once they have had our votes, will come after us.
Dacier
The big mistake some MPs are making is that they don’t realise the questions voters are asking themselves. Why cant MP’s understand the simple words, ‘wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of your Parliamentary duties’? Why should voters believe them when they try to convince us they know what they are doing? Competence, judgement, and honour are now being questioned. Even some senior politicians are clearly unaware of how ordinary people have to cope in a recession where keeping a job and a home is a losing battle for increasing numbers.
Politicians fail to understand that voters have a good idea of what is acceptable in the work place. To hear Sir Ming Campbell tell the Newsnight audience that the rules are in fact only guidelines, came as a shock. This from a respected MP and a Barrister. He is of course not the only lawyer in Parliament. Lawyers will exploit ambiguity and spurious justification in the performance of their professional duty. This doesn’t always work in a court, but to try it in the current public arena was a lapse of judgement.
For politicians to tell the public that this is all a distraction from major world issues is to state the obvious. The voters also know who has, in part, caused those problems. Government jumped into a war on doubtful grounds, failed to see where the money markets were taking us and then gave loans to the banks without seeking guarantees The present PMs talent for dithering and/or making policy on the hoof, compounds this poisonous mixture. We need a cooling off period not a General Election. Why? Because the deep waters which are consuming the worst offenders also contain more incompetents, especially those nasty sharks who once they have had our votes, will come after us.
Dacier
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Parliamentary Expenses and Allowances: Contempt or What?
Not so long ago Parliament, or more correctly, the House of Commons, used to take its own reputation and conduct very seriously. So much so that every so often it would call a cheeky journalist, political activist or, even one of its own clan, before its august assemblage to stand at the Bar of the House and be admonished. The journalist who made up stories about MPs taking bribes or MPs taking bribes, all could be summonsed. Punishments were vague but could include imprisonment in the Clock Tower. In effect the House of Commons did not like behaviour which brought Parliament’s reputation down in the eyes of the people at large. It was very similar to defamation, the traditional definition being that of exposing a person to hatred, ridicule and contempt. A more modern version would be something like lowering a reputation in the eyes of right thinking people. Both these devices pre-suppose that there is a reputation to protect. If a person is declared to be a thief by his local paper and he is a thief, then no defamation occurs. He has the reputation he deserves i.e., a thief. It is hard to see how Parliament will be able to invoke its ancient privileges to punish or admonish since it no longer has a reputation which can be harmed further. Of course it could summon all of these who have taken advantage of the rules, all those who disapproved but did nothing, and all those officials who drew up the scheme and/or later applied it, or indeed encouraged MPs to avail themselves of the taxpayer’s unwitting generosity. The House of Commons is now getting a reputation which its own processes and personnel have created. There certainly wouldn’t be room in the Clock Tower or at the Bar of the House for so many miscreants.
The rules on expenses and allowances didn’t come from some outside body, they came from within. Only now do they tell us that their rules were wrong even though they seem to have been going along with them perfectly happily and profitably for some years. When high commercial salaries are reported in the press, the resulting public indignation is met with the answer that such levels are needed to get the best people. It certainly didn’t work with many of the bankers and financial wizards who have led us into near depression. Government on the other hand couldn’t face such indignation when MPs salary rises were recommended. Instead, to give appropriate rewards the allowances and expenses system was dreamt up, no doubt to make sure we got the right people for the job. Once again it doesn’t seem to have worked.
With regard to the present fiasco running its course the view from the hill is rather like watching some ludicrous satire which in the end sees the destruction of many of the characters and the world they inhabit. Unfortunately a blink of the eyes does not bring the senses back to reality but merely makes it worse because in the meantime even more revelations have found their way into the cleansing power of daylight. Worse still, the view beyond the current matinee performance of this Westminster farce is still visible and is as grim and stark as ever. Lost savings, lost homes lost jobs and a dole queue that leads nowhere. The problem is too large and self inflicted for summoning anyone to the Bar of the House or throwing them in the Clock Tower. As Andrew Neil pointed out on last Thursday’s, This Week, the House of Commons has become an ‘object of ridicule’. We can now add ‘contempt’. Mr Speaker has made things worse. No dignity, no gravitas. The House is seen as disreputable. No one wants to contemplate the third result of a lost reputation, that of hatred. Now that really is a dangerous thing to see an electorate opting for. Take no comfort from the hope that it will only be at the ballot box that it is expressed. That, is danger enough.
Dacier
The rules on expenses and allowances didn’t come from some outside body, they came from within. Only now do they tell us that their rules were wrong even though they seem to have been going along with them perfectly happily and profitably for some years. When high commercial salaries are reported in the press, the resulting public indignation is met with the answer that such levels are needed to get the best people. It certainly didn’t work with many of the bankers and financial wizards who have led us into near depression. Government on the other hand couldn’t face such indignation when MPs salary rises were recommended. Instead, to give appropriate rewards the allowances and expenses system was dreamt up, no doubt to make sure we got the right people for the job. Once again it doesn’t seem to have worked.
