Flash Gordon II

Guido has the lowdown on the latest sighting of the Brown Pimpernel. Apparently, like Flash Harry from the St Trinians films, he's taken to wearing a trilby hat low over his eyes and a long coat that makes him look like he's gliding along without any sign of leg movement, slithering from Important Rich Luminary to Important Rich Luminary, touting for a bit of trade. "Inconspicuous" is the watchword.

After some excitement this morning that Gordon Brown might actually be in town to represent his constituents the truth unravels. While he may have put a fleeting five minutes in the chamber, (making the number of days he as been in two out of a possible forty-nine,) King of the Lobby Gary Gibbon has; what he was really down here for. A meeting with a Kennedy, a chat with Sir Tim Berners-Lee about his future employability and a natter with his old cabinet allies.

So it seems the great Brownian contempt for his own constituents, the public purse that provides his unearned salary and his abject lack of contrition for - or even interest in - his role in the debt disaster now confronting Britain thanks to him will just go on and on and on. Until someone in government has the guts to put a stop to it, preferably with legislation on the conduct of sitting MPs.

People should be a lot more angry about this than the painful budget Brown has brought down on our heads thanks to that sponging loser's economic incompetence and political desperation.

As much as it was a Coalition budget, this was Brown's budget. The Tories were right: let no one forget that. Oh, and if we are expected to make sacrifices for the sake of the future security of the nation's finances, then might I suggest that everyone should be forced to pull his or her weight. We're all in this together, after all.

Flash Gordon, that ex-wrecker and now dodgy shirker, would be a top target for me for the chop. Why should I be paying for him not to do his job? Cameron can lead by example, but he can also make them - preferably of the predecessor who is so frightened of facing the music to the extent that he is effectively now on the run.

It's time Brown's past caught up with him.

"Political Classes": Definition Of

Ich bin ein Old Holborns?

I use the term "political classes" quite a bit on this blog but I've never really bothered to define what the term actually means, at least to me. Well, Charles Moore on the Daily Telegraph used it too in his bit on the death of the Euro today (which, incidentally, is quite a good read in my humble, whether you are a Europhile, Eurosceptic or just curious). He talks about the "German political classes", which, on the face of it, seemed to me to be sensible enough being, as it is, a sort of currency term that appears to refer to the totality of our, or their, elected representatives as some kind of separate entity to the rest of society, and harks back to days before universal suffrage and when hereditary entitlement was purely a class phenomenon.

However, I wasn't satisfied with my own explanation so I phoned a friend and asked her what she thought it might mean, reminding her that "body politic", for instance, by contrast refers to the entire electorate and not to the collective body of elected representitives (a confusion I've seen even on the more august political blogs). Couldn't it be the case that we are all part of the "political classes" one way or other, given that in an advanced democracy the people, theoretically, are where political power ultimately rests? Isn't the term therefore mistaken in this day and age?

"Oh no," she answered, "that's not right at all." What did she mean, I asked, fascinated. "Well, it's simple really. 'Political classes' refers to anyone who stands for election, lies to win it, spends the next five years planning how to get re-elected, leaves running the country to a professional civil service, and all the while gathers as much expenses money, lobbying patronage, consultancies and directorships as possible so that if the unimaginable happens and they're voted out by an even more effective liar, then they've got all that to fall back on, plus the gold-plated pension plan. That's what "political classes" really means, with very few exceptions and regardless of political affiliation".

As she said, simple really. Or is it?

AWOL Brown Should Be Kicked Out Of Parliament

Mandrake (Tim Walker) in today's Sunday Telegraph reveals that one of Gordon Brown's last acts as Prime Minister was to secretly cut the future incumbant's salary by £250,000 over five years.

Gordon Brown's failure to turn up for the State Opening of Parliament may well have been because he couldn't look David Cameron in the face. Mandrake hears that one of Brown's final acts in the Downing Street bunker was quietly to organise a pay cut for his successor which he must have known would leave him out of pocket to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

On Brown's orders, the Prime Minister's remuneration package was cut from £194,000 to £150,000, but this was done with such stealth that no formal announcement was ever made.

Now, some might say that that was done for sound economic reasons since the country faces economic collapse due the parlous state of the public finances - thanks, er, to Brown. That conclusion would be completely naive. Even Walker's conclusion, jovial as it is, and quoting a 'Whitehall source' is wide of the mark in my humble opinion.

"This was pure Gordon," harrumphs my man in Whitehall. "Quite prepared to make the big sacrifices – so long as it wasn't him who actually had to make them."

Not so. While his pocket-lining, self-serving instincts were certainly part of the motivation for his actions, Brown did this out of pure malice for his successor. That's why he did it secretly. As a result, Cameron will earn little more than he did as leader of the opposition, and could well earn less in terms of salary alone given that he has also handed himself and the cabinet an example-setting 5% pay cut, unaware that Brown had already sabotaged that good faith gesture.

As far as I'm concerned, Brown is a seriously twisted individual who finished the way he started in office, by sticking two fingers up ostensibly at the hated Tories, but really at the entire population of the country he pretty much single-handedly ruined. He must be held to account, and, if fraud or corruption are ever uncovered, brought to book for his crimes against the people of Britain.

In the meantime, let's focus on something else. It's not just that he couldn't face David Cameron at the Queen's Speech, or that he hasn't turned up in parliament once on behalf of his constituency since he was booted out of Number 10, or that he has continued to draw an MP's salary while, in effect, going AWOL (I hear he's been in up in Kirkaldy but effectively incommunicado since his ousting)...these things are bad enough. It's not any of that, however, but something far simpler. Clearly, there is a strong case for him to be suspended from parliament pending a review of his activities, or lack thereof, since regaining that safest of safe seats, (and whether his supporters in that safest of safe seat like it or not)]. If necessary, legislation should be introduced to this end. It should be applied not just to Brown but to any MPs suspected of not discharging their duties of office adequately.

Well, I know it won't happen - which is a pity - but, in the end, something must be done about Brown. He deserves some kind of punishment for his vicious spite and, ultimately, his cowardice both in and now out of office.

If nothing else, though, we should expect and demand better from our backbench MPs.

Old Grinners, Part 2

As promised, part 2 of the list of superannuated troughers who've qualified (or nearly qualified) for their free bus passes, set to some appropriate music.



From outstanding YouTube channel and bottomless well of late 20th century musical and political nostalgia: ajs41

Part 1 is here.

Parachute PPCs

...Looks like Liz Truss's failed to open, given her impact on the Conservatives (and others) in the Norfolk consituency that didn't choose her as a PPC. "Lead balloon" springs to mind.

At all times, candidates for Member of Parliament should be local people. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious to all but Iain Dale, who's banging on about it in yet another pretty bitchy little post today (you have to wonder whether his personal ambitions in the direction of parliament have coloured his judgment on this), Conservative Party Central Office - and, oh yeah, the Labour Party. I doubt if Dale would be in the running for MP anywhere were it not for the prospect of the helpful parachute. Mind you, it looks like he might have given up after coming third in Bracknell. Don't get me wrong, however, I wish neither him nor Miss Truss any ill will. I just don't like candidates foisted on people. It's a stitch-up, it's patronising, it takes the electorate for granted and it should never be tolerated. To put it another way, there should be a law against it.

Conservative policy on this really does need to be clarified, as the excellent DT commentary from Melanie McDonagh (see link above) states. To say there are mixed signals coming from the Tory high command on localism is a major understatement. Pickles' presence, no less, is required.

==Update==
Iain Dale (I had no idea he read this little blog - maybe he has staff to do it for him) believes that the shortlist system helps to stop the "parachute effect" from ever happening, although he didn't put it quite like that (see comments). I'm not convinced, frankly, although I concede that the picture is more complex than the one I painted in my slightly bilious initial remarks. It does not, for instance, answer the question that is being put by Swaffham's Conservative Association: how much influence does, can and should Central Office bring to bear on local Associations in the selection of candidates? A better argument for universal open primaries (or open caucuses, to be precise) I have yet to hear. Mr Dale himself came a dignified cropper because of this excellent innovation as the people of the constituency for which he had hoped to stand opted for someone who, in terms of the crowded clusters of towns and villages in the south east of England at least, qualifies as a local man.

Interesting, that, and, I think, goes some way to proving my point. In the case of Elisabeth Truss, David Cameron on the radio just now said that he thought she would be an excellent candidate and that he hopes she is selected. I am sure he is absolutely right - she would most likely be an effective MP. But given that he sounds like he's otherwise washed his hands of the whole affair, it seems she's on her own, and we haven't been given the policy clarification on MPs' independence, localism and the relationship between constituency and party that is clearly needed.

We haven't forgotten about the expenses scandal yet. Does David Cameron (and, perhaps, Mr Dale) really need to be reminded just who MPs are elected to serve: constituency, parliament and party in that order?

