ALL IN THIS (BETTER) TOGETHER...ALL US ORDINARY PEOPLE

Thanks to "Trying Hard on Twitter for this collection of reprobates

NEARLY 800 LORDS A LEECHING

The bill for running the House of Lords has leapt by £42 million in the last three years undermining government promises to cut the cost of politics.

The number of peers has increased by 103 since 2010, taking the total number to nearly 800. 

New figures show the amount EACH unelected peer costs the taxpayer, through daily allowances, has risen 17% from £97,725 to £114,721 in the same three years.

In the last year the amount of money required to staff the Lords increased by 6%  to £24 million, making a mockery of the Prime Minister’s promise to cut the cost of politics.

The higher cost of the Upper House was revealed just weeks after it emerged that Lord Hanningfield had been turning up for a token short period each day in order to collect his £300 allowance.

It will further fuel concerns about the rising cost of politics, coming the same day as reports that the bill for politicians’ special advisors has leapt four-fold in just two decades.

The cost of the MPs’ so-called ‘Spads’ has risen from £1.5 million in the early 1990s to £7.2 million.

There are now 98 such advisors working within Whitehall compared to 76 in 2010, earning an average of £73,470 a year – more than the present basic MPs’ salary of £66,396.

The statistics were uncovered by Labour MP Tom Greatrex.

The Government had pledged to cut costs by reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 but the plan was scrapped when the coalition partners fell out over House of Lords reform.

You might want to check out this link which helps keep a trace on how much politicians are claiming in expenses..

RANDOM THOUGHTS

I see the Botox has worn off, and then some!

I was thinking today that the British doctor who was killed, or died, in Syria, was an example of just how the "clout" that BT likes to brag we have everywhere, gets things done.

His brother explained that he had been in touch with the FCO to try to get them to do something. Other European countries had moved quickly to secure the safety of their nationals. Germany in particular had done this very effectively. Britain seemed strangely powerless by contrast.

Some idiot junior minister or bag carrier from the FCO was trotted out to say that they had asked for consular access, but nothing had been forthcoming, but it was a scandal that the man had been murdered by the Syrians.

That clout we have in the world truly is frighteningly powerful... Our enemies fear us and our friends admire us... Hmmm yeah.

Sounds much more like one word from London and wee Willie, and ...erm.... sod all happens…

**********

You hardly need to think about it.
For heaven's sake who would trust this man with the tea fund?

**********

Margaret Thatcher dies - Cameron says she was his favourite all time leader.

Nelson Mandela dies - Cameron says he was his favourite all time hero.

Peter O'Toole dies - Cameron says he was in his favourite all time film.

Ronnie Biggs dies - Still Waiting to hear if he was his favourite all time criminal.

Silly really, he has many many close friends who are on trial at this very moment. Surely one of these must be his favourite...Lynton, Andy, Rebekah, Charlie....?

**********

Ye gads! That's not the SPIV Cameron approaching one, is it?
Quick Camilla, pretend one is one...

**********

It was interesting to see that Danny Alexander has found a black hole in his head.

Well, to be honest, he didn't find anything, as locating his arse with two hands would be a real break though as far as he is concerned.

However, his poor staff at the treasury have apparently found a black hole of billions in John Swinney's  costings for an independent Scotland. Leaving aside the fact that the white paper was informed by some seriously clever economists and academics (not likely to be found at the treasury), one question popped immediately to my mind.

Would this, I wondered, be the same treasury that oversaw the complete collapse of the economy only a few years ago not having foreseen it one tiny little bit, and the treasury which has since consistently failed to forecast one single thing right, except maybe what time the tea lady would bring round morning coffee, or what their bonuses would be? Yes it could. So...maybe just a tad dubious then? Or maybe even a load of horse manure?

**********

Oi! Where are you off to Baldy? What you going to do about all these
 poor people your half arsed schemes are killing every week?

**********

At the risk of becoming boring on the subject, the seemingly serial thief, His Noble Beardyness Lord Hanningfield, bless him, has been on the fiddle again, nipping in to the House of the Walking Dead, signing in the book, taking a quick subsidied snifter and sodding off again £300 richer. 