With regard to the present fiasco running its course the view from the hill is rather like watching some ludicrous satire which in the end sees the destruction of many of the characters and the world they inhabit. Unfortunately a blink of the eyes does not bring the senses back to reality but merely makes it worse because in the meantime even more revelations have found their way into the cleansing power of daylight. Worse still, the view beyond the current matinee performance of this Westminster farce is still visible and is as grim and stark as ever. Lost savings, lost homes lost jobs and a dole queue that leads nowhere. The problem is too large and self inflicted for summoning anyone to the Bar of the House or throwing them in the Clock Tower. As Andrew Neil pointed out on last Thursday’s, This Week, the House of Commons has become an ‘object of ridicule’. We can now add ‘contempt’. Mr Speaker has made things worse. No dignity, no gravitas. The House is seen as disreputable. No one wants to contemplate the third result of a lost reputation, that of hatred. Now that really is a dangerous thing to see an electorate opting for. Take no comfort from the hope that it will only be at the ballot box that it is expressed. That, is danger enough.
Dacier
Expenses and Allowances: A tale of two Gnomes
I was very lonely as a single Gnome so the second Gnome Agency helped out. Down here beneath the hill it is very quiet, relieved only by the tramp of ramblers’ feet on the path high up on the ridge. The agency soon sent my second Gnome, arriving on the weekly market bus. The only fly in the waffle is that that second Gnome has a job under the Children Hundreds doing important counselling work. I have said that he might get a Children Hundred’s allowance which could split between our two grottoes. Second Gnome has a better idea however. He is going to explain the situation to his employers and say that because of our new lifestyle it would be unfortunate to say the least if our new life together has to be lived out at such a distance or in close proximity to the Children Hundreds because it would avoid being surrounded by his work mates and clients. He thinks they might have a special lifestyle grant so he can avoid them all. This would allow us to have a further grotto somewhere under Salisbury Plain so we can enjoy a proper Gnome residence. Surely they can’t be employers that would expect us to commute backwards and forwards. I thought this would be better than having a swimming pool under the hill. In any case the apartment by the Children Hundreds needs decorating and landscaping, and the toilets seats are so unfashionable.
But I have just had some bad news from the Children Hundreds. They say that if you are a couple of Gnomes then where we live is up to us. I could move in with second Gnome and our living expenses could be paid out of second Gnome’s Children Hundreds allowance. Some of his salary could then be used to keep our grotto back under the hill. They are also saying that if we want, we could sell my dear old grotto and buy somewhere ourselves under Salisbury Plain. They have apparently told second Gnome that there is no such thing as a subsidy for a lifestyle and if he doesn’t like the implications of his job he should seek employment back here. They also said that they would normally have expected a lot of extra work in the old days in view of all the trouble the political ramblers are having, but as it is, redundancy is even on the cards for second Gnome as no one ever seems to apply to them for help anymore. They also had the cheek to say, and I quote,’ ...and you think you should have a third home, think again, where do you think you are, Fairyland!?’ Dacier
Authors Note: I should make it clear that nothing in this tale should be divined as referring to any particular MP. Being an allegory it is an ‘aptly suggestive resemblance’. (O.E.D) Gnomes do not exist exist. It is only fare to point this out as there may be MPs who own between 2 and 7 homes who might think that such a fairy story could harm their reputation. I recognise their sensitivities. Far be it for me to intervene. MPs are clearly quite capable of doing that on their own. In any case, the standard mantra of the past week has been that everything is within the rules, and of course, the Gnomes are only working within the fictional rules of their fictional world. The rules which apply to MPs are perfectly clear and are not a fairytale. By their own admission MPs have complied with the following:-i) You can claim reimbursement for the expenses provided they are wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of your Parliamentary duties, ii) You should avoid purchases which could be seen as luxurious, iii) You must ensure that arrangements for your claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money. (Parliamentary Green Book 2006). So, that’s all right then. So what’s all the fuss about?
But I have just had some bad news from the Children Hundreds. They say that if you are a couple of Gnomes then where we live is up to us. I could move in with second Gnome and our living expenses could be paid out of second Gnome’s Children Hundreds allowance. Some of his salary could then be used to keep our grotto back under the hill. They are also saying that if we want, we could sell my dear old grotto and buy somewhere ourselves under Salisbury Plain. They have apparently told second Gnome that there is no such thing as a subsidy for a lifestyle and if he doesn’t like the implications of his job he should seek employment back here. They also said that they would normally have expected a lot of extra work in the old days in view of all the trouble the political ramblers are having, but as it is, redundancy is even on the cards for second Gnome as no one ever seems to apply to them for help anymore. They also had the cheek to say, and I quote,’ ...and you think you should have a third home, think again, where do you think you are, Fairyland!?’ Dacier
Authors Note: I should make it clear that nothing in this tale should be divined as referring to any particular MP. Being an allegory it is an ‘aptly suggestive resemblance’. (O.E.D) Gnomes do not exist exist. It is only fare to point this out as there may be MPs who own between 2 and 7 homes who might think that such a fairy story could harm their reputation. I recognise their sensitivities. Far be it for me to intervene. MPs are clearly quite capable of doing that on their own. In any case, the standard mantra of the past week has been that everything is within the rules, and of course, the Gnomes are only working within the fictional rules of their fictional world. The rules which apply to MPs are perfectly clear and are not a fairytale. By their own admission MPs have complied with the following:-i) You can claim reimbursement for the expenses provided they are wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of your Parliamentary duties, ii) You should avoid purchases which could be seen as luxurious, iii) You must ensure that arrangements for your claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money. (Parliamentary Green Book 2006). So, that’s all right then. So what’s all the fuss about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)