SICKENINGLY GREEDY TO THE LAST MOMENT

I’m more sickened that I can say about the figures released by parliament which show MPs receiving large sums of money to close down their offices, often staffed by family members when they had made it quite clear up to four years previously that they would not stand again.

Some MPs who received large sums as termination payments are now in prison or awaiting sentence that will surely mean prison; some had excellent jobs in the private sector to go to up-on leaving parliament; and yet others have moved across the hall to the House of Lords where they will be on a standard salary (paid as expenses) of £300 a day, as long as they turn up for work.

Labour’s Jacqui Smith the disgraced former Home Secretary claimed over £38,000 as a readjustment fee. Some of that of course would be to pay redundancy to her husband, who was part of the reason she was in disgrace. His taste in pornographic films has been shared with the country, mainly because the country was paying for them. Jacqui has gone on to make radio programmes about porn... so at least she profited from the whole experience.

But Labour is not alone in this. Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrat (Winchester), received £41,518 to resettle after having announced his retirement 4 years ago, after his affair with a prostitute.

Michael Howard, ex-Tory leader (a possible Lord Chancellor if the right wing of the Tory Party have their way) picked up over £26,500, and a Mr Boswell, ex-Tory MP for Daventry, received a whacking £42,708 to wind up their offices so that they could set up new offices in the Lords. Why either of them required a brass farthing is beyond me. They had plenty of time to ready themselves for a future without a Commons salary, both having announced their retirement in 2006.

Greedy to the last John Reid, who had every job under the sun in the last Labour government, got his sticky little hands on £37,157 after announcing he would not contest his seat at the next election way back in 2007. Not only has the grasping little man gone to the Lords which means a guaranteed income for life, but he is also Chairman of Celtic FC, a job he held whilst being an MP if memory serves.

Incredibly one MP tried to claim more than the maximum permitted amount. Labour’s Christine McCafferty, ex-MP for Calder Valley tried to claim £42,739, which is £7 above the maximum. Only a bloody MP could do that!

Pics (1) How much did you get Mick? Wow... THAT much?!?! Awesome!

(2) The Noble Lard Reid, completely useless as a minister but a bruiser. You could always tell when there was no excuse for something the government had done. They would set Rottweiler Johnny on the case, and without talking any sense at all he would bulldoze his way through the press. A complete b*****d!

(3) Ah bless her, Teenie trying to squeeze the last little bit out of her expenses, despite having had 5 years knowledge that she would retiring in 2010, at the age of 65. I like this line from her Wikipedia biography: "Personal Life: She married Michael McCafferty. They had a son. She then married David Tarlo." Class!

ENGLISH PRINCE: SOLDIERS' TARGET PRACTICE: DEAR MPS

While I wait for an opportunity to listen to today's FMQs, I decided to get a few minor irritations off my chest. (Please note that when I refer to "dear MPs", I mean that they cost a lot, and not that they are in any way beloved.)

I note that Prince William, who is part of the England bid to host the World Cup, has said that he is English. "I love football, we English love football and it would be an honour for us to host the World Cup."

That’s cool with me. They are welcome to him. It was probably a little slip in his speech, but he has proved how he feels about his own identity.

I can’t help thinking that it is a sign of desperation that one of the world’s most iconic footballers joining the prime minister of England wasn’t felt enough to win the prize: they had to trot out an English Prince as well, and one who has just received massive publicity for announcing that he is going to do what millions of other people do every year, get married.

Still, I suppose you have to use what you can get. Perhaps the glittering of Williams’s metaphorical crown will make up for the cheesy PR prime minister, and the fact that there was, yet again, crowd trouble at an English football match last night.

***

I wonder if I was the only person to shake his head in wonderment this morning when I heard about the sentencing of an American soldier who, as part of a gang went on a drug induced rampage killing Afghan civilians for no apparent reason, except that they were there.

The soldier did the American equivalent of “turning Queen’s evidence” by telling about his mates, in order to get a reduced sentence for his part in the shootings. For sport (aren’t there any wild animals in Afghanistan for the huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ set?), these brave boys, heros maybe, went out and shot anyone that crossed their path.

It’s hard to believe but ex-Sgt Robert Stevens was a medic. I shouldn’t care to be treated by him. He says that he didn’t actually kill anyone himself, but would you believe him? Anyway, pour encourager les autres, he was given a 9 month jail sentence and busted down to private.

Not only did he go around with a gang that was killing human beings for sport, a filthy and despicable thing to do, he has also given terrorists every reason to hate, even more, the westerners who are in their country (at the invitation of the Afghan government of course, but we can all remember what they American government said, and didn’t want us to know, about the Afghan government, don’t we). This piece of filth will, more than WikiLeaks, have the blood of his comrades on his hands. So was that an appropriate sentence? And they want to execute the Wikileaks’ Assange for treason. Wow!