Quite clearly the greedy old Tory doesn't learn a lesson very quickly. He was sent down for 9 months for being a thief less than 2 years ago, but, as is the wont of these people, he pulled a nervous breakdown out of the hat and hey presto... was out of stir within 9 days.

Possibly the fact that prison warders didn't greet him with a respectful "good morning my lord", and bow as he passed in the corridor, was too much for his aristocratic sensibilities and brought about his complete collapse.  

Once out of stir he was able to get himself back together with a good bit of expense fiddling... After all, if you only get 9 days, it's probably worth the risk. He says he paid back all that he stole, so obviously the man has to start getting it back. 

£300 a day x 5 over say 35 weeks of the year when the lazy old buggers aren't on holiday = £52,500 tax free, plus cheap booze and grub and a pile of free toadying servants... Nice one your old faker.

Talking of old fakers, I wonder how Margaret Moran's nervous breakdown is going now that she got off with stealing all that money. Back to being a plump middle aged dolly?

Here are some pictures to remind us of the unlovely old fraud Mags...

Before, at the time of, and just after the trial, which she was excused as she was deemed unable to plead because of severe depression:

Before the trial (left) looking like an overweight 50 year old with a strange orange flower growing out of her head; at the time of the trial having aged by 30 years, now looking like a podgy old bat. And below, the week after the trial that she dodged, looking remarkably better and not a day over 60 (although still a bit on the plump side).
This old witch, who stole £53,000 of taxpayers' money, could give master classes on how to avoid justice.

Leaving the pub and out for a walk with the dog only days
after being diagnosed as too ill to stand trial.
Depression is a terrible thing.

THE "NOBLE" HANNINGFIELD STILL FILLING HIS BOOTS AT OUR EXPENSE

Lord Hanningfield has defended claiming more than £21,000 in daily allowances despite not speaking during any House of Lords debate since his release from prison.

His "nobleness" , who was jailed for nine months in July 2011 after being found guilty of fiddling his expenses, says he is intentionally keeping a low profile.

He served just a few weeks and was released in September 2011, returning to the House of Lords last April.

Records show that since then he's not spoken in any debate or tabled a written question and still managed to "legitimately" claim £21,000 in allowances and £1,736 in travel costs. What, you might ask, has he been doing for all that money? The answer would probably be ... nothing much.

Members of the Lords can claim a £300 daily allowance and travel costs, all tax free. In November last year alone the noble Hanningfield claimed £5,100 in daily allowances and a further £407 in travel costs – £361 on train fares and the rest on taxis and parking.

Colchester MP, Sir Bob Russell, criticised the noble Baron's recent record, saying that although he was not breaking any rules it was a “slap in the face” for the taxpayer.

He said: “It’s quite extraordinary that having been sent to prison for fiddling his expenses he should then return to the scene of the crime and claim £300 every time he goes through the door as if it is some game of Monopoly."

Hanningfield, who was made a Life Peer (Baron Hanningfield of Chelmsford) in 1998, said he had been advised by friends to “keep a relatively low profile” in a bid to avoid negative headlines following his release from prison, but he was hoping to become more active in the Lords very soon.

He said: “I want to get involved in some committees. I’m working on it. It’s very much dependent on what the Lords put you on. I’m gradually building my career up again.”

Don't they make you laugh, these people?

If you want to keep a low profile matey, a good way to do this would NOT to be claiming thousands of pounds of our money for sitting on your fat backside doing sod all for more than most people who have never been convicted of fraud, and never spent time at Her Majesty's pleasure, can ever dream of.

Just a word of advice... I expect you won't bother taking it.

PAY UP TO PLAY THE GAME

You may remember that a lad was walking home from his girlfriend's house on one hot night of the London riots in August. He was thirsty and helped himself to two bottles of water from a shop that had been looted and was sitting open. Total value of his theft, around £2.80. He was sent to prison for 6 months. 


With the agreement of the government courts were encouraged to hand down severe sentences to anyone who had been even remotely involved. For example, two lads who posted invitations to the riots on the Facebook pages were sentenced to 4 years in prison.


When cases went to the English Appeal Court they were upheld.


