Nadine Dorries and Self Pity

Witness Nadine Dorries blathering on in The Daily Hate about how hard life is as an anti-abortion pro-life campaigner:

Pro-abortion activists deluge me with hate mail, or call on the police and public authorities to investigate me over some time-wasting, invented grievances — like whether I have a permit to hold a press conference on the green outside Parliament, or whether a certain salary payment to my staff is justified.

We only have Dorries' word (for what it is worth) that she is deluged with hate mail by pro-choice (not pro-abortion) activists. As for the grievances - Dorries is an elected politician proposing policies that will have a national impact. Therefore, she is and should be subject to rigourous scrutiny. Especially in the aftermath of the Expenses Scandal - a scandal in which Dorries herself was involved at the very least in a peripheral way.

Indeed, one member of my office recently left my employment because she was so fed up with this endless oppression from campaigners.

Oppression? Please, get a grip. Pressure is the very best you can argue your people are under - and they work for an elected representative, so they should expect to have to deal with public pressure.

Because I am an MP, the police and other bodies have no choice but to investigate, no matter how frivolous the complaint: then the campaigners run off to their supportive friends in the Left-wing press to say that ‘Nadine Dorries is under investigation’, always declining to report a few days later that I have been cleared.

The police and other bodies should investigate all complaints regardless of whether Dorries (hardly the most impartial of sources) finds them to be frivolous. And there is something rather amusing in someone criticising others for using the left-wing press using the medium of the right-wing press. Pot and kettle, Nadine. And I doubt whether you or The Daily Hate will be retracting the unsubtle and inaccurate dig at one of your most eloquent and persistent critics when it is pointed out to you and the terrible rag voicing your self-pitying and unconvincing opinions.

Even my own family is in the firing line. One of my daughters works in my Parliamentary office, so she sees all the cruel messages, while my other daughter, during her last year at school, had to put up with snide comments from teachers whose dogmatic feminism had been offended by my stand.

Well, I don't doubt that you can complain about those snide teachers if you so wish, Nadine. Assuming, of course, there is something meaningful for you to complain about other than your seemingly self-perpetuating persecution complex operating in overdrive. As for the daughter who works in your parliamentary office - it is her choice to take a nepotistic job with her mother, and if she doesn't want to be exposed to the "cruel" messages (which could just be those messages that do not agree with Dorries' positions) she should get a real job in the real world.

Yet what are all these campaigners so scared of? Why should they be anxious about women being offered independent advice?

I think people who are pro-choice would favour independent, neutral advice. Dorries wants to reduce the number of abortions; I think there is nothing wrong with those of us who are genuinely pro-choice questioning the extent to which Dorries' independent advisors would be neutral.

If they are really as pro-choice as they pretend, they would support my proposal. That is what women in this country deserve.

Except the reason why people who are pro-choice do not support Dorries is because, by attempting to reduce the periods in which women can have abortions, Dorries is reducing choice. She is attempting to reduce the control women have over their own bodies. And I can only speak for myself, but I really doubt that is what the women in this country deserve.

Call me cynical, but has he pleaded guilty to get a diminished sentence?

Whatever his rationale for his plea, I hope that the judge remembers that, in a gross breach of trust, Elliot Morley stole over £30,000 from the British public. And I hope that prison awaits Mr Morley.

On Lord Taylor

"Lord" Taylor's barrister:

"He is not motivated by money. He is a humble man, a gentle and honest man, with a clear moral compass. He is not a man with a silver spoon in his mouth."

He may be humble, he could be gentle, and he may not have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he most certainly is not honest and he does not possess a moral compass. If he was honest and he did have such a compass, he wouldn't now be facing sentencing as a convicted fraudster. And I don't care how many good deeds he may have done; he has been convicted for what he did wrong, and that is what he deserves to be punished. And people who are convicted of fraud do tend to, at least on some levels, be motivated by money. Otherwise they wouldn't steal the fucking stuff.

He's a crook; he may be a well-meaning crook, but he is still a crook. And he deserves whatever punishment the court gives him.