***

And surprise, surprise the Honourable (?**?!*!?**?) members are angry about their expenses and the body that administers them. (It appears they have stopped handing out money willy nilly for no other reason that the MOPs demand it.) The greedy, useless 650+ have claimed over £3 million in the last 3 months... sheesh... including Conservative Keith Simpson, who received £20,752 over the period - mostly for travel expenses to and from his constituency in Norfolk. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but Norfolk isn’t that far from London; certainly not as far as Scotland, so how was he travelling? We already know that they have been working a housing fiddle already, and apparently some are still charging first class rail fares.

Now they want to waste yet more of the time that WE pay for to debate the matter in the House on the subject. Now, we know that they think we are stupid and all have memories that hardly stretch from one episode of Emerdale to the next, but I really do think that they should be aware that we are hurting out here despite what the Noble Mr Young thinks; it’s cold and gas bills are soaring; we are paying back the excesses of a small number of stupid people... them included. So a wee piece of advice to them.

Shut up, get on with your bloody jobs at £66,000+ and keep your greedy, fat heads down, before the public turns, and you find them chopped off and lying at your feet.

Just a thought.

Oh and before they try to have me arrested for Treason, I mean that in a metaphorical sense. (Sorta.)

WHAT A LOAD OF GARBAGE WE HAVE IN WESTMINSTER

What on earth kind of rubbish have we got as representatives in Westminster?

Firstly we were told in the last parliamentary session that more that 50% of our MPs had been dishonest in their dealings with expenses. That’s more than 50% of our MPs had fiddled their expenses, or stolen from the taxpayer.

And then we had the audacity of the three MPs who considered themselves to be above the law because they were MPs, citing an English Bill of Rights dating from 1689 as their reasoning and, if you please, expecting to be allowed not to stand in the dock, where common criminals stand, as if, for some weird reason they should not be considered either common or criminal.

Fortunately the judge threw it out saying: “I can see no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege and I can see no legal justification for it either.” But the point is that the chancing toe rags tried it on at our expense (because they are on legal aid now that they are unemployed).

Additionally, in the last session it seemed that hardly a week went by without one or more of our noble lords being found with their regal snouts in the golden pig swill of the House of Lords Expenses system, and when the law got near to them, an official stamped on legal proceedings saying that it was all perfectly within the rules. So, in the Lords it’s within the rules to cheat on expenses by lying about your accommodation. High time it wasn’t.

Then we had the programme on Channel Four which organised an undercover sting and found host of MPs prepared to sell themselves to the highest bidder, for thousands of pounds for a day’s work, on top of their salary for the days’ work that we were paying them for. (Amazing how people like Pat Hewitt could get two days’ work into one day.)

Now we read that the new office for trying to stop the MPs stealing money all over again was forced to erect a sign at its Commons offices warning MPs: ‘We will not tolerate abuse of staff.’

Apparently MPs are furious at the way they have been treated. Paul Farrelly, Labour, sent a complaint to Nigel Gooding, the man in charge of the IPSA, saying the new system was "prehistoric, amateurish, self-defeating and bureaucracy gone mad".

He wrote: "I have been asked for a copy of my passport or birth certificate to prove my date of birth. Why that is necessary, I do not know. More importantly, as I have used my overdraft limit, my mortgage payment will bounce, causing me embarrassment and further charges. You could easily have saved us all this aggravation."

Awww wee shame. Try buying road tax, signing on, getting a national health dentist. That’s aggravation.

It’s the kind of thing the rest of us have lived with for years, and it’s the kind of thing that you people brought upon yourselves when you stole all our money. Tough! Now you know how it feels, and you had no idea before. You get zero sympathy from me.

In the meantime Mr Gooding has announced his resignation from the post, for what he calls " for the sake of my health and sanity”, so abusive have MPs become, when they discovered the expenses office was actually going to do its job this time and the gravy train was in the sidings.

What a third rate lot they are.

ONLY BACK A WEEK AND MPS ARE WHINING ABOUT EXPENSES

MPs have again stuck two fingers up to taxpayers, claiming Parliament’s new expenses watchdog is treating them like benefit claimants. I am wondering why they think that they should be treated better than other citizens who are forced to claim benefits because they are ill or can’t find work. Seems that it’s ok for ALL benefit claimants to be assumed to be cheats and thus being treated badly, but MPs mustn't lumped together as expenses cheats, and must be treated better, even if they are.

Anyway our MPs are angry that the new regime requires that, like other people living and working in the country, and indeed working for the government, they are required to have receipts to back their claims, instead of us just taking their word for it. I wonder why we feel disinclined to do that.

There has also been a warning that the expenses watchdog staff will not tolerate abusive or threatening behaviour. Isn’t it an indictment on our parliament that a warning of this type has to go out to our lawmakers, because some, including ministers who are now standing for leadership of the Labour party, did bully staff into paying unjustified amounts?

Some MPs say a reduction in second-home allowances could lead to them staying in one-bedroom flats, forcing them to live apart from their children during the week, like many business people already do, and women MPs have protested that a ban on taking taxis before 11pm could force them to use public transport to get home at night. Men, presumably, have a magic wand that they wave to avoid this.