Baron Haddingfield, a man in a position where no one would question his integrity because of his station, a man who was bowed and scraped to, who was entitled to a chauffeur driven car, and who was called a Noble Lord, in fact a man people might have been expected to look up to stole, not 2 bottles of water worth £2.80, but £28,000. He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment but actually only served 9 weeks because he was feeling poorly.


Baroness Uddin stole £125,000 from us by pretending that she lived at the seaside and was obliged to purchase another house in London because she had to attend the House of Lords. In fact she had had the house in London for many years. Her kids had been brought up there. The seaside flat was unfurnished and she never went there. It was all a great big scam to make her some money. And she went further. She would walk into the Lords, sign in, and walk out another door, spending less than 5 minutes in the building. For that she claimed her daily allowance of £300. 


She hasn't been sent to prison at all, although the police are said to be looking into her case a couple of years on.


But now the House of Lords has decided to punish them and all their grubby little mates most severely. Yes, draconian measures are to be taken.


From now on they won't be allowed to return to the House of Privilege until the money has been repaid, or until the next UK General Election, whichever comes first. They will, of course retain their titles and styles.


Nooooooooooo, I hear you cry in unison, at the severity of the punishment. Take it to the European Court of Lordly Rights.

The Lords' authorities have decided against trying to pursue noble members through the courts as they think that judges would not be prepared to hear cases involving the rights of the house.


Dear dear, and I thought London had police! Where's Cressida Dick when you erm need her?

WHITHER MAGGIE THE MORON? I PROMISE I WON'T DO ANOTHER POST ON HER FOR...AGES!

I know; I'm sorry. Brownlie will say I'm obsessed with the woman.

And in a way he's right. I just can't get over the belligerent way she behaved on the day she was accused of improper behaviour by the Daily Telegraph.

I imagine that most of her recent weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth is for the cameras, and the judge. She must hope she gets one like Lord Hanningfield from Essex, who will say that the poor soul is in terrible health; that this has broken her, and that the ignominy alone is punishment enough for the (allegedly)thieving (not allegedly) bitch .

I doubt it's going to work though. He was a Tory and likely had connections. She's Labour, common and stupid and any connections she may have had when she had money will have melted like 'sna' affn a dyke'. She's on her own now.

However, I thought you'd like to look at a before and after picture of her. It seems that the young looking fashion conscious (if you can call orange flowers growing out of your head fashionable) Margaret Moran has not, without the aid of all the money she (allegedly) used to steal from us whilst not doing her job as MP for Luton South, been able to continue to purchase make up and hair die.

She must have had to sell the lovely orange hat and resorted to something a little cheaper and more functional.

For this (right and below) was the sorry assed figure that appeared in court to answer charges of stealing some £80,000 of expenses.

This sum included £22,500 for a home in Southampton, hundreds of miles from her constituency or London, and apparently owned by someone who has variously been described as a friend, a boyfriend and her husband. She also had boiler repairs and work on her conservatory worth £14,000+ done. Of course this kind of thing was absolutely vital to her doing her job as an MP.

Only thing was she seemed to have rather a slipshod attitude to that side of things. Perhaps her expenses form filling took too much of her time, or maybe it was just disinterest, but she didn't appear much in Luton South, even when her office had set up meetings for her.

I hope they find her guilty and send her to Wormwood Scrubs for 40 years.

|But like most of my wishes, it's not gonna happen. She is likely to get a short sentence of under a year's duration, and she will, if she is like the rest of the lying cheating scum MPs and Peers, only serve a quarter of it.

I'll be interested to see if Ken Clarke's feral underclass serve as little of THEIR sentences.

What's the betting?

Answers, as usual, on a postcard.

Pics: Before (top left) a middle aged woman of not bad looks, and now, a haggard old crone. Let this be a warning to potential criminals out there. This is (allegedly) the wages of sin.

LET'S SLIM DOWN GOVERNMENT BY GETTING RID OF THE TROUGHING LORDS

I got an email from "Unlock Democracy" asking for my views on the House of Lords reforms.

http://action.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/page/s/lords-reform-consultation

There are two parts to it. The first involves answering a few questions about how you think the Lords should be. The second is an "in your own words" comment. This is what I put on the form.