Chaytor; Guilty, sentenced

Of course, there's still some debate about MPs expenses, with a number of people - including intelligent people whose opinions I normally respect - arguing that there was nothing particularly wrong with those MPs who rinsed a system that was so clearly open to rinsing. To them I say "shite", but I accept that not everyone agrees with my view that anyone who uses the public purse to enrich themselves is a total cunt who, at the very least, is not fit to hold public office.

But surely not even those prepared to give those scummy MPs an easy ride could argue that this isn't very welcome. Chaytor's sentence is, in my not at all humble opinion, richly deserved. Not only did he commit fraud, but he chose to steal from the very people he was elected to represent. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether he's been left a broken man by all this - after all, what broke him was not a realisation that what he did was wrong, but rather being caught and punished for his wrongdoing. He's a thief; he deserves to be punished. Cue the old cliche - don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I fully expect there to a virulent outbreak of rage against Chaytor on the interweb, and no doubt someone right now is typing out the sentence "prison's too good for him". On that, I'd have to disagree. Prison is exactly right for him.

Cunt.

MPs against IPSA

Let's look at how some of our MPs refer to those working for IPSA:

“monkeys”, “f*****g idiots” and “nutty”

And here's how they describe the new expenses system:

“This system is a f*****g abortion.”

And here's how MPs behave towards IPSA and its employees:

A male MP who reduced a volunteer to tears 10 minutes into the induction later returned with a note and a box of chocolates by way of apology, while a female MP used the word “f**k” and said: “I am going to murder someone today.” Some MPs reacted angrily to the release of the information, accusing the standards authority of acting like secret police, and threatening to try to have it closed down.

Now, the system may be shit, but bureaucracies often are. Furthermore, this system was only put in place because some MPs not just too the piss, but took everything that wasn't nailed down. IPSA may be flawed, but the fact that it exists is down to the flawed, and downright criminal, behaviour of MPs.

But the shit nature of the system is not the fault of those people working for it, and it is no excuse for appalling behaviour toward those people. It wouldn't be tolerated if a private citizen was absolutely vile to the employees of the government, and I really don't see why it should be tolerated from MPs.

Still, there is an upside to all this; MPs being truly inconvenienced and shafted by a government department should give them a sound understanding of what it is like whenever an ordinary person in this country has to deal with a government department. You never know, it might create some empathy between representative and represented.

Whining Intern Wanker

Any article that carries the title "Is IPSA going to let me starve?" is clearly going to be hysterical, self-serving nonsense. And the question is very easy to answer - no, IPSA won't let you starve, you whining intern shithead. The only person who will let you starve is yourself - by not getting some gainful employment.

But, as always, let's break down the rest of the article to truly see what freeform nonsense this idiot is spouting:

The head of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s communications operation receives an annual salary of £85,000. I am a communications and research intern for a Member of Parliament and earn nothing.

Well, one of you is overpaid, but the head of a communications operation is always going to earn more than someone who works as, effectively, an MP's bitch. You might not like it, but that is life.

In fact, I will be soon be faced with the choice between starvation and eviction because the MP who engaged me in good faith cannot wade through IPSA’s layers of bureaucracy and provide me with a wage.

There's a question of value here. The MP could wade through the layers of bureaucracy and get you a wage. However, the MP doesn't see enough value in what you do to do so. Therefore, you are effectively redundant. And you know what happens to those who are effectively redundant? They get another job. Which is what I suggest the author of this article does.

The plight of interns has been recognised by most of the candidates for the Labour leadership. Interns Aware has received backing from all but Ed Balls for its campaign for interns to be paid at least the national minimum wage. This is not an issue that the Labour Party or the wider labour movement should ignore. We are supposed to stand or fall on solidarity and working for an MP should not make anyone less worthy of that support. Of course, I am partially motivated by self-interest, but there are serious issues around IPSA and the wider access to politics.

I, like many others, am also motivated by self-interest. And that self-interest makes me reluctant to allow MPs to spunk money up the wall with precious little oversight.

IPSA was created as a knee-jerk response to public outrage. Bad legislation is something that can sometimes be repented at leisure, but this body is an abomination; bloated beyond control by its sense of moral self-importance.

Ha! Sounds a lot like the Labour party to me.

Tory blogger Iain Dale has brought a video to wider attention on his website. This shows Ken Osila, a member of the IPSA board, desperately trying to justify IPSA’s inflated salaries and vast, bureaucratic machine.