Labour MP David Winnick (right) said that it was disgraceful that Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is making members fund essential spending up front, as I have always been expected to do, despite never having had a salary of £65,000, and that staffing budgets have effectively been cut. Well, everyone is having to make cuts and work a bit harder Winnick; why would that not include you?

"The scandal that shamed parliament should never be repeated,” he said. “But this is another type of scandal.” No it’s not, you nelly. It’s what everyone is going through, and you brought it on yourselves in any case.

The rules come into force for this new Parliamentary session. The watchdog will pay salaries at the end of the month and the first expenses from June.

One of the most important changes is that MPs cannot any longer buy homes, claim back the mortgage interest, make improvements at our expense, and pocket vast profits when the properties are sold. Instead they can claim up to £1,450 a month in rent.

It seems to me that they learned almost nothing from last year. Perhaps the fact that so few of them have been punished in any real way has something to do with this. The older ones have retired, some having to pay back expenses overcharged, some not having to pay them back at all. Only four hapless and expendable Labour MPs and one Tory Peer have appeared in court over the cheating. Many of them have been returned to their seats by their grateful voters, including an MP who is about to appear in court charged with expenses fraud.

The IPSA have said rules were intended to restore public confidence in the MPs’ expenses system, but it would consider changes. It apparently is listening to feedback from MPs and the public on the rules.

So, if anyone from the IPSA is reading this blog, this taxpayer would like to say that he doesn’t want vindictiveness but he expects the new authority to safeguard the public’s money. Everyone is having to make do with less; everyone is working harder. MPs must not be any different from anyone else. Gone should be the days of their assuming some sort of superiority over the common herd.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO YOUR MP?

I was vaguely aware of a programme in the background last night about MPs and ...well, I wasn’t paying much attention, but I did look round when Nikki Winterton was asked about the flat that he bought on expenses, then put it in a trust for his children and started charging us rent ....... “I not going talk about that”, he snapped in a plumy voice that just smacked of “I’m better than you”.

Anyway. I got to thinking that very few of them understood just how low most of them had sunk in our esteem: how little we liked them.

I’m lucky. My MP, Stuart Hosie, is a good guy who works hard around the constituency and did nothing wrong in the expenses field. He’s approachable and attends his surgeries and takes part in local activities.

But in general I have little time for MPs. I think that many of them, especially those who have held or do hold ministerial office seem to think that they are, as my gran would say, “Erchie”, belonging to a ruling elite or sorts.

So I thought I’d take this opportunity (knowing that this article will be read by the great and the good) to say....

“You’re not!

“What you are is someone who works for us. You are like our dentist, or our mechanic, our doctor or our stock broker, except in all these cases the person concerned is a professional who has trained to do that job, He is, we hope, an expert in his field. With respect, you are not. You may be a professional elsewhere, but for this specific job, you need no qualifications, or experience. You simply need to be chosen by your party. We elect you to go to Westminster to look after our interests there.

“We sometimes hear MPs whine that they are glorified social workers. Well, it’s true but, if we appeal to you sometimes to try to sort out something out, it is because we have tried already with the DWP or the Council or the Revenue, and we have been fobbed off or just plain lied to. You can get things done. Your letters will go straight to the Area Manager; ours languish in a clerk's in-tray ignored. If we call up we will talk to a junior with no authority, whereas you will talk to the boss, You can get things done. Not because you are you, but because you have the authority of parliament behind you, the portcullis letterhead.

“So, if you hate us bothering you about trivia, go sort out the fact that ordinary people don’t have access to anyone who can make a decision anymore. Therein lies your problem.

“Apart from that remember you are an ordinary person too, and when you stop having “The Hon” in front of your name (whether you deserve it or not) and “MP” after your name, you will be back in the same situation as we are.

“It will take a long time for us to get over the fact that more than half your number have been on the fiddle because they thought that they would never get caught. If you are not one of them, then sorry, but people do tend to get judged en masse, rather like your parties have classed everyone who is unemployed and every single parent as a scrounger. It’s hard and it hurts if it's untrue in your case, but that’s how it goes.

“No hard feelings!”

I’d love to hear what you’d tell (or what you have told) an MP .....

.......................................

WHAT PLANET DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE ON?

The Priviliged Three and the Noble Lord Hanningfield

IN THE BUSINESS of Parliamentary Expenses it has been revealed that England’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, has decided to press forward with charges on Morley, Devine and Chaytor from the Commons, and Hanningfield from the House of Lords, with investigations still ongoing in the case of Uddin (also from the Upper House).

Mr Starmer will, however, have to overcome the ancient doctrine of parliamentary privilege after the three Labour MPs announced they would use it to fight the charges.

A joint statement from the three (who, it is believed are using the Labour Party’s solicitors for the case) indicated that they thought the issue was one for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards rather than the police and the courts as it would be for ordinary people. They were, they said, extremely disappointed that the DPP had decided to instigate proceedings against them. They pointed out that the Parliamentary Commissioner's job was to enforce the rules.

