corruption
Back to the blog with MPs being charged
I’ve been even quieter than usual as the last two weeks my free time was spent rapidly building props for a friend of mine called Preacher who for publicity and other reasons best known to himself was doing the Britains got Talent thing – oh and then there was sleeping. So I’m way behind on pretty much everything so may well go over stuff that’s already been covered by other people far better.
So as a fun place to start there’s the wonderful news that at least some of the corrupt or incompetent members of parliament are to actually face charges , something which will hopefully rumble on long enough to still be fresh in peoples minds when it comes to time to vote. Sadly of course it’s only four of them being charged so far even though < ahref="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/guidofawkes/~3/HJwEg3uxHfI/">52% were found to have over claimed.
The four that have been charged are claiming that parliamentary privilege means they shouldn’t go to court but that instead accoridng to the 1689 bill of rights it should just be a matter for parliamentary authorities – but they don’t think they’re above the law oh no, of course not. We should also pay no attention that the three of them are using the law firm that < ahref="http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/a-devine-precedent/">usually represents Labour. There is of course the slight problem that if they can delay their day in court for long enough they may still get a rather handsome pay off, though of course if their colleagues so chose yet another bit of legislation could fix that.
The one thing that is making me suspect that they may actually all be incompetent rather than dishonest is the amazing video of Jim Devine explaining why he shouldn’t be charged. Also utterly failing to understand the difference between a budget and an allowance and the whole concept of false accounting. But then he does claim it was all OK because a whip told him so.
Meanwhile over at the Lords they can carry on troughing. As a final point the new body they’re bringing in to make sure we can’t complain in future when they feather their beds in this fashion is going to cost about six times the amount recovered from our MPs this time round – but just enforcing the rules as they existed and applying existing law would have been far too difficult and wouldn’t have allowed the government to be seen to be doing something.
Just in – arrest Blair
Just been pointed at a shiny new website from Cyberium/George Monbiot (hat tip : Her Ladyship at Tora Towers).
The stated aim of the site is:
“This site offers a reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, for crimes against peace. Anyone attempting an arrest which meets the rules laid down here will be entitled to one quarter of the money collected at the time of his or her application.
Money donated to this site will be used for no other purpose than to pay bounties for attempts to arrest Tony Blair. All administration and other costs, apart from any charges added to your donations by Paypal, will be paid by the site’s founder.”
A site well worth giivng a high profile to – though if Wikileaks is anything to judge by PayPal will no doubt pull the plug fairly quickly.
MPs expenses 4 weeks to go
Just to remind people the consultation on MP’s expenses end on the 11th of February.
you can take part on line here:
http://mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk/
The Tax Payers Alliance have a fairly good run down of the questions on their Website (hat tip to Iain Dale again).
Speak up about MPs expenses
Via Iain Dale, the public consultation on MPs expenses is now open here:
http://mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk/
Such an important matter obviously needs to be very widely publicised. According to the web site:
We are consulting on the new system for managing MPs’ expenses
* The next parliament will start with a completely new system, independently designed and administered
* This is only the first step of a continuing consultation on the role of Members of Parliament and of Parliament itself
* We’d like to hear your views on our proposal for the new system.
So go along and let them know what you think.
Update: Talking of expenses if you want to know what your MP is claiming well “there’s an app for that
The spoilation of Parliament
Just when you think that the mendacious scoundrels that sit in the palace of Westminster might have learnt to shut up and keep their heads down, they find new and interesting ways to dig up past scandals and heap more disrepute upon their heads. In this case we have three labour MP’s claiming that parliamentary privilege protects them from being prosecuted for fraud over dodgy claims (hat tip: Dizzy). However there may be a silver lining in this dark and stinking cloud, in that as observed by Captain Ranty it may yet test and revalidate the 1689 Bill of rights which could have very interesting repercussions (see comment thread over on Captain Ranty for a discussion).