"In the 21st century, it seems to me that it is laughable that a country which is prepared to go to war to promote democracy has a House of Lords.

That 90+ members of that house should comprise of hereditary peers is beyond understanding.

"Far too many peers have been sent from the Commons as reward for faithful service to party.Once upon a time the PM and maybe the Foreign Secretary were put upstairs, now it's junior ministers at the Environment Dept, et al.

"Each time the colour of the commons changes the balance has to be redressed, meaning that we now have some 900 peers. It's the largest house in the world next to the Chinese People's Assembly.

"There should be no bishops of the English church in the Lords. Quite apart from the fact that there are people of all religions and none in the country, the English Church could never have been said to represent Scotland, Ireland or Wales, nor the Roman Catholics, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc, etc....

"We need a senate like any other small western democracy. There should be no titles, and people mustn't be allowed to think that once elected the job is theirs for fifteen years.

They should have to be re-elected every 5 years on a rotating system. There need be no more than 100, unless they are working constituency MSs, which I don’t think they should be.

"Those who currently hold the title and sit in the lords should be given notice in advance that the gravy train of £300+ a day stops here and they should dismount. They should be allowed to keep their ridiculous titles if they wish, but people who go to the Senate, should be Mr and Mrs like the rest of us. For hereditaries, titles should die with the current holder. You cannot promote equality in the country when people are calling themselves Earl or Marquis and demanding that others refer to them as Your Grace or Your Lordship.

"The salary should be smaller than that of an MP. They will do little or no constituency work; I see no reason to pay them for what they do not do.

"Of course one excellent idea would be to simply get rid of them altogether. What was it they are supposed to do?

"In Scotland we have no second house, but we have far better legislation without it being scrutinised by "experts".

"Please can we stop having a privileged class with titles at the top?"

Incidentally, as I was filling in the questionnaire, I was thinking about our friend Lord Hanningfield, who apparently was (according to the judge) given a lenient sentence because he was suffering from clinical depression and was in frail health (brought on by being caught). He would find prison according to the judge, more distressing and depressing than other people.

So, then they let the clinically depressed Lord out VERY early.

He's obviously feeling a good deal better as he strolls round his village with his dog... or he was until he was re-arrested; this time for defrauding the county council which he led, as the same time as being a thieving git up in Wastemonster. And although he's out on licence for one crime, he has been bailed to appear in court, instead of being bundled straight back to the pokey.

You couldn't make these characters up, even if you were capable of dreaming up characters like Voldermort.

YOU ARE FREE TO GO, MY LORD: WE HOPE WE HAVEN''T INCONVENIENCED YOU

I thought that it was wrong that Jim Devine served such a short time in jail. Having been sentenced to 16 months, letting him free after just 4 seemed like a slap in the face to the ordinary citizens.

That was before the riots when it seems regardless of the shortage of prison spaces in England, magistrates and judges were handing our ferociously long sentences to people who had, in fact, stolen very little.

But, as Mr Cameron said, these people, whom his justice minister labelled a feral underclass, had to be taught a lesson. Just as when he was trying to be elected he indicated that thieving MPs and Lords should be taught a lesson.

Well, what kind of lesson does it teach them that The Noble Lord Hanningfield has been released after serving less than 9 weeks of a 9 month sentence?

The lesson it teaches me (as if I didn't already know it) is that if you are rich or titled or have the right connexions, the law doesn't apply to you in the same way as it applies to others. You can steal £14,000 and serve 9 weeks. But if you are poor and steal £3 worth of water from a shop that has already been smashed up and is lying open to passers-by, you go to jail for 6 months.

It paints a picture of a country I wouldn't want to live in.

What was it that fool Cameron said about "consequences"?

85% OF PEERS ARE AT IT...

The Noble Baron Hanningfield made the claim in defence of his own fiddling in court in England today.

Hanningfield’s excuse for stealing money from the taxpayer was that he thought it was unfair that he did the work of four frontbenchers in the Lords and didn’t get properly recompensed for it. That's the Tories for you!!