Of course they are disappointed it hasn’t been left in the hands of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He would have let them off and told them to apologise to the House.

Although it is an ancient doctrine, parliamentary privilege has had a huge role in thwarting recent attempts by the police to investigate alleged wrongdoing by MPs and peers, including the expenses claims of the Tory MP Derek Conway who started the whole expenses saga, and the Cash for Peerages saga. Mr Starmer said: “Lawyers representing those who have been charged have raised with us the question of parliamentary privilege. We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court.”

You can’t help wonder what world and what century these people are living in.

Quite clearly the DPP wouldn’t have gone forward with such high profile cases unless he could be very sure of his facts. But these three men seem to feel that they are in the same position as the Queen, who cannot be charged with an offence because she is the embodiment of the law.

Of course all three of these low lifes are standing down at the next election... (yes, they are still on the payroll; we are paying them as I write, at £65,000 pa, and they will be entitled to a grant at the end of parliament) so we can’t even punish them at the ballot box.

Hanningfield was suspended from the Parliamentary Conservative Party today and resigned his position as a frontbench business spokesman in the House of Lords. He, to his credit, appears (so far) not to think himself above the law, although he denies any wrong doing. Perhaps if the case is tested in the courts and found for the MPs, Hanningfield’s case will be dismissed anyway.

I hope that Mrs Harman’s famed Court of Public Opinion will be making it very clear to these MPs that we don’t think that they are above the law, and that we want them to stand trial in one of the same kinds of court that all other criminals have to tolerate.

In my opinion they should not be granted bail. They are certainly not to be trusted.

Afterthought:

If you are convinced of your innocence and if you have faith in the English justice system (and why wouldn’t you; you who have been sitting for years in the parliament that controls it), then why would you be unhappy about facing the same form of justice that you have foist on the rest of that nation?

HAVE YOU SEEN THE LITTLE PIGGIES?

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives;
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives,
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

(Lennon, McCartney)

ACCORDING TO a report in The Times, The Crown Prosecution Service said that it would announce tomorrow possible criminal charges against several MPs and Lords.

Today we were told exactly how much MPs have been ordered to repay in “misclaimed” expenses. It emerged that MORE THAN HALF OF OUR MPs, including the leaders of the three main political parties, had broken the rules.

364 MPs have been ordered to pay back £1.12 million, claimed between April 2004 and March 2009.

Barbara Follett, a junior English minister, owed the largest amount, over £44,000 for mobile private security patrols outside her home and insurance for her art collection. Who on earth does this idiot woman think she is?

Anthony Steen, who responded to criticism of his £87,000 claims on his estate with the now infamous lines: "I think I have behaved impeccably. You know what it's about? Jealousy. I have got a very, very large house", has had to repay £11,211.75, including a £28.50 for a flagpole. Now how could he do his job without a flagpole?

Douglas Hogg, who claimed for cleaning his moat, has also lost his appeal and repaid in full the £20,639.42 that Thomas Legg judged him to owe. I hope he doesn’t do anything silly like jump in his moat. He’d only need to get it cleaned again.

Iris Robinson, the granny we all love to hate, had to repay £544.90 towards the cost of a new bed, as mentioned earlier on this blog by Anon. Teenage boys can be so boisterous, don’t you think Iris dear?

Oddly Keith Vaz, who was claiming more than £75,500 in expenses for a flat in Westminster even though his £1.15 million family home is only 12 miles from parliament, has repaid £18,949.82, more than twelve times the £1,514 he owed.

Details have been also been published concerning the hire of banqueting rooms in the Palace of Westminster. Among them, Patricia Hewitt is shown to have hosted several dinners for health companies. She has become a special consultant to Boots and to Cinven since being sacked as Health Secretary. Hewitt, I can barely say your name without wanting to vomit.

Around 13 sitting MPs are still waiting for their appeals against Legg’s verdict to be heard including Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, who over-claimed £24,878.27. Fox's position in the Shadow Cabinet may be in doubt if Paul Kennedy (the appeals judge) rules that he is liable to pay.

Gordon Brown was ordered to repay £12,888 for cleaning. How dirty can you be to need that much cleaning? Bernard Jenkin, who had to repay £63,000 for renting a home from his brother's wife had his claim reduced to £36,909.17. Keep it in the family Bernard.

Thomas Legg, who wrote the report into expenses, condemned the Commons authorities who refused to reform the expenses system, the MPs who used their influence and superior position to browbeat low-paid Commons officials into allowing excessive claims and the officials themselves who failed to enforce proper standards. Personally I think that was a bit unfair on the lowly paid officials, who had apes like Michael Martin roaring at them.

Politicians wonder why there is little interest in politics when they behave like this. Just how thick are they?

WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THEM ON THE PAY SCALE?

MPs ANGERED by cutbacks to their expenses are clinging to hopes the new parliamentary watchdog will award them a £15,000 pay rise after the election. They have been told by the head of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) that a steep increase in salary could be granted to compensate for losses in perks. In fact a pay rise of up to £15,000, taking them to £80,000, a 23 per cent increase, has been mooted.