Whereas this article is the work of someone desperately trying to justify a salary out of naked self-interest. What's supposed to be the news here? That people try to justify what they do and the money they receive? Of course they fucking do. And the fact that they do it doesn't automatically invalidate their point.

Labour created this and the party should now show the moral courage necessary to undo the harm it has caused.

In terms of admitting the harm it caused, Labour should prioritise a number of things to show contrition about before it gets to IPSA. Like, say, the Iraq war and the decimation of civil liberties during its tenure in office.

The arguments around access to politics are well worn, but my experience is relevant and applicable. If internships are only accessible to one social group, what does this do for the representative nature of politics and political parties? Clearly, it restricts both and is inherently bad for democracy.

Why is it bad for democracy that some self-important little shite can't be paid in return for doing busy work for an MP? Interns are not vital for democracy. In fact, if anything, they are pretty damaging to genuine democracy, as they assist in the creation of a professional political class that has no experience of real-life, and have only worked with the increasingly inward looking and self-regarding political system of this country.

IPSA’s moral piety is unjustified. Far from defending democracy, the organisation is actually choking it and souring politics in Britain.

Shite. IPSA may be a bloated bureaucracy (which is hardly surprising as it was created by another bloated bureaucracy) but it is a response to the souring of politics in Britain by greedy MPs with a determination to put their hands in the till. And there is nothing undemocratic about IPSA because an MP is not prepared to jump through the hoops necessary to get payment for an intern. If anything, the fault (if there is one) lies with the MP, not the system.

It has yet to be explained to me why there are adequate grounds to consider internships as different from other forms of apprenticeship.

It probably has been explained to you, but you refuse to see it because naked self-interest dictates that you cannot acknowledge the validity of the argument against your line of work.

Making politics less professional does not engender some kind of mythic purity in the system.

No, but as we've seen, a professional political class is far from pure either. Furthermore, said class develops a clear disconnection from the people it is meant to serve and ends up with an unhealthy sense of entitlement.

In fact, it is making politics amateurish that breeds corruption, stifles meritocracy and encourages exploitation.

Really? Prove this. Because it sounds like bollocks to me.

Although people who want politics to be less like a “normal” career may mean well, what that would bring about would be the opposite of what they intend. The system would not become fairer and more transparent, but the reverse.

So having more normal people in politics would make the system less fair and less transparent. Again, precisely how is this the case? And how is it anything other than a completely unsupported, deeply biased assertion? As it stands, the creation of a professional political class actually makes politics less fair and less transparent. We're ending up with a self-perpetuating oligarchy rather than a genuine democracy.

Politics is in danger of becoming the province of the rich. That might suit the current Cabinet, but would be very bad for the rest of us.

Oh, for God's sake, not the age old bollocks about the Tories wanting only the wealthy in politics. It is, with the greatest respect, shite. And also misses the point that those running for Labour leader are also not short of funds. In part because, in the case of Balls for example, they exploited the expenses system. And at the moment politics is increasingly becoming the preserve of those who have done nothing other than politics for their entire career. Which is just as unhealthy and unrepresentative as making politics the province of the rich.

The system of parliamentary expenses has moved from one extreme to the other – from a chaotic vacuum to a bureaucratic nightmare.

Bureaucratic nightmare? Excellent - this means MPs are finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and getting to understand what it is like for the people in almost all their dealings with the state.

Labour must defend the sort of politics that is open to all and not get lost in the mood of the moment.

Labour has shown itself that it has no interest in politics open to all - it will only consider listening to those who agree without questions with what they say and do. Labour party politics is not about openness - it is about closing down debate and as such is fundamentally undemocratic.

Sleeping in the Commons

The aroma of burning martyrs is almost overwhelming:

Some MPs reportedly slept in their offices recently following late sittings in the Commons.

Such events have become more rare in the last few years as politicians have brought in more family-friendly hours, but some have said they need to bed down at work to reduce costs in the wake of changes to their expenses regime.

The poor dears. If only we would give them more of our money to cunt away on second homes and kitkats from hotel minibars.

Still, it's nice that they are sleeping in their offices rather than during debates and votes. And it is also nice that they're working late. Like people across the country have to do on a regular basis. I mean, what the fuck do they want? A medal?