Climate change hack
Loads of people have already dealt with this far better than I ever could, notably Bishop Hill and the Devils Kitchen. The response over at Real climate is also quite enlightening, especially as they feature in some of the hacked emails (Oh and claim to be independent of any environmental organizations) .
So go and read what these more informed people have to say, in the mean time I’m going to address just two points which come up in the defence of the scientists on Real climate. Firstly there is the claim that it’s all out of context and it’s vital that scientists e-mails are never seen for fear it will hamper their discussions. Apparently the fact that in business you have to assume that courts may see your mail is irrelevant, as in business I assume they believe that you don’t need a free and open exchange of ideas. This is really just so much nonsense, historically the amount of private correspondence between scientists that has been published as well as “private” notebooks is huge. Also obviously if they’re being funded by the tax payers then all of their work belongs to the tax payer, and how do you misinterpret people saying they’d rather delete a file that release it due to a FOI request? As we’re so often told if they’ve nothing to hide they’ve nothing to fear.
More worryingly from a scientific point of view is the huge and obvious reluctance to share their data and models with other people. Only allowing peer review by select and (presumably) friendly/sympathetic peers is not the way to do good science. The hypocrisy of claiming that they need to be able to speak freely to advance science whilst at the same time looking for ways to avoid sharing their work and data with other academics and talking about hiding behind IPR is somewhat shocking (well it would be if it was new).
The one thing, which I think the revealed data does show is that the science for significant man made climate change is nowhere near as solid as we’re led to believe. The robust debate for which hiding data is vital, isn’t allowed to reach us mere mortals despite the changes that are being insisted on to combat models which are still the matter of such robust debate and seemingly such suspect data. The way that bits of data sets are seemingly casually discarded when they no longer fit the favoured model is quite worrying, why should say tree data suddenly become unreliable? If there’s good evidence of some external change affecting that data fair enough, but if it’s suspect after point X with no such external change why isn’t it also suspect before then. It’s details such as this which I think go beyond “ambiguous at worst”
Will no one think of the MP’s?
I recently commented on how terribly ghastly being asked to pay back some money was for our beloved parliamentarians. I obviously didn’t realise just how terrible it was, but it seems to be causing some sort of mental aberration in Frank Field. Still using the defence that as he only claimed 30 to 50 % of what he was allowed to it must all have been utterly required for his parliamentary duties. He then goes on to say:
“Robert Verkaik in today’s Independent goes further. He argues that Sir Thomas Legg’s decision is not akin to retrospective changes to the criminal law, but to the changing of tax loopholes or windfall charges on corporations who have benefited from unintended legislative consequences.
The charges arising from the closing of tax loopholes, however, are never retrospectively imposed.”
Ok, once you’ve stopped laughing. I’m sure you can see the terrible effects the stress of having to pay back some money must have had on this poor poor man. The wind fall taxes certainly weren’t retrospectively imposed after the profits were made, the changes to VED in 2008 also obviously weren’t retrospective, and the tax man will never come after you years after you’ve made a mistake on your tax and had it seemingly approved and ask for it all back, plus interest. Oh and this Government has never argued:
“that retrospective taxation requires carefully scrutiny for its justification, but it is capable of being justified by sufficiently strong arguments.”
Obviously the only sensible way forward out of this mess is to create another bit of “non-retrospective” law to let them all off the hook and pay them suitable compensation for the mental anguish that being forced to lift their snouts biefly from the trough brief has obviously caused.
Update Anna Raccoon also points out the
‘pre-owned asset tax’ amongst others none of which could possibly be construed as retrospective tax or legislation, as those are bad.
Expenses the whinging
A bit late to press with this one, I blame work and other commitments so just for a change I will be linking to all sorts of other people that have already said what I’m thinking far more clearly than I will.