So they seem to think that an ordinary back bencher is worth £80,000 a year. And they appear to think this is appropriate at a time when people working in the private sector are losing their jobs, taking pay cuts, unpaid holidays, and reductions in hours, all to keep their jobs. What is more, even the protected public service employees are facing cuts in pay, conditions and numbers regardless of which government in elected in May.

Why is it that they think they are worth that kind of money? What is it about their job that makes them feel that we should pay them £80,000, when the average UK wage is in the region of £25,000? What does the average backbencher do to deserve this, plus first class travel, overnight stays in good hotels and subsidised restaurants, bars, etc?

They say that they are professionals. Well, that’s rubbish for a start. The need no qualification whatsoever for the job. No degree, no professional postgrad. Some of them may have been professionals previously I agree, but to use that argument would be like saying that a person with a legal degree who has taken a job in Tesco as a shelf filler should be still paid his solicitor’s salary.

The constituency part of their job involves listening to complaints and using their “position” to try to get done that “ordinary people” can’t get done with intransigent and uncaring officialdom. The letter from an MP will often open doors that remain closed to the rest of us. In the constituency they also have to open things and make speeches at Rotary Dinners, etc.

In parliament they may (or may not) take part in committee work, where they will discuss matters of interest to that committee and question ministers and officials. Nothing particularly professional about that. Further they may, or may not, take part in debates in the House of Commons; they may or may not ask questions of ministers, and they vote.

In almost every single case, they vote the way that they are told to vote, so they don’t need to think about the matters that are put before them. They do not even need to attend the debates, because, no matter what is said in the debate, they way they vote has been decided in advance by the Whips. MPs didn’t have to read the Lisbon Treaty, for example. They voted the way that they were told to vote on it. If they never even heard of the Lisbon Treaty, it wouldn’t have mattered a hoot.

Now, of course, some MPs are hard working, and they do read briefs and they work hard to get things for their area, but none of this is a requirement. Of course, you might also say that every 4 or 5 years they have to face the electorate, but as well over half the seats are as safe as houses, in many cases that is irrelevant.

So, can someone tell me what it is that they do that makes them worth more than three times the average salary? Damned if I can see it.

Subrosa has a poll running on her blog on just this subject. It will be interesting to see what results that brings. I'll keep you posted. In the meaning this link will take your there.

.

HERE'S TO YOU MRS ROBINSON, JESUS LOVES YOU MORE THAT YOU WILL KNOW. HO HO HO

Iris Robinson MP, MLA, and wife of Northern Ireland’s First Minister, has admitted that she tried to kill herself after confessing that she had had an affair. Mr Robinson said he was determined to save his marriage and insisted that he would stay on as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Nine days ago Mrs Robinson declared that she was quitting politics because of a battle with depression. Speculation has been rife since then about further revelations. Mr Robinson has not been at his office since Christmas, sparking anger when he failed to comment on the death of Cardinal Daly and failed to attend his funeral.

During a period of mental illness Mrs Robinson said that she lost control of her life and did the worst thing that she had ever done. She said that the affair had no emotional or lasting meaning. She said: “Psychiatrists may suggest that my mental illness was a significant factor explaining my irrational behaviour. I do not in any way question or doubt their judgment. But in order to master my life I do not want to dilute the blame or resist taking full responsibility for my actions. I am completely ashamed and deeply embarrassed.”

She disclosed how at midnight on March 1 last year she tried to take her own life when she confessed to the affair because of the guilt that she felt. Hours later her husband was at the dispatch box answering questions at the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In 2008 Mrs Robinson courted controversy when she claimed in the House of Commons, that homosexuality was an abomination and it made her feel sick and nauseous. In a subsequent interview she defended her views saying that "just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual.... If anyone takes issue, they're taking issue with the word of God.” She added: “There can be no viler act, (apart from homosexuality and sodomy) than sexually abusing innocent children.”* So, she said that homosexuality was worse than paedophilia? That’s some statement to make.

In June 2009 Mrs Robinson and her husband were criticised when it became known that they had between them salaries and expenses of £571,939.41 with a further £150,000 going in salaries to members of their families.

Now I respect people’s religious views and I even respect the right of an MP to express these personal views in a public way, although it must have been a pretty embarrassing moment for her husband. However, as Mrs Robinson’s life is so clearly directed by the teachings of the Bible, could I remind her that adultery is a sin. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is, if I remember aright, the seventh commandment. And aren’t there numerous referenced in the Bible to riches and their incompatibility with godliness? For example, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24. Further could I just remind her that attempted suicide is against the "natural order" and thus interferes with God's master plan for the world? Those who succeed in killing themselves can not be buried in consecrated ground.

I wonder if Mrs Robinson has a clear idea of what the word hypocrite means?

* Information from Wikipedia

DISASTROUS YEAR FOR THE COMMONS, ACCORDING TO BERCOW

In an interview with the BBC’s Radio 4 flagship news programme, "Today", Speaker Bercow admitted that it had been a disastrous year for the reputations of politicians. Using words like cataclysmic to describe the situation, he said that he wanted to see reforms that would put MPs above reproach. He indicated that he didn’t see the situation as irreversible, but said that without any “payback” there would be no “comeback”.