Actually, they probably do. And you know who would have to pay for that...

The Cost of Tony Blair

He's not Prime Minister anymore, but Tony Blair is still benefitting from the British taxpayer:

It follows newspaper reports that Tony Blair's bodyguards are costing taxpayers £250,000 a year in expenses.

How much...?!?

The newspaper says it has seen documents which show the annual cost of Mr Blair's protection squad was nearly double the £135,000 submitted by the officers protecting Gordon Brown in his last year as prime minister.

So, the former Prime Minister cost double what it cost to protect the then incumbent Prime Minister. Even if you accept that the British government should fund the protection of former PMs, this cost feels a little wrong. Actually, scratch that. It feels fucking outrageous. Particularly when you consider this:

Tony Blair’s fortune is set to treble to £45million next year as he returns to his lucrative career after appearing at the Iraq war inquiry.

So there we have it. We are paying £250,000 a year to protect a former Prime Minister worth £45 million, and who makes about £15 million a year. Something's not right here...

At a time when the nation is making spending cuts just to stay afloat, is it really too much to ask a multi-millionaire former Prime Minister to put his hands into his pockets and fund his own protection? Particularly when that Prime Minister did so much damage to this country? Evidently so, when that Prime Minister is Tony Blair:

Mr Blair's office rejected calls for him to pay policing costs, arguing he spent most of his time on unpaid work.

Blair really is the complete opposite of the famous JFK quote - being Prime Minister was never about what Blair could do for his country, it was rather about what he could get from that country. In a sense, it's no wonder that it costs so much to protect him. Years after stepping down as PM he's still rinsing the public purse for all it is worth, and there must be millions who absolutely hate that grinning homunculus...

Whinging MPs

The poor dears.

Mind you, I know I'm not alone in thinking that they wouldn't have had to have a new expenses system if they hadn't brought the old one into absolute disrepute through their greed, so it is difficult to feel any sympathy whatsoever too much sympathy for them.

And this comment - from Labour MP Ann Clwyd - really cracks me up:

"We are not whinging MPs. I really object to that title. We are raising matters which are quite legitimate to raise because they affect our performance as MPs."

If you don't want to be called whinging MPs, then don't fucking whinge. Honest to God, you'd have though that someone elected to Parliament might just be able to work that one out for themselves...

Expenses Whining

Via Guido, some examples of the whining of some MPs about the new expenses system. My own personal favourite:

We just have to accept this because the public is not with us. It will take something really horrendous, such as a woman MP being stabbed on the streets of London because she is not entitled to take a taxi home late at night, before people wake up and realise how unfair this is.

Let's break this down, and try to count the number of ways in which this is wrong:

1. The public is against you, because some MPs took the system and used it as a means to shit all over the taxpayer, and then make sure the taxpayer's face was rubbed in it. Duck houses, second mortgages, moats, cleaners, flipping. The public is not just not with you, it is against you. And the best way to overcome that would be to quit bellyaching and get on with the job of running this country.
2. A female MP being stabbed would be pretty horrific, but no more so than anyone else being stabbed on the streets of London. And the fact that it happens to ordinary people should be a clue what MPs need to focus on - not the fact that they too have to walk home through potentially dangerous areas, but rather making those areas safer for everyone. And not just in London - how about in the country as a whole?
3. There is nothing to stop an MP taking a taxi home late at night - I know lots of people, both male and female, who do so regularly because it makes them feel safer. MPs will now have to do what everyone else has to do, and pay for those taxis themselves. That's hardly a big ask, now, is it? For MPs to live as they people they purport to represent do?
4. The system isn't unfair, any more than life itself is unfair. People aren't going to wake up and realise that this is unfair because, basically, it isn't unfair. It really isn't unfair for MPs to have to stop milking the expenses system - and therefore the British taxpayer - to fund a lifestyle beyond the means of the vast majority of people in this country.

So, four different ways in which a brief paragraph is wrong. But I'd like to add a final one. It is the misplaced arrogance in the statement - and the others in the article - that is perhaps the biggest problem that MPs have if they are serious about bettering the public perception of them. They need to realise that becoming an MP is not entering a position of privilege at the expense of others, but rather earning the privilege to serve those people who elected them.

