A couple of things for your Friday delectation.
Firstly via comments over on Anna Raccoon there is the wonder that is Daed Parrot’s Sleaze-O-scope. A one stop shop for locating all the latest sleaze.
And utterly unrelated to that a rather jolly rant against recycling.
Obviously the big story at the moment is four ministers taking cash for access the defence of which was that that they were variously lying or should not be given credibility (Guido has a petiton). So that’s reassuring then we don’t need to worry about ministers offering to take cash for access as they’re either mad or lying (or possibly both) – but still fit to govern whilst exceeding the government’s recommended weekly alcohol limit (which is much cheaper to do in the subsidised bars in the houses of Parliament).
Whilst that’s been going on Gordon has re-announced plans to give us all high speed broadband (presumably still paid for by the extra tax imposed on having a land line). Which will at least make sure we can all get to the single central government website, which will allow them to lose out data and screw things up even faster than they currently do. If you can’t afford a computer don’t worry the government will give you one. In time no doubt you’ll need your ID card to be able access your personal government website – for your own security of course.
Whilst that’s going on not content with having nationalised several banks due to evil investment bankers, Darling is planning to spend another billion pounds of money we don’t have to set up a “green investment bank” – presumably to fund projects that are so unlikely to work that normal banks won’t touch them. No that we’ll have any investment banks soon as Mr Cameron is pledging to go ahead with a “banks levy” (presumably the same as the previously proposed “tobin tax”) even if the rest of the world doesn’t – which will no doubt see all those banks toddling off to those countries which haven’t been that stupid.
And finally in case you missed it those whacky MPs have been accidentally breaking the rules, by accepting cash payments to agree to claim higher rents on their expenses. But at least four Lib Dems were jolly good sports and dobbed themselves in for taking the cash.
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 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.
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).
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
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).
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”
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.
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 »
UK terror threat statusQR code link
| © 2010 Anonymong | Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha |