An Epic Summer Recess

I always wonder why it is presented as something that is in some way comforting when the House of Commons returns from a recess to debate a key issue of the day. Why would a bunch of self-important, indolent and self-serving gobshites pontificating on riots or on phone hacking make a blind bit of fucking difference out there in the real world? No doubt the rioters are now shitting themselves and would never dare to rob a Foot Locker again, and all because Cameron and Miliband returned (no doubt briefly) to the Commons to engage in an extended bout of meaningless posturing.

But what is really striking is that this is the second time that the Commons has been recalled from its recess since it began about halfway through July. I don’t care that there have been two crises in that short space of time; rather, I’m staggered by just how many recesses the Commons has awarded itself and how long the summer recess is. MPs don’t have to attend the Commons from 19th July to 5th September this year, and then they’re back for a whopping 10 days before getting a Conference recess from 15th September to 10th October. Yeah, I know that they have constituency duties, but effectively from late June until mid-October MPs are doing at best half their jobs, and they aren’t doing one of the crucial things they are elected to do; they aren’t debating legislation, they aren’t legislating, and they are not governing despite being, y'know, the government. I feel some relief that they aren’t adding to the legislative burden of this country for much of what we laughably call the summer**, but I’m staggered given the amount they are paid and the role they do (governing, for fuck’s sake) which apparently still allows them to take a large swathe of the summer off. Because, as the hacking scandal and the riots show, politics does not stop just because we are in the summer months.

It would be too much to state that the feckless indolence of much of the population is the result of the feckless indolence of the parliamentarians who apparently see nothing wrong with taking the majority of the summer off*** - I suspect that most people don’t know about the recess and probably don’t care. But there is a concept called “leading by example”; our MPs expect us to follow them but time and time again they show a steadfast refusal to demonstrate why we should follow them or actually consider them to be leaders. At a time when the economy is struggling and disaffection with politicians is running at an all-time high, a starting point to turn this situation around could be our MPs starting to work at full pelt not just in parts of the year, but across the whole year. Which is not too much to ask, surely?

*Or in the case of Gordon Brown, pretty much at all.
**Given this positively autumnal August.
***There are some who have argued that the summer recess would be reduced – such as former MP Chris Mullin. The fact that their aruments have made sod all difference is probably a good indicator of the mindset of those who sit in the Commons.

The Woes of Nadine Dorries

You've got to love Dorries' response to the revelation that 70% of her blog is made up. It is a classic of its kind - both detached from reality and simultaneously trying to smear opponents. Let's take a look:

After a fifteen month ordeal, I was a delighted, for my family, to have been cleared by the standards commissioner today.

Well, cleared of some things; it has to be said though that having to admit that you lie 70% of the time on one of the main ways in which you communicate with your constituents is perhaps a little bit of a pyrrhic victory.

Everyone is getting very excited about my comments regarding my blog. Not that it had anything to do with the complaint lodged by the BNP.

Well, yes it did - the exposed lies came out in the course of examining the complaint. So the two things are absolutely linked.

Let's indulge in a slightly hyperbolic comparison here. The Watergate scandal started as an investigation into a burglary into a Democrat political operation at the Watergate hotel. On balance, it appears that Nixon didn't know about that break-in. But as the situation was investigated, things emerged about the Nixon White House that were even more concerning than the original break-in. So he ended up resigning.

The point here is that in being cleared of any wrong-doing over expenses, Dorries has been shown to be someone who deceives her constituents and the wider world through her blog. As the next line shows:

My blog conceals IDs, times, dates, and is often out of synch.

Which would be just about ok had you admitted to this before you were forced to in order to save your skin over another matter. You presented your blog as fact - 70% of the time, you were lying about its relation to reality.

This is because I have had more than my fair share of inappropriate attention to deal with

By "inappropriate" do we mean "unwanted because it isn't convenient for me" by any chance, Nadine? Because the two things are very different.

For example - when I do blog exactly where I am going to be - we find ourselves having to deal with some very strange and un invited people.

Brilliant! A classic bit of Dorries bullshit. She paints those anyone who might want to challenge her as "very strange". She paints a picture of them as somehow a bit weird, a bit sinister, and a bit threatening. Whereas it seems to me that she simply does not want to engage with those who do not agree with her - hence the lack of comments on her "blog". She wants to be unchallenged and free to live in her own little world.

Which would be fine if she wasn't an elected representative. However, Dorriesland will always be invaded by people she does not like while she remains an MP because she is, as an elected official, accountable. That means that people she does not like and does not agree with will challenge her and will try to see her at public events. That's part of being in the public eye as an elected politician. Don't like it? Fuck off and do something else then.