Old Grinners, Part 1

One wonders how many of these venerable political veterans are actually going to make it to the next election, let alone keep their seats by fighting in it. Mind you, quite a few of them have been found with snouts firmly planted deep in the trough during the expenses scandal, so they're already treading water until the arrival of the first gold-plated pension cheque that will signal the blissful, foggy forgetfulness of retirement has finally begun. And how they've earned it! Douglas Hogg will finally be able to build that drawbridge he's always wanted, for instance. And Margaret Beckett won't have to pretend her main residence is a caravan for tax (evasion) reasons any more (even though it is).



Groovy. The one I'm most impressed with is John Horam MP of the Labour, SDP and Conservative parties. What a tart! Now that's a career politician. We shall never see his like again. Er...

PS: The YouTube channel from which this is nicked is one of my favourite nostalgia wells. You can find it here.

Harman Causes Fresh Expenses Stink

The front page of this morning's Telegraph will be worth a once over. In an extraordinary outburst Harriet Harman has threatened to block the new Kelly rules on expenses - or, in her slippery terms, has "warned" that "MPs" will block them. Whatever she hopes she means, she has already been slapped down by the troglodyte bunker dwellers of Number 10. They at least, in their dank darkness, appear to be dimly aware of the further damage her remarks will do to a parliament, and a Labour party, already and rightly regarded with total contempt by the general public. There are one or two other things to unpick from her dimwitted comments, however, but I invite you to examine the article first.

Ms Harman, the Leader of the Commons, said it would not be fair for MPs to be forced to sack their spouses or other family members working in their offices.

She also indicated that plans to stop MPs living in the London commuter belt from having taxpayer-funded second homes may prove unacceptable.

For months, the Government has led the public to believe that recommendations drawn up by Sir Christopher Kelly would be introduced quickly without MPs becoming involved.

Mr Brown has said it would be supported as long as it was “affordable”, while Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said all parties would accept the proposals “unless they are in the realm of complete irrationality”.

However, the Commons Leader said that an outside body would now decide whether to implement recommendations from the Kelly review.

This new “independent” body will work under the auspices of a small group of senior MPs – many of whom have faced questions about their own expenses – sparking fears over its impartiality.

The MPs will be responsible for approving the appointment of executives running the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).

Sir Christopher was appointed to draw up a radical overhaul of the expenses system in the wake of The Daily Telegraph’s disclosures.

However, his work has been fiercely opposed by some MPs who are threatening to rebel against the Prime Minister if the proposals are introduced. David Cameron is thought to back the introduction of Sir Christopher’s recommendations in full.

Asked whether IPSA could reject Sir Christopher's proposals, Ms Harman said: “It's entirely a matter for them. But they will, I'm sure, want to draw on his important work.

“But it's a matter for them to decide, not for Sir Christopher Kelly and not for us either as MPs.”

Gordon Brown will meet Sir Christopher on Monday and is expected to warn that the reforms must not turn politics into the preserve of the rich, according to Downing Street aides.

However, it is not clear why Mr Brown is issuing such a warning to the official watchdog – or why his feelings are being made public – as Sir Christopher’s report and recommendations have already been sent to the printers.

The comments may therefore be designed to placate Labour MPs.

Sir Christopher, the chairman of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, will set out his recommendations on Wednesday.

He is expected to recommend that MPs are only allowed to rent a second home and that the taxpayer will not pay mortgage interest in future.

MPs will also be banned from employing family members under his proposals. Those living within an hour’s commute of Westminster will also be unable to claim for the cost of a second home.

When details of the proposed package emerged last week, they were attacked by many MPs who described them as “nonsense” and “ludicrous”.

Ms Harman appeared to yesterday back opposition to the ban on family members.

She said: “If Sir Christopher Kelly recommends that MPs shouldn't be able to employ any family members for the future and if that's what the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority decides I think two things: firstly there shouldn't be any shadow cast over the existing spouses who are working very hard.

“I think it would be wrong to judge them all as not doing a good job, I don't believe that to be the case.

“Secondly, I do think it would be fair not to sack existing spouses who are working for MPs. I think if they are going to suggest something it should be for the future, they can't simply say 'you have all got to be made redundant'.”

The comments from the leader of the House are likely to lead to intense lobbying of IPSA from MPs. More than 100 MPs currently employ members of their families.

On Sunday it emerged that Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP, has employed another of her daughters to work in her office after she failed to find work after graduating.

There are also growing fears that MPs may seek to influence the composition of the new IPSA board.

The chairman and other senior members of the authority have yet to be appointed – and their appointments have to be sanctioned by the Speaker and a secretive committee of MPs.

Several of the MPs on the committee have spoken out against Sir Christopher’s recommendations sparking fears that they may not wish to appoint a strong, impartial head to run IPSA.

For example, Sir Stuart Bell who sits on the new committee, said that Parliament may wish to “amend” Sir Christopher’s recommendations.

“The House would want to look at these recommendations very carefully, they will want to debate them and have the opportunity, should they so wish, to amend them,” he said.

Other members of the committee include Don Touhig, a Labour MP who led a backbench revolt against previous plans to tighten up the rules on MPs expenses, and Sir George Young, the shadow leader of the House, who previously chaired the Committee which punished MPs who broke Parliamentary rules.

The Committee has been criticised for failing to clamp down on abuse of the expenses system.

The composition of the new committee which will oversee IPSA was quietly announced in an evening session of Parliament last Wednesday. Several MPs complained that no younger or more progressive politicians were selected for the committee.

IPSA will also have to consult the new committee on the final revised package for MPs’ expenses.

Downing Street sources sought to play down Ms Harman’s remarks. They said she was expressing a “personal view” in relation to MPs’ employment of their relatives or spouses.

A well-placed source added that IPSA’s role was to introduce the Kelly recommendations and that any changes would be “small practical issues” not “big show stoppers”.

The endless spin in which Harman indulges must be making her giddy. It's not Conservative MPs who will block these measures, it is Labour MPs and she knows it. Cameron has made it clear from the start that it's either his way or the highway for Tory members. Rock the boat and you're out on your ear, he's told them. And they believe it - he's got form. Not so with Brown, whose total lack of authority over his party has been revealed in all its inglorious truth by this scandal. The shameful and ongoing attempt, by Harman in particular but also by her enfeebled boss and some of his more slithering operators like Jack Straw, to muddy the waters about just where the hardening opposition to parliamentary reform is emanating from and is the most vocal and the most politically dangerous, only serves further to isolate Labour from an outraged public. The damage this issue alone is doing to Brown and Labour is clearly reflected in the polls. He can't get a grip on his own troughing, fiddling MPs, many of whom are or were cabinet members. He is hopelessly compromised as a consequence. It wouldn't matter if the economy rebounded by 30% next month and the deficit miraculously vanished, people would still not back him, thanks mainly to stories like this one. The apparently endless, mendacious, slippery manoeuverings of Harman, a woman so stupid that she simply does not know when to shut up, have caused more damage than Brown's own litany of well-documented shortcomings have even caused him. All it clearly highlights is that whatever Cameron might or might not be, at least he's got a grip on his own party.

People will know that if anyone blocks the Kelly reforms (which are hardly revolutionary in any case) it won't be MPs generally that block it, it will be Labour MPs. Conservatives are under orders, as the article sort of makes clear, and they are expected to obey. Labour MPs are feeling bloody-minded, self-righteous and indignant in their ridiculous sense of depthless entitlement. They will not lie down quietly like the Tories after the whip has cracked. And they will certainly not "reform" willingly, if at all.

You can therefore guarantee from whence the complaints of "several MPs", referred to in the article, about the make-up of the oversight committee (made up of MPs) for the laughably titled "Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority" (which is somehow meant independently to review MPs' behaviour and finances, while being reviewed itself by, er, MPs) emanate. The complaints are coming from Labour MPs wanting what already looks like a bit of a stitch-up to be complete stitch-up, rather than the partial one the current proposals represent.

Out of all this it's become pretty clear to me that there are really gold, silver and bronze medals of Olympian rottenness in Westminster today. The bronze medal goes to the current crop of MPs in general, whose almost total absence of common sense, decency and/or integrity (take your pick) in their venality and stupidity, and the ease with which they felt justified in fleecing the nation they were meant to serve, has besmurched the reputation of the mother of parliaments for years to come. The silver medal goes to Labour MPs, many of whose behaviour crossed the line into full-blown criminality long ago, and yet who, even now, like some sort of recalcitrant, slightly sociopathic recidivists, remain entirely convinced of their own moral superiority and determined to keep that golden goose laying.

But the gold medal - ah yes, the coveted Big Prize for All-Round Decay - that must go to Brown and Blair's Labour government, in the form of two of the most corrupt prime ministers of all time, one of whom was never even elected, and a long, oh-so-long procession of totally inadequate, usually incompetent and quite frequently lawbreaking ministers, in or out of cabinet, finishing up with the likes of Straw, Mandelson and, of course, Harman. They have lined their pockets relentlessly and will never, ever admit they have done anything wrong. Ever. More, they will go on to rig the system, regardless of the public's fury, like some second rate, corrupt politbureau jobsworths, so that it will always find in their favour, just so they get to keep the dacha and the Zil - and to hell with us proles.

