Showing posts with label mp expenses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mp expenses. Show all posts

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Have I Got Speakers for You

The news that Ann Widdecombe has put her name forward as Speaker for the House of Commons is confusing me. I keep visualising Parliament crammed into the Have I Got News For You Studio, with Widdecombe presiding.

The candidates list is currently:

Ann Widdecombe (Con),
Margaret Beckett (Lab),
Sir Alan Beith (Lib)
John Bercow (Con)
Sir Patrick Cormack (Con)
Parmjit Dhanda (Lab)
Frank Field (Lab)
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Con)
Sir Michael Lord (Con)
Richard Shepherd (Con)
Sir George Young (Con)

Which reads like a very dull version of the guest presenter rota on HIGNFY. So how about:

- Guest Speaker: a rota of folk to preside over Parliament, drawn from wider society. Jeremy Paxman, Brian Blessed, Trisha Goddard, Boris, the Big Brother voice, there are plenty of candidates.

- Wheel of Cuts. Write 'NHS' in the middle of a large wheel, and percentages from 1 to 20 round the edge. Spin it to decide on budget levels for future years. Repeat for other departments.

- Odd one Out: find pictures of the 4 most objectionable world leaders, and decide which one you like least/is least able to defend themselves. Then invade their country.

- 'In the News This Week' David Cameron and Gordon Brown discover who's resigned/been caught fiddling expenses.

- 'Missing Words Round' Party spokespeople are asked to complete the sentence "We will ____ tax by ____% following the General Election"

the possibilities are endless. And then because Parliament will only take up 30m on a Friday night, that'll leave those hard working MP's with plenty of time to tackle all the other issues.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

MP Claims for Cash in Church Collection

Frank Cook claimed back a £5 donation made at a church service to commemorate the sacrifice of RAF pilots. The left wing MP for Stockton North signed the claim thus: “Battle of Britain church service, Sunday 17.09.06. £5 contribution to offertory on behalf of Frank Cook MP.”

From Guido Fawkes. The claim was rejected by the fees office. Mr Cook told the Telegraph "I don't remember the specific details of the Battle of Britain Day donation, but the claim was quite unjustified and I have to hold up my hands and say sorry."

Fair enough, it's only £5 and he's apologised. But why would anyone even think of claiming for this in the first place?

I'll say it again, forget all this tosh about 'reforming the system'. ITS NOT THE SYSTEM THAT'S THE PROBLEM ITS THE PEOPLE. The financial credit crunch last year, and the moral credit crunch this year, are both the result of people doing greedy and irresponsible things because they thought they could get away with it. Yes better (and independent) regulation will help keep people honest in the future, but if an MP can't be a good, honest and trustworthy steward of taxpayers money without having a 'system' to keep him/her that way, then we don't want them as an MP in the first place.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Fightback MP silenced - what do you think?

Nadine Dorries, virtually the only MP to stand up to the Telegraph in the last few days, has had her blog taken down by the Daily Telegraph. Many of the political blogs have the story, e.g.

Craig Murray (himself the victim of blog censorship by the Usmanovs, owners of Arsenal I think)
Dizzy Thinks found that the Telegraph was behind it
NHS blog doctor, one of the first with the story, put it down to David Cameron.

I notice, in passing, that none of the leading political blogs have reposted Nadine Dorries' comments, though a few have linked to the cached version of the blog (see below). What's the matter with them? Surely, somewhere among these courageous men, women and pseudonyms is the cojones to stand up to censorship? It's interesting to see who gets round to publishing her comments - fearless in condemning MP's but a bit more flaky when it comes to standing up to the billionaire owners of Sark?

Well, if you can find anything libellous at the cache of Ms Dorries blog, you're more perceptive than I am. Here is what I think is the offending passage (if you've read her blog, it could be any one of several, e.g. reposting a 'Private and Confidential' letter the Telegraph sent just hours before splashing her personal finances all over the next issue), which I'm posting because
a) this is a free and democratic society, and if MP's have to have their expenses open to scrutiny then their arguments should be open to scrutiny too.
b) I dislike censorship, whether it's happening to Dave Walker, Nadine Dorries or anyone else. Hey, even people I dislike. Most of them.

See what you think

Posted Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 17:04

Just park a couple of facts for a moment, which you may not agree with but are factual. The first is that MPs have always been encouraged, by whatever means possible, to draw down their ACA allowance in full. This is because it was upped in place of an appropriate pay rise.

The rules surrounding the ACA were deliberately sloppy in order to maximise the opportunity that MPs had to draw. This was always felt to be the safest political method to remunerate MPs, rather than face the media backlash of a pay rise.

Parliament is in chaos. The public are angry. The Telegraph has upped its circulation. There are 650 members of Parliament. In any walk of life, in whatever profession, you will find people who are dishonest. It will always be thus as long as we are all human!

The Telegraph are uncovering a few cases of fraud, but not enough, so they are more than slightly embellishing some of the stories. I write as a case in point.

then come the conspiracy theories
one
Enter the Barclay brothers, the billionaire owners of The Daily Telegraph. Rumour is that they are fiercely Euro sceptic and do not feel that either of the main parties are Euro sceptic enough. They have set upon a deliberate course to destabilise Parliament, with the hope that the winners will be UKIP and BNP.

A quick online check of the Barclay brothers and their antics on the Island of Sark is enough to give this part of the rumour credence.

two Another rumour is that the disc was never acquired and sold by an amateur, but it was in fact a long term undercover operation run by the Telegraph for some considerable time, carefully planned and executed; and that the stories of the naive disc nabber ringing the news desk in an attempt to sell the stolen information are entirely the work of gossip and fiction.

These rumours do have some credibility given that this has all erupted during the European Election Campaign and turn out is expected to be high with protest votes, courtesy of the Daily Telegraph, or should I say the Barclay brothers.

Now, if this is all a power game executed by the BBs, how would they do that? It is a fact that these men are no fools and are in fact self-made billionaires. I would imagine and believe that if any of this is true, they know the British psyche well enough to whip up a mood of public anger, hence the long running revelations in the DT.

Where do I get this from? Well, at heart I am just a cheeky scouser. I like to go into the rooms of the faceless and nameless in Parliament, sit on their desk and ask pertinent questions like: who are you? What do you do? I've made friends with one or two. One in particular I am very fond of. He is a mine of very astute information; and whilst in his office yesterday, we chunnered over the 'what is this all about?' question.

three (ish) He reckons this is all a power game. That the British public are being worked like puppets by two very powerful men. Whipped up into a frenzy to achieve exactly what they want.

His very poignant words to me were ���if any of this conjecture is true, Parliament will become full of racists, fantasists, and has-been celebrities. We will be rendered impotent and may never again regain the authority to withstand the pressure, opinion and whims of the overtly wealthy.��
Scary stuff!


Wacky conspiracy theory? Unfounded rumour? Adding 2 and 2 and making 99? You decide, I'm sure you're capable of thinking for yourselves without some media lawyer doing it for you. Better to rebut with facts than add to the speculation by using censorship.

The other place to debate Dorries' comments is Liberal Conspiracy, where people are, shall we say, unsympathetic.

Update: Dizzy has more on the what, when, where and why (see comments). And Nadine Dorries is trying to get her blog restored, according to one of her local papers.