I suppose if any of my blog were truly fiction, I could call myself a journalist.

Oh hahahahahaha. Yeah, brilliant, good one. Appear populist by dissing journalists. Boo! Hiss! No-one likes journos! They're almost as unpopular as... well, politicians.

Now I don't like a lot of what passes for journalism in the modern age - far too much of the news has become caught up with opinion and bias. But I don't doubt that for one second that if a journalist made up 70% of what they wrote and was found out, they would be sacked and their media outlet humiliated. So sorry, Nadine, journalists are better than you.

The fiction, in terms of locations etc, is done to protect my family and staff.

And here we have it again - the idea that there are those out there who want to terrorise Dorries. Yet I still suspect that Dorries is actually just trying to protect herself from those with whom she does not agree. Take Tim Ireland - a man who has consistently called Dorries (and others) on inconsistencies and falsehoods. I can imagine he is fucking irritating to have on your trail given he is tenacious and has a rigorous attention to detail. But as an elected politician, you should not only expect such scrutiny, but you have to realise that you actively invite it through your position. So if you have misled people - intentionally or otherwise - then admit to it. Like a proper adult would. Rather than shrieking "oh no, scary stalker man" before running away. Which is, frankly, pathetic.

It will be interesting to see how Dorries tries to dig herself out of this one. She could turn down the heat with a simple apology but for Dorries, sorry really does appear to be the hardest word. If her blog post is anything to go by, she's going to try to spin and smear her way out of the shit. But I suspect, given the amount of coverage she is getting on Twitter and elsewhere, she's not going to get away with it or, at the very least, it isn't going to be easy for her.

Some Tory twat of an MP on AV:

"Because of the second preference vote, AV can also lead to bad or inefficient MPs staying in their seats... AV leads to tactical voting, so people may end up voting for someone they don't want as their MP, which is hugely damaging for democracy – it encourages people to cast a ballot in favour of things they don't want and don't support."

I struggle to see how this can be distinguished from FPTP. Bad and inefficient MPs remain in their seats and there is also a lot of tactical voting. And as someone who votes in every election, I can say I always vote for things I don't want and don't support. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to vote.

This smug cunt clearly believes that people vote for him because they believe he's the best and because they believe in everything he says. However I don't doubt for a moment that people vote for him because they don't really have the choice; he is the least worst of all the alternatives.

By all means make the case against AV - but if your argument is that Parliament is filled with the best and that we have true choice at General Elections, then you are sure as fuck not going to win me over.

MPs? Or Tabloids?

Via Guido, a quote from Tom Watson on modern MPs:

"They have no predators, they are untouchable, they laugh at the law, they sneer at parliament, they have the power to hurt us, and they do with gusto and precision…"

What's that you say? That he was actually talking about tabloid newspapers? Really? I can kind of see how his words might be applied to newspapers, but they are a far more apt description of our ruling class...

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.

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...

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.

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...

Jacqui Smith, Meet Political Oblivion. Political Oblivion, Meet Jacqui

It would take a heart of stone not to be moved into some sort of emotion by the misfortunes of one Jacqui Smith. And by emotion I mean floods of hysterical, joyous tears of wonderous happiness:

Jacqui Smith faces political ruin as a result of the damning verdict that a Commons watchdog passed on her expenses claims and because police support officers contradicted her account of her movements.

Oh, my, yes, that's wonderful, wonderful news. A career that was already on the skids now faces absolute political ruin. Oh yes, that's just what the doctor ordered. Near perfect stuff.

Not that Jacqui Smith would agree:

Ms Smith said that the report vindicated her claim that she spent substantial amounts of time in a house in London owned by her sister, which she designated as her main home.

Of course she says she was vindicated by the report. She is a Nu Labour politician. Any report vindicates her. Even if the report was called "Jacqui Smith Is A Corrupt Fucktard And Deserves Summary Execution In The Format Of Shooting In The Back Of The Head For Her Crimes", it would vindicate her in her eyes. She's probably been briefed by Mandelson himself, who is an expert at making the most damning of condemnation look like a pat on the back.

Unfortunately, the facts do not agree with Ms Smith's "take" on the "truth":

But John Lyon revealed that police guarding the property questioned the veracity of the former Home Secretary’s evidence, with their records showing that the number of nights she had spent in London was at odds with Ms Smith’s account. He says that last year the police figures suggested that Ms Smith spent 37 more nights in Redditch than she had in London; her estimates based on her diary suggested that the difference was nine nights. Figures for the previous year suggest that she had spent 12 more nights in Redditch than in London.