After a quiet summer the MPs are back to find that Sir Thomas Legg has completed his report and decided that an awful lot of them should really repay a small amount of the money they’ve fraudulently taken from us over the years. Amazingly enough this suggestion has met with a wailing and gnashing of teeth and cries of “being close to minimum wage” and roulette wheel justice even from the likes of the normally sane Frank Field. In fact so painful is it for these honourable members to have to pay back some of their ill gotten gains that they’re threatening to sue or even (can you believe it?) resign. Yes it really is that terrible for them, so bad that the main parties are actually working together to deal with this horrible catastrophe.
› Continue reading
What a start
So the “honourable” members are back to their subsidised bars restaurants and hard days of submitting fraudulent expenses claims. So how’s that first day gone? Well Jacqui Smith has read out a grudging apology for being caught claiming that a room at her sisters was her main home, and not the house family live at. But as she’s apologised it’s now all ok, no further action will be taken, not even for claiming for her husbands porn, and no she doesn’t have to give the money back. Which is perfectly reasonable you see, as claiming for an entire house obviously costs just as much as claiming for a room so it doesn’t really matter which she claimed for. So all just a terrible misunderstanding and can we all move on please.
Someone who has at least been asked to pay back the odd 12 grand is former iron chancellor gurning Gordon, along with quite a few others. Though it is to be noted that so far they’ve only been asked, as it seems the person asking exceeded their remit in actually applying the existing rule of expenses having to be actually due to costs incurred doing their job, and not just because they want to build up a property portfolio. Terribly terribly mean of Sir Thomas, after all a grand a year for a gardener hardly goes any where these days.
But it’s all ok as they’ve passed a new law (they’re terribly fond of those) putting an independent government funded body (or qango if you will) in charge of approving authorising their expenses. Fret not though it won’t impact the troughing too much the Lords are utterly exempt from it. There is actually good news in that bill, they managed to not scrap parliamentary privilege. Nor did they (as far as I can tell) get to make new laws covering these accounting errors, as opposed to say existing laws such as those covering fraud.
Alas however whilst parliamentary privilege may still be intact. So that our representatives can safely speak freely and ask awkward questions for their lobbyists constituents, it seems that thanks to the auspices of those bastions of free speech at carter-fuck, we may no longer have the chance to hear about it. In the mean time in case you haven’t heard (and you probably won’t have) it turns out that the way the police dealt with Damian Green MP the other year was not proportionate. The Met have a slightly different take on things.
So what a start to the new troughing season, so time for another walk. One day if we’re really really lucky and all wish very very hard they might take a hint.
(Feel free to steal the crap graphic, I’m working on a better version)
And the award for not getting it…
Goes to Nadine Dorries supported by Iain Dale, though it was closely contested by Anthony Steen. I shall leave commentary on Ms Dorries amazing car crash of an outburst to others, as quite frankly I’m past caring about MPs not getting it. I’ve seen a couple that have understood what the problem is (but unfortunately only on TV at work whilst getting coffee so can’t name names) they’re news, the more common not getting it has had pretty much everything said. Though Ms Dorries claims about the Barclay brothers do take it to a whole new level (links to the interviews via Plato says and commentary by Behind blue eyes and of course the indomitable Leg Iron).
However it’s Iain’s fantastic supporting role that I’d like to consider, as it really is quite impressive. Apparently “the public” , amongst which from the phrasing I must assume Iain doesn’t count himself, aren’t in the mood to listen to the “very valid indeed” . Well as a member of the public I’ve been listening , listening quite lot in fact and I’ve heard very few valid points being made. Unlike Iain I do have to differ with the view expressed by the archbishop of Canterbury in that obviously the point hasn’t been made for if it had we’d not have the likes of Ms Dorries complaining about how beastly it all is, nor Mr Steen claiming we’re all just jealous. Sadly Iain doesn’t enlighten us as to what these very valid points are that we’re all ignoring, so I’ve no idea how valid they are or if they’re ones I myself have been ignoring or just haven’t heard. Perhaps he means some of Ms Dorries points such as how their tax free allowances have always been counted as part of the salary (which must suck for London MPs who don’t get the ACA), who knows it will have to remain a mystery.
To return to Iain he feels that we the public are somehow wrong to blame all MPs, as some of them are “totally blameless” and here he comes so close to understanding why we’re angy at all MPs but manages to swerve away from understanding at the last moment. For he goes on to say “the public regards them all as condoning a system which has been used to line their pockets.” , which according to Iain is down to the whips and the fees office encouraging them to view it as a top up salary (yep it’s that nasty mean system forcing MPs to fraudulently claim money again). So according to Iain the nasty mean system encouraged MPs to trough at our expense and Ms Dorries tells us that it has “always been known and has always been counted as part of an MP’s salary“, yet we are wrong to blame all of the MPs for condoning this system they all knew about yet somehow never managed to speak out against until the Telegraph had the audacity to point out that perhaps it stunk rather a bit. See it was that nasty system and everyone knew about it, it’s just us poor deluded public that think that claims were really only meant to be for expenses incurred by MPs in the course of their duties, tsk silly us. But dear dear Iain he’s prepared to give us some time to reconsider how we really feel about MPs either enriching themselves at our expense or keeping silent about their mates doing it, I mean how dare we expect our representatives to look after our interests and properly hold the system to account? Still as Iain puts it: “The public view it as wrong, so there’s little point in banging on about it at the moment.” so once we come to our sense I assume we’ll realise that it wasn’t actually wrong charging us for plasma TV’s, duck islands, false mortgages or anything else that could be slipped past the fees office.
Iain feels that it would be best all round if the politicians stayed quiet for a bit, presumably to let us the public calm down and remember how to tug our forelocks and doff our caps. Iain has gauged the public mood and determined that: “No one wants to hear from them. The public don’t want a running commentary. They don’t want to hear any politician defending the past, defending the status quo or feeling sorry for themselves.” This would make me, and statistically at least a few other people, No one – as I do want to hear from them. I want to hear from those that haven’t abused the system to know why they didn’t speak out before, I want to hear from the likes of Mr Steen so I know how little our representatives think of us and most of all I want to hear from the party leaders and the “blameless” MPs what they’re going to do to repair the damage they’ve allowed to occur after all everyone knew about it. He’s even wrong to say that I don’t want to hear them defending the past for if I as a member of the public only “view it as wrong” then I want to know why my view is incorrect. I want to hear them defend the status quo so that perhaps they can explain why we should ever trust them again and why bloody revolution isn’t our best choice. I even want to hear them feeling sorry for themselves, but that’s just because I’ve got a sick sense of humour, and it’s a long weekend and I’ve got some beer in.
I utterly fail to understand why at this time when we are more engaged with politics than we have been for years, Iain things it would be better if everyone just stopped talking about it. Is he hoping some exciting twist in celebrity apprentice get me out of here will distract us? Would the front pages talking about Baby P and missing Maddie do for that? Orperhaps we should be talking about the economy instead and the down grading of our national debt rating? After all we have a parliament that gets confused over simple expense claims, forgets when it’s paid off mortgages, so why on earth would we worry about our credit rating falling?
Just for the record I do think that MPs should have somewhere in London they can stay and that it should be reasonably furnished. But every item must be accounted for and when they leave politics it can all be sold at auction to recoup our money, the same goes for any property they buy with our money. They do have expenses that should be met and some of these are being lumped in with the actual abuses of the system as Dizzy observes. Though I would observe that for the rest of us if we used that sat nav for something other than work it would cease to be an expense and become a benefit in kind and taxable. I even think that they probably are somewhat underpaid, taking 4 years off work can really put a dent in your career and we want useful people in parliament, not just people who can afford 4 years out due to wealth or general uselessness. But none of that excuses the profligate abuse of the system by individual MPs that we’ve seen, nor the silence on the issue beforehand by “blameless” and decent MPs.
Which is why despite Iain wishing otherwise this blogger at least, and I expect many others, won’t be zipping it.
UK terror threat status
- Severe 2010/01/25