Asked about the fact that he had claimed £25,000 for employing someone to whom he paid only £12,500, he said that he could have had £130,000 for staffing expenses had he been in the Commons. Perhaps he hadn’t noticed that was wasn’t in the Commons (all these flunkies bowing and scraping and calling him “my lord” might have been a clue to that), and that if he had a problem with the amount of work that he had to do, he should have gone to his party leader and asked for more resources, instead of just stealing them.

His excuse for charging for hotel rooms for nights when he had been taken home (if I remember rightly, by his chauffeur), he said that 85% of Lords were doing it. But he wouldn’t name them. Well, it wouldn’t do you know, old chap, splitting on a fellow’s co-peers.

The poor old soul said that he had no stocks and shares, no savings and that most of his clothes came from Marks & Spencer. My goodness, a Tory peer dressing out of M&S, tut tut. (Actually M’lord only my best clothes come from M&S. You need a mortgage for them.)

He also, weirdly, produced a biscuit tin full of receipts which he said he had not claimed in a career of more than 40 years.

What kind of weirdo saves all his receipts for 40 years, doesn’t claim any of them and then steals public money and justifies it by saying that he felt he was underpaid.

At 70 the Noble Lord is entitled to his retirement pension, always supposing that he has paid his NI contributions. It’s good enough for millions of other people. Why is it not for him?

***

I reckon all the blog readers will be relieved to know that Munguin's Man in America, Danny, based as he is in the state of Missouri, was fortunate enough NOT to be in Joplin when the tornado hit. You can't imagine the relief I felt this morning when I saw his name in my inbox.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REFORM THIS PLACE?

How embarrassing for Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Three Labour MPs and a Conservative lord yesterday pled not guilty to fraud, and insisted that English Courts should not try them as they were parliamentarians.

Morley, Chaytor, Devine and Hanningfield said the charges against them should be heard by parliamentary authorities (which, as we all know, let MPs off with most stuff, and Lords off with everything).

They insisted that they were protected from criminal prosecution by parliamentary privilege citing the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The MPs asked to be spared the humiliation of being forced to stand in the dock of the court like the rest of the criminal fraternity because they were something special. Much to his credit the magistrate denied the request.

The barrister for the MPs trotted out some nonsense about his clients of course not feeling that they were above the law, insisting that parliamentary privilege is a part of the law and had been since 1689. He did not think that his clients should not stand trial, but (and I admit, I paraphrase) not in the kind of court that was suitable for ordinary people.

Hanningfield, in a separate case, pled not guilty to charges relating to his allowance claims. His barrister said he would also challenge the jurisdiction of the court. He too apparently feels that what is right for ordinary people wouldn’t suit him too terribly well.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, had the men charged with false accounting. When they indicated that ordinary people’s courts did not have the right to try the likes of them Mr Starmer replied that prosecutors had decided that the matter should be tested in court.

Interestingly when Princess Anne was charged in court (albeit with far less serious charges) no similar claim for superiority was made.

The charges, according to The Times, are as follows:

Morley, MP for Scunthorpe, faces three charges alleging that he claimed £30,428 more than he was entitled to in second home expenses between 2004 and 2007.

Chaytor, MP for Bury North, also faces three charges. He is accused of fraudulently claiming £18,425 in second home allowances and of using a false invoice to claim £1,950 in IT services.

Devine, MP for Livingston, faces two charges alleging that he claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.

Hanningfield faces six charges of false accounting, relating to 13 claims of between £154.50 and £174 for overnight allowances between 2006 and 2009.

In a separate case it was announced today that Uddin had got away with what had been alleged as fruadulent claims for housing allowances. In what some will see as a complete travesty of justice the case against Mrs Uddin was thrown out because of a recent ruling by the Lords authorities which decided that peers could nominate a property as their "main" home even if they only "visit" it once a month.

Given the generosity of overnight expenses this has cleared as legal the practice of nominating a main home out of London, as long as a visit for a few minutes can be arranged once a month. Nice little earner.

No wonder these people want to be tried by parliament. We’d probably end up paying them compensation and they would all be made Privy Councilors and be given knighthoods and a slap up dinner at Buckingham Palace.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REFORM THIS PLACE?


Picture, from The Times, shows Elliot Morley (second left), David Chaytor (second right) and Jim Devine (right) arriving at court with their lawyers.

==========