Right, so on the one hand we can believe the self-serving estimates of an incompetent, corrupt politician, or on the other we can believe the police. I'm not a fan of either; however, in these circumstances, I'm in favour of the police account of events. Which means the evidence shows that Smith is not only not fit to hold high office, but she isn't fit to be an MP.

However, that doesn't mean I think she should step down. Oh no, Smith should fight on. She should try to retain her seat. Because - even though her constituency is in Redditch - I don't think any set of voters would be willing to return the odious Jacqui Smith to the Commons. She has been forced from her job in the Cabinet, forced from her position as a possible Labour leadership contender, and forced back on to the backbenchers. Her fall from grace has been startling. And what better way to cap that off than to see her booted out of the Commons at the next election by a sizable majority?

Since we're probably not going to see Smith imprisoned for her corruption, ritual public humiliation will have to do.

Self-Pitying Shits

Yes, I know I am a zealous ranter when it comes to the issues of MPs' expenses fraud, but they did rinse the public purse for all it was worth under the guise of being public servants. Frankly, they deserve as much abuse as we can throw at them. The thieving fucks. Particularly when they are quick to get out the world's smallest violin and start manically playing it for a bit of completely undeserved sympathy:

One unnamed MP told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "An accountant will always find errors in the expenses claims especially on claims of such magnitude over a long period but the only ones publicised are the over-claims, no-one ever mentioned the under-claims."

No. No-one does mention the under-claims. Because the point of expenses isn't that you have to spend them - rather, there is an allowance there if you need it. And given MPs work directly for the public purse, and are supposed to represent the British people, you might have thought they'd be less keen to spend, spend, spend. When your expenses are paid by an already grossly over-stretched taxpayer, frugality becomes a virtue.

"The need to please the press and get back in their good books has produced a total over-reaction and it has been very badly handled. We were treated despicably today when we were waiting for our letters, we felt as though the sword of Damocles was hanging over us."

I don't give the first fuck whether MPs get back in the good books of the press - they should want to get back into the good books of the people they have so badly betrayed. And expecting MPs to pay money back to the public purse isn't an over-reaction; it is actually quite a moderate response. I'd like to see everyone of them who abused the system sacked and facing prosecution, and the worst offenders locked up. And that isn't an over-reaction either; it is what would happen to anyone who got involved in this sort of swindle but didn't have the good fortune to be employed as an MP.

MPs weren't treated despicably when they were waiting for their letters* - they have actually been treated throughout this debacle with a reverence that is completely unjustifiable and would not be extended to the "man in the street" who found himself in a similar position. The only reason why they might feel the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads is if they are guilty. And in that situation, I think the only fair thing to do is to hope that the sword came crashing down and cleaved the greedy fuckers in two.

Finally, I love the fact the MP is "unnamed". Wonder why that might be? Possibly because that MP knows their spurious sympathy bid is likely to upset people rather than convert them to the cause of supporting our beleaguered political class. But I'd love to know who the unnamed MP is**; I'd be tempted to head to their constituency at the next election and campaign as heartily as possible for everyone in that area to vote the fuck awful incumbent out of Parliament for good.

*Which I am surprised arrived on time if they went through the Royal Mail.

**I have a couple of MPs in mind who might be capable of coming up with this sort of shite.

Reading Gordon's Rhetoric

It is curious how the words of Gordon Brown can reveal so much about his deeply warped world view. Today, we can see him pontificating on MPs expenses:

On expenses, he says for the first time that he believes the worst offenders should face prosecution.

Really? The worst offenders? Or how about anyone who has broken the law, regardless of whether they are the "worst" offenders or not? Or what if none of them actually broke this hideous law? Should we throw a couple into court anyway? Gordon doesn't seem to understand that people should face prosecution if they have broken the law. Anything else is just a perversion of justice.

"It’s right to distinguish between what you might call corruption in some cases, which is for the courts to decide, and honest mistakes or misunderstandings about rules that are very unclear."

Yes, because the state is always so happy to distinguish between corruption and honest mistakes made by the British public. If you make a mistake on your taxes, for example, then you are treated with kindness and understanding by the authorities.

And Brown seems to be suffering one of his convenient memory lapses when it comes to the facts; MPs knew the rules were unclear - they were the ones who created, maintained and "adhered" to them. If they were so unclear, then why the fuck didn't MPs do something about it? They could; they had the power. Their decision not to speaks volumes about how they felt about the rules that allowed them to milk the public purse.

"Some cases will end up in the courts. Where someone’s done something very wrong, we’ve got a duty to deal with them most severely."

No, Gordon. No. You are not the judge and jury of everything that happens in this country. You have a duty to leave justice to the courts, and they can decide a punishment - if someone is found guilty - that fits the crime.

"The majority of MPs are not in it for the money."

Really? Their lust for opulence at the expense of the taxpayer would suggest otherwise.

"I’m not in it for the money; most of my colleagues are not."

I seem to remember that Gordon himself had some dubious expenses claims, but it is good to see that he isn't in it for the money. The money is just a perk on the side, that he is happy to take for you as he "serves" your best interests.

Fuck me, I'd almost rather Gordon and the other leeches were in it for the money. It would show marginally more respect than talking about how they're not after the money but take it anyway.

"But where people have made terrible mistakes, they have to accept the consequences."

Erm, do you mean where people have committed crimes they have to accept the consequences? Or just if they have made mistakes? Because it appears than in his long and utterly malignant career Brown has made many, many mistakes. Something tells me he won't be accepting the consequences for those - at least not until the next election, when the electorate will make him face up to what he has done.

This interview sums up Gordon Brown perfectly - he wants to take complete control over anything that is in anyway populist (like prosecuting corrupt MPs), but don't ever expect him to take responsibility for anything that might have gone wrong. He's not going to take control of that - he's going to run away from it just as fast as his flabby body will let him.

Bercow's Pay

Following up from this post, I note that Bercow did actually stick to the pay cut organised by his predecessor. Well, good. Although over £140,000 does sound an awful lot for the chair of a glorified debating society. 

But it does make me wonder just why he was so reluctant to reveal this information. Think about it - if you are employed by someone, then they know how much they pay you. They decide your pay after all. They also know how much they pay you in expenses, should you incur any. It seems fair enough that the relationship on pay should be transparent. You know how much you earn, and your employer knows how much they pay you. 

Except in the relationship between MP (employee) and voter (employer). MPs know how much they suck from us like obese leeches earn. Yet if we want to find out how much we pay them, then we need to use the Freedom of Information Act. Or rely on leaks to The Daily Telegraph. We have to fight to get the information we should have anyway in an open democracy. The information that we need to assess our MPs, and see whether they give us value for money, is hidden from us by our employees.

Yet that's it. That is what they are afraid of. They're scared we'll look at, say, John Bercow, and decide he isn't worth £141,647. They're scared we'll say that he isn't even worth £40,000. 

Transparency derails their gravy train. That's why they are so scared of it. 

MPs' Expenses: Half a Million

MPs have paid back nearly £500,000 so far in the expenses. That is half a million pounds, people. You could say we are looking at a £500k fraud. I know I do. 

But let's just think about that £500k figure. The MPs concerned were forced to pay that back through the revelations in The Daily Telegraph. But had we just had the redacted (i.e. crudely edited) expenses that the members of the Commons gave us under fucking duress, I do wonder just how much of that half a million pounds would have been paid back. I suspect it would be just a fraction. 

Corruption in our ruling class is clearly endemic, and the fetid feculent stench of fraud now taints every MP, regardless of whether they actually had their hands in the till or not. We need to start over, we need to raze the House of Commons to the ground and start again. Those MPs who weren't on the take should have nothing to fear - those that were, well, tough. The only way in which we can get any sort of respect back for the Commons is through a General Election. 

But such a decision would require courage, and more than anything else this scandal was aided and abetted by the cowardly silence of every MP on this issue. They'll deny us our say on this issue for as long as they can, just as they tried to hide the truth of their actions from us. But the next time we do get our say - when you are in the ballot box at the next General Election - just remember all this before you cast your vote. 

At the top of the shit heap

In amongst all the time spent shouting about the fuckers in the Commons who rinse our wallets dry in return for sitting in a position of power and privilege in the our government, it is worth praising any member of that now utterly compromised legislature who does not indulge in expenses excess and/or fraud:

But at the bottom of the allowances league table - on £44,551 - was Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering in Northamptonshire.

Good ol’ Phil. He’s not ripping us off. He’s one of the good ones…

Except… is he? His base salary is above £60k. With his expenses, he costs the taxpayer over £100k. His job is a backbench MP – effectively a spokesperson for his constituency. In return for his work as a constituency MP, he claims over one hundred thousand pounds for a taxpayer. Not being funny, but that does strike me as slightly overpaid for a spokesman for Kettering.

And I would love to know exactly what you could spend £44k on in terms of expenses, I really would. There is a fair bit of travel and international travel involved in my job, yet last year my expenses were less than £1k. £44k sounds like a fuck load of expenditure to me, even given the no doubt arduous job of spokesperson for Kettering. Lord alone knows how some MPs manage to spend more… except, we know that they do find a way. Legally or otherwise.

It is also worth considering the issue of value for money. I for one would not mind MPs being paid a lot for what they do; if what they did actually was worth the money they were being paid. Sadly, there is not just a gulf but rather an ocean between what we pay MPs and what they actually offer. This Hollobone character is probably the cheapest MP we have, yet he still costs a small fucking fortune.

Just because he’s the best of a bad bunch doesn’t actually make him any good.

MPs and their expenses

Imagine you have a kid. And you suspect that your kid is holding something that they shouldn’t be holding – perhaps a stolen toy, a bowie knife, some crack cocaine; whatever it is that kids play with these days. Your child says “no, don’t want to show you what is in my hands.” What do you, quite naturally, immediately expect? That the child is guilty of something; that the child has done something wrong.

Which is the position we have found ourselves in with our MPs. Their refusal to show the nation what they have been spending money on has led most of us, quite naturally, to assume that they have something to hide. There are some who – farcically – are defending our politicians’ outrageous behaviour. These arguments have been nicely dealt with here and here, so I don’t have a great deal to add to the debate. What I would like to stress, though, is this.

Actually, we are not asking for a great deal. We are simply asking them to publish their. Not reduce their expenditure (although this hopefully will follow), not limit them or their powers in anyway – just simply publish details of what they are spending our money on. Surely this is not too much to ask? Well, judging by the cross-party alliances, the vicious back-stabbing and the sudden government U-turn that we all witnessed yesterday, yes it is apparently too much to ask.

Politicians spend small fortunes on focus groups and surveys to find out why people don’t trust them. They spunk away further fortunes on campaigns and gimmicks to make people trust them. The reason why people don’t trust them is partly down to issues like this – they are like the child in my analogy; frantically trying to hide something. And the more they try to hide it, the more clear it becomes that they are feeling guilty about something.

Protesting? Nah, strike!

Some people will protest at the drop of a hat - over wars, over pay cuts, over pay rises that are deemed too low, and so on. Other people will only protest if they really have to. I'd class myself in the latter camp. I don't protest over everything, but when it comes to key issues like ID cards, I will be protesting like there is no tomorrow when the day finally comes when the government tries to make me carry one.

I'd also class our MPs in the latter category. They seem to meekly accept pretty much everything, but now have found a cause that they *may* actually decide to protest. vAnd what is that cause? Why, having parliamentary offices searched, of course:

The House of Commons Speaker is to make a statement over the decision to allow police to search the offices of shadow immigration minister Damian Green. Michael Martin is expected to face a protest unless he grants a full parliamentary debate on the issue.

Isn't it funny how people become more eager to protest when it is their peers who are under threat, and they think they might be next? I'm not saying our MPs are self-serving, of course not... that would be crazy.

What I would say to our elected representatives is that a protest may not be enough. If they really want to make their case, then they should just go on strike. Down tools; just stop working. Striking is the way forward for our MPs. They can protect their rights by simply refusing to work. And MPs not working on any more generally shitty laws, not continuing to nationalise the financial sector, and not pontificating about issues that they have no intention of dealing with, may have a net benefit for the population as well...

1984 - Don't encourage them

DK is advertising a campaign to send a copy of 1984 to our elected Lords and Masters to remind them of just how atrocious a totalitarian regime actually is, and in the process hopefully get them to arrest the slide of the UK towards the nightmarish Oceania. However, whilst I have a lot of sympathy for this campaign, I cannot in good faith sign up to it. To explain, I'll use DK's words (emphasis mine):

1984 is not an instruction manual... as we all know. However, it seems that our lords and masters are unfamiliar with the book's contents—or alternatively, of course, they are very familiar and are actually using it as an instruction manual.

At the risk of sounding very, very paranoid, I kind of suspect that 1984 would open their eyes to a whole host of new shit that they can dump on the heads of the cowed, restricted and near broken British public. Put simply, I don't think they need any encouragement. Rather, I think they need something to make them more liberal, something to inspire them to be less dogmatic, illiberal and totalitarian.

I've no idea what, though, since the current crop of MPs could watch It's A Wonderful Life and turn it into some sort of dystopian nightmare. But perhaps a few copies of The Road to Serfdom or On Liberty might turn the tide. Assuming, that is, that our MPs are actually cerebral enough to be able to read a book that isn't printed on waterproof, chewable card with big letters and lots of pictures painted in primary colours.