´óÏó´«Ã½

FLOURISHING EVIL AND THE GOOD MAN DOING SOMETHING

Power Michael? Are you sure? Sampson had no power until he pulled the Temple down on himself. It's a one-trick kind of power. That an MP must be called by the Speaker, is just one more banal facet of a facile charade. And let's not forget the Whip. A General Election and a new speaker will not rid us of this 'indolent feast' that draws to itself, in a Palace of Perversity, the sort of individuals one would not deign to buy a used democracy from (make that an ABused de mock crass y).

Back Bencher power? You can NOT be serious man.

Just watched the Speaker's resignation statement.

More interestingly followed by a couple of odd bods aching at the lack of time to pass proper 'tribute'.

I seem to recall from my 'O' level history that such 'tributes' were often in more tangible forms.

In the spirit of 'moving on' so favoured by the WUVI-classes as and when it suits, I do hope that none suppose that many take a very deep interest in not only what will continue to happen to this individual's fortunes (political or otherwise), but also the majority of the shambolic crew he was there to order about.

I am already aghast at how cosy all commentators are at the prospect of a bit of a private vote on the next one who gets between them and the electorate... again.

Ann Widdecombe latest in the frame to get their frillies in a knot. This the MP who sees the cutting of grass at both her 'homes' in only two ways: someone else needs to do it, and someone else obviously needs to pay for it. Many in the electorate might first have considered other options before arriving at this view.

I think Wonder Woman should be given the role of Speaker. She could use her 'lasso of truth' on MPs ensuring a just, honest and peaceful land for us all.

Admittedly, she could also, no doubt, fulfil the fantasies of some MPs by using her 'lasso of truth' in other ways thereby fulfilling two jobs in one and hopefully cutting back on out of Parliament expenses!

You know it makes sense!

One could say then that even the furniture was telling the Speaker to go.

Perhaps he should have asked who paid for such ungrateful equipment?

AND PLEASE - NO FAUX RELUCTANCE.

Unless MPs choose a Non-Wan (someone with no wish to mount that poisoned commode) who might just fix a few errant ways of Chambering, then the charade of being dragged to the chair should be dropped. Wannabes don't need dragging - they just can't wait to BE SOMEONE - anyone. This would be one small signal to the raging mob that, at last, Gormless Westminster had 'got it' - or, as least, one small bit of it.

Michael the backbenchers target of the Speaker was a soft one. The realisation that they are all tarred with the same brush, particularly the shire Tories whose greed knows no bounds, has prompted this two week conversion to the need for change. The commitee served by Lib Dems, labour and Tories are all as guilty as Mr Speaker who have no doubt taken on board the views of backbenchers should also be booted out. No excuses.

Any candidate for the position of Speaker should be required to disclose their expenses for at least the last 15 years and not merely the most "convenient" last 4 years.

They should also be required to disclose all outside income and interests for the same period.

This would allow the public to access whether that candidate is truly independent, transparent and worthy to hold the position of Speaker and to be the guardian of democracy within Parliament.

This degree of scrutiny would also allow the public to access whether the candidate put outside interests before their parliamentary duties for which the public elected and paid them to do, above their own interests.

Open to scrutiny; let's see how many truly are?

If I were Jeremy, I would move on very quickly form the Speaker affair.

"Michael Martin has announced he will step down on June 21 and a new speaker will be elected the following day."

End of that story.

Now:

(Suggested Monologue for JP) The real story, or course, is not the public's opinion of the speaker but of the MPs. The announcement by the speaker this afternoon is unlikely to temper the anger of the electorate who's concern is rather why some MPs felt they could spend money on services and goods that are not required to do their job or needed to have somewhere to sleep at night?

The system, so easily and frequently criticised and discredited by MPs, simply existed to make sure they were not out of pocket from having to live in two different parts of the country, should that be the case.

If the MPs have claimed apparently outrageous amounts, such as for lavish plasma televisions, that claim is the fault of the MP, not the system. It can be argued that the system should have questioned these claims, but the fact remains that the MPs felt it their right to be able to try and claim it in the first place.

It is the systemic greed in Parliament that has infuriated the public more than anything else, and the fact that MPs ADMIT that they are INCAPABLE of being sensible without rules to stop them being greedy just makes the entire affair sink from scandal into farce.

So, are the MPs exposed to have claimed one moat too far suitable candidates as MPs at all? Paying back the money does not take away from the fact that they claimed in the first place, and the stories published have been denied by only a few thus far. Even apologising does not seem to sit well with the public for it fails to answer the one question that has NEVER been answered - Why did you do it?

Attempts by various journalists have only produced the answer, "Well, the system...."

A large number of voters would like to see mass resignations, effective immediately, and either a general election or by-elections. But the feeling currently is that a handful of MPs on both sides of the house will be "deselected" and the rest will be swept under the carpet as long as they have paid the money back.

(This is the wishful thinking bit:)

"I have with me ten of the MPs who's expenses claims include items, big and small, which common says tells us are unnecessary.

Right, which of you lot are going to resign? And if not, why not? "

SPEAKER MARTIN AND THE DON'T-GET-IT FINALE.

I just watched Martin rise from the Bat-Commode and declare: "Parliament is at its best when united" - that will be why it is designed for adversarial, nihilistic combat, and why the Opposition is honour-bound to oppose EVERYTHING.