I agree with him. It has been a terrible year for the reputations of our politicians and BOTH houses of parliament. They have made themselves the laughing stock of the world, and to some extent dragged us down with them.

The system has had to take a lot of the blame and in all fairness so it should. Who among us is capable of total self regulation? They should never have been left to decide their own terms and conditions. It was also irresponsible to refuse proper salary increases to MPs in order to appear “prudent” but to turn a blind eye to the use of “allowances” to top up salaries.

Drastic changes to the way that the Commons and the Lords are run are required. Allowances and expenses need to be brought into the 21st century and MPs and Peers must be treated like other government employees. That is, after all, what they are. We need to remember that, but above all, THEY need to remember it.

Many of them are fond of telling us how hard they work, for very little money and that is why they took the expenses system which they set up and they policed, to the limit, and then some more. Those that think that they could get more money in the City or the Law Courts or private industry, and care more about the money than the job, should resign immediately and make way for people who wish to serve.

The incoming government should promise to continue the work of modernising the Lords into a 21st century senate, without all the titles and flimflammery. It’s maybe pretty but it serves no purpose and it’s expensive and classist.

MPs’ and Senators’ salaries should reflect their job descriptions, and their expenses should reflect the fact that they may require temporary accommodation in the English capital, but should also be mindful that they are public servants of a hard up little country. They need to remember that they work for us. They are not our rulers. They do not require to travel First Class, to live in large prestigious London apartments, or to furnish these places from John Lewis, at prices 3 or 4 or 10 times the cost that the average person would pay.

All over the country, what they like to call “ordinary” people are losing their jobs, taking reductions in salary or hours, working extra for nothing. MPs and Peers, many of whom are held in contempt by us “ordinary” people, must be seen to do the same sort of thing. They should do so with humility. They’ve had it good for a long time, now when they are asked for pay back they should show some dignity.

EXPENSES, EXPENSES, EXPENSES

There are so many things to discuss in the newly-released expenses papers. I suppose that there is enough material for seriously cutting up the ruling classes for the next 6 weeks.

They are still at it. You’d have thought that they would have been scared off by all the fuss that was made by the Daily Telegraph in the summer, but I suppose many of them are past caring now. They are only here for the next few months. They may as well go out with a bang. So, less than 24 hours after Darling announced tax increases on people earning as little as £20,000 a year, documents showing a complete lack of repentance on the MPs’ and Lords’ parts was sure to rock the expenses scandal back on to the front pages.

Among the things that amused me most were:

• Quentin Davies (Labour) (pictured), claiming £20,000 for the repairs on his bell tower at his country mansion. Well worth every halfpenny of tax payers’ money Quentin old thing. We can’t have his bell tower falling on the serfs and crushing them. OK, he was refused, but he had the nerve to ask and he did get over £5,000 for roof repairs.

• Gordon Brown (Labour) got his downstairs toilet done up, at an amazing cost of £2,700. If that’s what it cost to redo his toilet, imagine the cost of redecorating his living room! Prudence obviously doesn’t stint himself when we're paying. Apparently he offered to pay back £500 for the painting of his summerhouse, admitting it could be “questionable”. Yup, remembering the maxum that expenses must be vital to doing the job, I think I can imagine somehow being able to be an MP without having my summerhouse painted...

• Jackie Smith (Labour) managed to get a new TV, DVD player and a double bed for the price of only £1,400. I’m seeing a connection here to some of her older claims...... wink wink.

• Peter Viggers (Duck House) (Conservative) (You’re going to love this). £8,000 for lawn feed and gardening (he must have a massive lawn, there are OAP couples that live for a whole year on less than that), and £669 for shutters (well, you can’t help your constituents if you don’t have shutters now, can you?)

The whole nasty, embarrassing mess is spread over a wide range of newspapers, but I got my information mainly from the Daily Mail. (Always good for a bit of pursed lip, shaking head and tutting disapproval is the Mail).


A lovely additional piece of information picked up on a comment on Lobbydog’s blog was the cleaning bills for a certain Graham Allen, Nottingham North:

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/graham-allen/Graham_Allen_0809_ACA.pdf

It appears that Mr Allen among other things gets his shirts dry cleaned, rather than bother with the nasty nonsense that the rest of us have to put up with, you know, washing them, drying them and ironing them and then hanging them up. Maybe something about the delicate skin of a member of the ruling classes that just couldn’t be doing with that nasty soap and conditioner that the rest of us ordinary people have to put up with. But apparently, according to the receipts, we also have the honour of pay for his, or his wife’s, or... whoever’s blouses! Well, don’t that beat all!

It’s nice to see in this world of rapid change that there are still some things that you can count on....