A Wage Increase For Our MPs...

Iain Dale has a post up arguing for the rise in MPs pay, and there are a couple of paragraphs in there that are very telling. Not so much about Dale's thoughts, but about the whole debate around MPs pay.

MPs still get paid less than a Deputy Head Teacher, a GP or a senior Health Service manager. I happen to think that if we want people to pass laws over us we should be attracting top class people into politics, rather than some of the dross we have got at the moment on all sides of the House. The desire to serve the public is a vital part of all of this, but that doesn't mean MPs should have to wear hairshirts the whole time.

I'm not saying £65,000 is peanuts, but it's certainly attracting too many monkeys.

Let's deal with this bit by bit.

First of all, does the fact that MPs earn less than a Deputy Head Teacher, GP or senior health service manager automatically mean that an MP deserves to be paid more? Is the job of an MP - which is effectively lobby fodder mixed with working for the Citizens' Advice Bureau - really worth more than a GP? And let's be a bit controversial here - can we really be sure that a Deputy Head, GP or a senior health service manager (whatever that is) isn't overpaid as well?

We need to be attracting those most suited to the job to become MPs. That doesn't mean that we have to attract those who are lusting after as much money as possible. In fact, I'd argue that those motivated by money are not going to be the best to become MPs. The pay should be a lesser factor - the desire to be a public servant should be foremost in the minds of applicants (which, in fairness, Dale alludes to. Sort of.)

Furthermore, while I do want our politicians to be wearing hairshirts all of the time, most people don't. And they probably would have been happy with the amount MPs earn as a salary - before they discovered that MPs were rinsing the taxpayer dry through various expenses fiddles. People were happy for politicians to take home a decent salary, and then some of them took the piss. Hell, some of them not only took the piss, but spat in the face of the taxpayer and dissed the taxpayer's mother. At a time when the respect for British politicians is probably at an all time low, it seems curious that anyone - even an independent body - would be advocating paying them more.

And £65,000 - well, giving the figures around the average salary in this country, it is a lot for the majority of people. In fact, it is at least £30k more than the average person earns in this country. But I'd argue that the reason why we are getting monkeys - and self-serving monkeys who only interrupt their fiscal onanism to fling shit in the taxpayer's face at that - is because entering the Commons has been such a good gravy train to jump aboard. The concept of a public servant needs to dwell in the servant side of things - and part of that, even if it doesn't require an actual sacrifice - does require something other than a desire to make as much money as possible.

I believe £65,000 is too much for an MP - particularly when you throw in the benefits they get on top of that. If I was an MP, then I would take £30k as a basic salary, and about £10k on top of that in expenses. I know I could do it because I have worked in Central London doing a job requiring a lot of travel. But what puts me off being an MP isn't the salary, but rather the shit that goes with the job. Including the intrusive staring at the private lives of MPs, and the fact that the job really could be done by a trained chimp when it comes to activities in the Commons. For £65,000 a year I really do expect our elected officials to do something other than bray like a rabid mob at PMQ's, and traipse through the correct lobby on the instructions of a whip.

£65k a year for what we've got; I honestly believe we could have much better for far less.

Nicholas Winterton - Wanker

Sir Nicholas Winterton, showing all the charm and sophistication that has made him one of our most hated MPs:

Sir Nicholas Winterton has angrily denounced plans to reduce first-class travel by MPs - telling the BBC he needs "quiet" and privacy to work.

Oh my, this is going to be a good one. Let's see dig down and examine exactly why Winterton doesn't want to travel the way the vast majority of people travel in this country:

The veteran Tory MP said there was a "totally different type of people" in standard-class train carriages.

Yes, there is a totally different type of person, Nicky boy. The people you represent - or, at least, supposed to represent. And God forbid that an MP might have to interact or spend time with ordinary people. That would be fucking terrible. But it isn't just a general snobbery that is stopping Winterton from sharing a train carriage with those that Alan B'stard might refer to as the ordinaries. No, he also needs to work:

"If I was in standard class I would not do work because people would be looking over your shoulder the entire time, there would be noise, there would be distraction."