Perhaps he meant: "when united against the people of Britain" - the latter being an ever present irritant in the honourable business of governance.

As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a maroon!"

NOW HE IS DOING SMUTTY ONE LINERS!

Brown just said MPs must get out in the High Street and "hold themselves to account!"

I AM COMING TO THE BOIL

Brown now saying naughty MPs must be punished. His erstwhile chum Tony, with his connivance, lied us into a never-ending hate-war. Where is the punishment for that? Fiddled expenses have killed no one - might even just save the economy.

so we say goodby to Gorballs Mick, he was on too long but he took some stick, now they queue to say goodbye, but not one can look him in the eye. he was the driver of the gravy train, the train called greed, 'they're all the same' four grand for taxis, clean out your moats, claim for your cars and claim for your boats, no one will notice, no one will care but if the s.... hits the fan...I won't be there

I guess I am in a minority of one but I reckon that MPs are ridiculously underpaid. Having said that, they should not have made up the difference using expenses.

Since Margaret Thatcher set a precedent on this matter (pressurising MPs not to take their pay rise under pressure from the media), MPs' pay has fallen behind. Worse than that we have let the media treat them like schoolchildren with the likes of Nick Robinson pontificating over them like a headmaster. The fact is that we voted for MPs. The fact that Nick Robinson and his crew get paid more than MPs is perverse. The fact that Robinson gets more prime air time to give us his views than my MP is also perverse. The fact that a campaigning tv show or news report can effect law changes more than my elected MP can manage is also perverse.

This statement says it all:

"I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out."

Well I may not want you find out what my MP doesn't want you to know. He may have a very good reason and that reason may be in the best interests for his constituents and the wider community. Does that include expenses? Obviously not. However, it is this kind of approach by journalists that has lead to the seed of the problem of MPs' remuneration not to mention many other problems such as voter apathy.

What we should be doing is:

1. Dealing with the worse excesses of expenses claims, some of which are quite sordid

2. Quadrupling the pay of those MPs whose expenses claims were reasonable (the vast majority I suspect), and then severely reducing access to expenses thereafter

3. Reducing the ridiculous sums of money that go to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for offering us its own opinions and increasingly undermining our elected representatives.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust said yesterday that reducing the licence fee would reduce the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s independence. What complete tosh! Independence is fine when accompanied by unbiased, un-opinionated and non-judgmental output. Independence is downright dangerous when it is used to bring pressure to bear on how our country is run.

For instance, why does taxpayers money suddenly becomes important when it is given to banks and claimed by MPs but is not mentioned when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is calling for more government intervention on this or that hobby horse?

No other publicly funded institution that I know of interferes in our politics in the way the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does, whether this is the National Health Service, the police and even the civil service. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a quango that lobbies our government on a minute to minute basis and it has no democratic mandate to do so.

An independent media is vital in a democracy. However, an independent state broadcaster that throws out propaganda, or claims to set the agenda (i.e. the "Today" programme) or goes out of its way to humiliate our politicians is a threat to our democracy, especially when public money is being used and especially when that public money allows the state broadcaster to have a 50% share of broadcast and online media.

My guiding rule in any story is that it should be restricted to facts and devoid of gossip, speculation and political pressure. I guess my guiding rule means we should dispense with the views of commentators like Nick Robinson and Michael Crick.

I surely cannot be alone in being deeply disappointed that the plea of "It was all within the rules" is not being adequately challenged by journalists ?

The relevant Parliamentary Rules, as set out for example in the July 2006 Green Book, in respect of the "Additional Costs Allowance" stated as follows:
"3.1.1 The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses [MPs] for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence ......... for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. "


The language used is plain and simple. Reimbursement for expenses incurred is not a difficult concept. Neither is that of such expenses needing to have been incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for a particular purpose; millions of PAYE tax payers in this country have been subject to such a system for decades. The effect is cumulative and highly restrictive as taxpayers well know (but do not forget of course that receipt of an ACA did not have to be declared for tax purposes).

More than that, these MPs seem to have forgotten, or wish now conveniently to overlook, that they have recently been party to using the same well understood terms in legislation enacted during the life of this Parliament; so see for example s336 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and s168 Income Tax Act 2007. Presumably they took care to understand what they were enacting?

In future questioning of MPs by journalists and in any future statements by an MP seeking to justify claims made as being within the Rules, is it too much to ask that the terms of Rules themselves are directly addressed ?

Obfuscation is encouraged by ill considered questions and unfocused pleas in excuse.

It is obvious that the costs of gardening, moat cleaning and duck houses can never have been incurred for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties. However, it is also clear that many other claims were clearly not within the Rules either. For example only, simple questioning along the following lines would greatly assist in understanding how it was that claims were made and whether it is right to conclude that some innocent mistake was made:

"MP X, assuming that your main home was the room you rented from your sister in her house in London, then how did you satisfy yourself that expenses claimed in respect of your family home in the country were either wholly or exclusively incurred by you for the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties and that no benefit thereby accrued to your spouse and children who lived in that home?"; or

MP Y, how was the maintenance of a cottage not lived in by you but located on one of your estates an expense incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of performing your parliamentary duties?