NOW ALL WORKING WOMEN HAVE TO HAVE SECOND HOME ALLOWANCES

Ms Laing and Ms Starkey, two of the women concerned for their safety

On Friday of last week I mentioned that a junior minister at the Department of Work and Pensions had pointed out that, without the right to claim on expenses for a cleaner, women would not be able to take up jobs as MPs. I mentioned the patently obvious fact that there was no difference between an MP and any other worker, and I drew the conclusion that what, in effect, this woman was saying was that NO WOMAN would be able to take ANY job, unless their employer paid for a cleaner: a rather strange and somewhat impracticable notion for a minister in the Department of WORK and Pensions to come up with.

Today, according to The Daily Telegraph, a group of female MPs have said that reforms proposed by Christopher Kelly will put female MPs at risk of sexual assault. This particular claim is based on the proposal that second homes allowance should only be available to MPs who live a certain distance from the Commons, meaning that some MPs may have a little farther to travel after work. It is only fair to Kelly to mention at this point that he said that taxi fares could be claimed when the House sat late, in place of the allowance, as that would be much cheaper.

Several of the group are, apparently, people whose expenses have come in from criticism in the past and they come from both Tory and Labour benches. Isn’t it strange how these people can work together in perfect harmony when it involves them getting their grasping little trotters on some more of our cash?

Once again, I cannot for a minute assume that these women think that MPs should be different from anyone else, and if they feel that the streets of Britain are so full of sexual perverts that none of them is safe out alone after dark (even in a taxi cab paid for by the tax payer), they must be proposing that ALL women who work should be provided by their employers with a second home allowance so that they can live right next to their place of employment. I’d suggest that this is another rather impracticable proposal given the current financial meltdown situation.

These women who seem to feel that they are being treated unfairly might like to remember that attacks (albeit rarely sexual ones) are perpetrated on men as well as women, and they might want to speak to the Home Secretary about doing something about the Law and Order issues that they have such problems with.

OK, so that was all a bit of a joke. Let’s get down to the truth. These women have a car park that they can use for free under the House of Commons. Additionally, to suit different life choices, they are being offered taxis at our expense, door to door. (I’m sure we could arrange to vet the taxi company to ensure that there are no perverts on its staff, although that company might respond by asking for a similar check on the MPs.) The truth is that they are not in the least worried about being attacked. What they are worried about is no longer being allowed to buy a second home cheap, have it done up at our expense as a second home, and then sell it on at a massive profit, having carefully flipped it to make sure that it no longer attracts any Capital Gains Tax.

I don’t know how many of you feel as angry as I do about these people who just won’t give it up, while the rest of us cope with the results of the recession that they have overseen. They need to remember that we sent them to parliament to look after OUR interests. They seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time looking after their own!!

WHEN YOU'RE IN A HOLE MR WILSHIRE, IT'S BEST TO STOP DIGGING

Perhaps you will remember that a few weeks ago I related the story of a certain Mr Wilshire, MP for Spelthorne in England who had, contrary to Commons’ regulations, paid his expenses into a company which he and his partner owned. You may also remember that, busy man that he is, he forgot to register the company for tax purposes, or National Insurance purposes, and, I suppose in the way that these things go, the silly old sausage completely forgot to pay any of these taxes that the rest of us are burdened with. I’m sure I won’t have to remind you that his partner had some sort of animal nesting in her hair, which may account for some of their forgetfulness.

You may also remember that according to his version of the tale, he decided that he had let people down and so he decided to stand down as the MP. Not right away, you understand (thereby losing a fat parcel of goodies), but, he was so ashamed he decided to stay on till next May.

Of course the official version was somewhat different. It went like this: the Tory Chief Whip had him in and told him he was a bit of an old disgrace and just the sort of chap that gave the Conservatives a bad name, so Dave the leader had decided that he would have to go. Oh well, it was close and it’s easy to mix these things up.

So now Mr Wilshire has, on Commons stationery, and using Commons prepaid envelopes (so as not to dig into any of that profit he was making), written a 2-page letter to every single Spelthorne constituent explaining his side of the debacle. Wasn’t that kind of him?

I won’t bother you with all the trivial details of the letter, in fact I don’t even know them all, but the Daily Telegraph thought this was a particularly interesting part of the narrative, and I agree.

Mr Wilshire wrote: “The witch hunt against MPs in general will undermine democracy. It will weaken parliament - handing yet more power to governments. Branding a whole group of people as undesirables led to Hitler's gas chambers.”

I think that in the first part of that statement he’s kinda mixed things up a little. It’s the fact that so many MPs turned out to be nothing better than cheap little benefit cheats that has undermined parliament and thus democracy. Indeed the so-called witch-hunt has probably strengthened what little democracy we have left. The second half of the statement is beneath contempt. To compare what is happening to MPs with the holocaust death camps is below the level that we expect even from the likes of Wilshire.

It is a travesty that this odious little man is allowed to continue in his post as MP, on his salary of around £63,000 and make insulting statements on our stationery and deliver them at our expense.

WE GAVE YOU A LONG ROPE: YOU HANGED YOURSELVES

Moan, moan, whine.