Yes, yes there would be distraction. Which is why most people either learn to manage their workload so they don't have to work on the train. Or they learn to get over the distractions on the train.

But Nicholas still doesn't think that a train is necessarily a nice environment. And you know what? He'd be right:

"There's lots of children, there's noise, there's activity. I like to have peace and quiet when I'm travelling."

I like to have peace and quiet when I am traveling - unfortunately, I know that if I am on a train, that is not likely to happen. I also know that the option of first class is available to me. I choose not to take it because I am too cheap to upgrade. And this is the option open to Winterton - he could upgrade too. But the idea that the taxpayer should pay for him and his idiotic, odious ilk is repugnant. Why should Winterton - or any other fucking MP, for that matter - be able to enjoy luxury traveller at the expense of those very people he/they are supposed to be serving.

Frankly, Winterton can travel in any style he wishes - on a gold-plated unicorn for all I fucking care. But I'll be damned if I - or any other taxpayer in this country - is going to pay for him to do so.

Perfect Timing!

In terms of scheduling, you can’t fault the legal proceedings against those three MPs and one peer:

The four will make their first appearance at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court at 2pm on March 11, only three weeks before the official start of the general election campaign. This means that the issue could well dominate the start of the campaign, which is likely to infuriate both Labour and Tories, since it could push disillusioned voters into the arms of smaller parties — or none.

I wonder how long until someone argues that it is damaging to democracy that these court dates are so close to the General Election. If it happens, safe money says it will be one of the odious four who first asserts this idea.

But this is perfect timing, it really, really is. Just as the main parties start spouting their meaningless platitudes to get them through the election, the electorate will be reminded of just how atrociously some MPs have behaved. And hopefully that will factor into the way people vote. As I’ve said before, voters have to take into account how politicians will act once in office rather than just agreeing with any ideological stance they have or liking the way they look. The court appearances of these four should remind us that public servants are there to serve the public, not help themselves – and we can affect what type of person gets returned to Parliament through our votes.

Mind you, it is probably too much to hope that they are found guilty on the day before the election...

There can be few better examples of just how much the Labour party under Gordon Brown has lost its way than this - David Cameron claiming the moral high-ground and painting himself as the man of action over MPs expenses. Cameron's MPs were just as tainted by the scandal as Brown's, yet Cameron is able to posture like this is a party political issue. Sure, only Labour MPs have been charged - but owing to the sheer number of them relative to the Tories, it was always more likely they would face charges. Plus, if memory serves (and here it does), there is also a Tory peer facing prosecution. Cameron should be avoiding this issue in the way one might avoid a pissed-off puff adder. Not using it as a club with which to beat the Labour party.

The fact that he is doing so - and doing so with impunity - speaks volumes about the wreck the Labour party has become. This is pure opportunism from Cameron - attempting to land a punch that he knows should be blocked with comparative ease. He must be amazed - and delighted - that the punch has hit home so hard.

The expenses scandal was meant to benefit no-one - the fact that it is benefitting Cameron is entirely the fault of the Labour party.

The quote of the day...

…comes from Jim Devine, one of the MPs who has been charged over the expenses scandal, in an interview that frankly defies belief. Both Dale and the Angry Baby Man have the full video. There’s no shortage of staggeringly stupid “gems”, but this reasoning as to why he did something wrong is startling:

In my innocence, I was told that was acceptable.

Yes, because ignorance of the law is a perfectly acceptable defence, isn’t it? Oh, wait…

And he prattles on:

We’re not arguing we are above the law.

Yes you are. Particularly when you demand some sort of spurious trial in the House of Commons. It is a bit like a small businessman demanding trial by a bunch of blokes down his local if he’s accused of not paying enough tax. The law is quite clear – it doesn’t matter if you committed your crime out of ignorance, it is still a crime.

But what is most startling about this video is not the desperate, self-serving pleading of a man who has been caught out – let’s be honest, we’re all used to that by now – but rather how thick Devine seems to be. He genuinely seems to be a bit simple. Christ knows how he became a MP – possibly he wrote to Jimmy Saville or something. He seems to have the intellectual capacity of a pot plant and the charisma of a sloth on Valium. If this is the calibre of an MP these days, it is no wonder we end up with party leaders as vapid as Brown, Cameron and Clegg. They are positively convincing next to this moron.