That’s what we got when the Legge letters started landing on the doormats of MPs a couple of weeks ago. They moaned again about not having done anything wrong. (Like we hadn’t heard enough of that!) Then they moaned about having to pay the money back, and then, as if they hadn’t moaned enough, they whined about how unfair it had been because they had been expecting, indeed had been promised, the letters at 2 o’clock and then at 4 ... and you wouldn’t believe it.... the poor wee mites, some of the letters didn’t arrive until after 6. Bless them. What a to do. Fancy having to wait around half the day for a letter!

They moaned that it wasn’t fair that they had to pay back money for having their houses cleaned and their hanging baskets watered, and they moaned that it wasn’t fair because the rule book hadn’t said that they couldn’t. And in a way, they were quite correct.

From what I could see of the rule book it never once said. “You cannot have your house cleaned at the public’s expense. Nor may you have your garden looked after ditto”. I’m guessing that the rules’ authors assumed a modicum of intelligence in the MP class and/or just a smattering of the much vaunted moral compass. On that basis the House of Commons Green Book made clear that expenses could only be claimed if they were “incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of their parliamentary duties”.

Enough said, I think. If you can’t be an MP and carry out your duties without having your garden watered, then you have a choice: don’t be an MP; don’t have a garden; pay for the garden to be watered out of your own pocket, like the rest of the country has to do. That's not so awful, is it?

Now with today’s Kelly Report, another wide range of recommendations which the Prime Minister (when he set up the enquiry) promised would be accepted in full, and another outbreak of moaning and whining. No more mortgages interest; no more spouses and offspring employment; no second homes within London. You can hear the whining from here and the report hasn’t been released yet.

But nothing unfair is being proposed (at least from the leaks, or disclosures so far). Nothing that wouldn’t be considered quite fair in “ordinary” people’s lives. I mean, no one else can buy a house and speculate with tax payers’ money in the way that MPs can (except perhaps peers), and, in no other public service can close relatives work directly with each other. No public employees are paid arbitrary amounts; nor do they work away without a close check on their absenteeism, time keeping, conduct and performance. Why should MPs' staff be any different?

Accusations that the proposed new regulations will make it impossible for poorer people to be MPs are ill-founded. Accommodation will still be provided in London for those who are in need of it. It will now, however, be rented accommodation. MPs will still be able to employ people to work for them, but now they will have to be employed on a regulated basis. Just like everyone else. What’s off putting in that?

What I say is: You get paid three times the average wage for a job which requires no training and no qualification. You start on the top rate. All you have to do is satisfy your constituency party that you’re a good bet for winning. In the bulk of constituencies you are guaranteed a job for life. Now stop whining, stop moaning and get on with your jobs of holding the executive to account. So far you've been useless at it.

No Expense Spared

Over at the Telegraph, I read that there is to be a new book on the MPs’ expense scandal of this summer. It has been compiled by the Telegraph’s journalists with the help of someone they refer to as the “mole”. That’s not particularly surprising news I hear you say. The Telegraph is far to savvy an organisation to miss the opportunity of publishing a book on what was its biggest story of the year.

What is interesting is how it came by all the information. Well it goes like this.

When, after a mammoth struggle to avoid publication, the MPs were instructed to come clean, it was agreed that the papers published should be heavily “redacted” ... or censored to you and me. So of course, at our expense, a team of “redactors” was set up. Many of them were parliamentary staff seconded for the job. But, so secret was the information (unlike that information that the government keeps leaving on trains, in taxis or sending unencoded, by carrier) that they had to employ security guards to make sure that nothing was leaked.

Now here comes the interesting bit, you know, the bit where the MPs get bitten on their butts. UK soldiers, it seems, are so poorly equipped compared with other nations’ troops that they have to buy a lot of their own gear. At the same time the lower ranks are so badly paid that they can’t afford to buy it. So they are between a rock and a hard place. Being bright and inventive guys, some of them decided that, during their hard earned and very much deserved leave they would, instead of lying on a beach, or spending time with their partner, that they would go work as security people. It’s against the regulations, but when it’s a matter of life or death and the authorities are too hard up to provide you with the goods.... well, a guy’s gotta do what a guys gotta do.

Well, unfortunately for the MPs, some of these lads got jobs at the place where they parliamentary staff were “redacting” the expenses claims.

It doesn’t take a huge intellect to imagine what happened next. People working together become friends, people gossip to their mates. The soldiers got to know what was in the outrageous expense claims. It seems that the country could pay for moats being cleaned and imaginary shelves being put up, but the money ran out when they were being asked to pay for Kevlar ballistic vests, desert boots, gloves or sunglasses. All these things provided for foreign troops.

And so, in trying to keep their expenses secret the MPs inadvertently put them into the hands of people who had the best reason in the world to publicise them. No soldier was involved in the leak, I hasten to add. This was done, it seems, by civilians who had become so incensed by the comparison they were working with daily. The words “hoist” and “petard” spring to mind.

It's nothing to do with the wee ned in the picture (it was happening before his time), but I though people would like to see his wee face.