Don't Forget the Expenses Scandal When You Come to Vote

For anyone who has followed the scandal around MPs expenses, the news that millions of pounds have to be paid back and that criminal charges are coming to a select few will come as no surprise.

The time for rage and ranting is over – at least for me. My anger on this issue is spent. I’ve moved towards acceptance: acceptance that we have been rinsed by a bunch of troughing fucks who…

Wait, hold up, I’m drifting back to anger. Enough.

But this scandal shouldn’t end with the repayments and the charges. We have an election this year, and we should remember the frauds committed by our elected representatives when we go to the ballot box. A fundamental question that needs to be applied to each candidate is whether we feel they will act as a public servant, rather than just serving themselves from the public purse. As the actions of many of those in this parliament have shown, that is almost as important as agreeing with their ideologies.

Quentin, Jokes and Expenses

Quentin Davies on his expenses:

"It has resulted in a number of jokes in the House of Commons, which is fine."

It is a pretty bold move for any of the self-serving, greedy wankers in the Commons to reduce their egregious expenses claims to the level of a joke. Not least because the joke isn't funny. In fact, millions of people across this country would find jokes made by MPs about their expenses anything other than funny. However, in order to avoid some tedious would-be MP blathering on in the comments section about how the expenses scandal isn't a scandal at all and that MPs are, for reasons that defy both understanding and common sense, owed the massive amounts of cash they have fleeced from the British population, I won't dwell in this concept of expenses as a joke. Instead, I'll tell you a story that is far funnier.

It is the story of an MP who had such a ruddy complexion that he resembled an obese Beetroot with high blood pressure. Now, this MP was a Tory through the fag end of the Thatcher years, the failed Major years, and the years of catastrophic opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard. But just as Cameron took over and started to make the party popular again, this MP decided he would join the Labour party - just as the leader of that party began his ruthless campaign to make his government the most hated in living memory. And so our MP lived out the final days of his "career" floundering around like a beached whale trying to find the tide - trapped in a party he opportunistically joined at the worst possible moment.

Ok, it is not that funny - it is more about the tragic and the pathetic. But the miserable career of Quentin Davis is at least easier to laugh at than his ridiculous expenses claims.

Only four?

Jesus, that's not a lot. And this is still very early in the process. We still aren't even at the point of charges being brought, let alone getting to a trial.

Still, better than nothing. And I look forward to learning which four cases have been transferred to prosecutors...

Undesirables and Criminals

Via Mr Eugenides, a startlingly jarring and utterly inappropriate quote from some cuntrag of an MP:

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.”

First up, people knowing more about what their thieving shites elected representatives are up to is not bad for democracy. The whole expenses scandal is good for democracy. What it hasn't been good for is cockbags like Wilshire. But his interests - and the other greedy, truculent pigs in the House of Commons - are not synonymous with democracy. And it certainly won't be handing more power to those in government - the very fact that these absolute fucking arses have had so much control over their own remuneration is how they have ended up in this mess.

And the line about Hitler's gas chambers... My God. How insulting is that? To compare the justified outrage against MPs with the horrors of the Holocaust? How dare this cunt make that sort of a comparison? How dare he? A massive ego combined with a massive persecution complex is the only way to explain that comparison. But since Wilshire is too lost in his own self-importance to take into account even the most basic of facts, let me spell out a few things to him. First of all, the Jews were not just branded as undesirables. They were cast out of the economy, they were robbed, they were stigmatised, they were forced into ghettos and then sent into camps where they lost their lives as the result of a callous, cold-hearted genocide. Contrast this with MPs, who have been branded as undesirable owing to a massive fraud committed by some of their number against the British people. As a result, some of them have lost their jobs, and some of them have had to pay back some of their ill-gotten gains. A comparison of the plight of MPs with that of the Jews in Nazi Germany is a sickening as it is crass and inappropriate.

One final point - societies across the world do designate people as undesirables all the time. However, it isn't based on race or gender or religion. No, the people now classed as undesirable are those who have committed crimes and have not been punished for them. And if certain MPs are falling into the undesirable category, it is because they appear to have committed fraud against the very people they are meant to represent. So you'll forgive me if I don't feel much sympathy for them...