The ethical rot was there among MPs on all sides, oh yes, but it flowed (and is still flowing, actually) from Labour for the past 12 years like an eighteenth century, open Parisian sewer. It took an awful lot of political reform and building work to rid Paris of an inundation of effluence and disease. The only way to begin to muck out this early 21st century British pigsty parliament is not with the Kelly destraction, it's with a General Election. But hey, everybody knows that, right?

We can at least then rid ourselves of the main source of the stench: the rancid corpse that is this Labour government.

Two hundred and thirteen long days to go before the clean-up can finally begin and we can try again with the Tories.

Shortlists Are Vital...

...if you want the nation's government - and therefore the nation - finally to operate at its full potential.

Rene Kinzet, the excellent, vigilant guardian of the Tory flame in Swansea (where I work), explains so well why in this particular case, the ends do not necessarily justify the means, but they truly define them. All woman shortlists present no scary moral hazard once it is accepted that there's a far bigger picture here, especially when it comes to that tired conservative (not Tory) standard: meritocracy. That bigger picture is the real picture. And it's question of scale, especially when it comes to the long-abused meritocratic imperative. The notion of 'meritocracy' without the assumption of equality in terms of cultural, social and/or vocational expectations is an insult to the intelligence of every modern British subject.

As Mr Kinzet revealed to me in his response to one of my little comments:

Astonishing fact: 291 women and 4559 men elected to Commons since 1918.

David Cameron gets it. Suffering the understandable gripes of the establishment, with their familiar habits and attitudes, is a price worth paying to correct the ridiculous gender imbalance that defines and shames our system of political representation. Cameron has my full support if he is genuinely planning to suffer those unenlightened gripes. I think he is.

That's progressive Conservatism. That's what it means to be real Tory.

Our generation of Conservatives, in a Nixon and China sense, has the opportunity finally - and literally - to fix the sociopolitical problem which is the systematic ostracisation of women from politics. I say 'sociopolitical' because that's exactly what it is: received societal expectations and "norms" constantly impacting on the political ambitions of that half of our population who happen to be women and generating devastating indifference among what would otherwise be thousands of potential Margaret Thatchers and, dare I say it, Shirley Williamses. (It works both ways!)

The short term gripes of anyone, especially male MPs and people who haven't thought things through properly, are insufficient. The gripists, like Iain Dale for example, must ask themselves why they are really griping. And, shortly after they've worked out how wrong they are, accede to David Cameron's visionary, just solution.

Speaking of that 'just solution', do you know what? I would go further, much further to fix this risible, archaic inequality currently being defended by powerful idiots everywhere. So my children won't have to fix it, I propose an even deeper quick-fix than shortlists.

I propose that all three main parties get together and co-ordinate their all women shortlists so that at least 200 constituencies in the next election are guaranteed to return MPs who happen to be female. It can be done.

It should be. Bring on the gripes...

While I'm waiting, however, I think we should all watch this:



Satire, eh? QED.

Expenses Blackout "A Collective Act of Denial Beyond Pathetic"

It's pretty extraordinary to me that there is what seems to be a virtual television news blackout on the latest, extraordinary twist in the expenses scandal. After a PMQs where no mention of the subject was made by MPs and their leaders, in what looks for all the world like a cowardly cross-party consensus, the main TV news outlets, the Beeb and SKY (ITN has no rolling news service so it's difficult to include it these days), appear to have dutifully forgotten all about it.

Preferring to concentrate on the lame 500-troop extra deployment (re)announcement from Brown - the poor bloody Royal Anglians are off to Helmand again - star of the show on both channels was
the new CGS Sir Jock Stirrup in a bizarre interview during which he appeared to call his predecessor, Richard Dannatt, a liar over the request during the summer for 2000 extra troops. "It's a myth," he said. Oh, really?

It's obviously one of those weird 'protect Brown' days in the broadcast media that crops up from time to time. While there have been some, small references to Clegg's pretty mendacious call for an extention to the Legg review that includes house flipping (mendacious because he knows a deal's already been struck to exclude this), there has been nothing about the rebellion Brown faces or more on David Cameron's uniquely hardline stance. Well, whatever the motive and the agenda of the 'village', as James Kirkup has said in his DT blog, they can do what they like but the expenses debacle is not going to go away. I would add that it won't go away until this parliament goes away, complete with the majority of its corrupt, whingeing, not-fit-for-purpose MPs. For good.

PMQs: pathetic MPs won't mention their expenses

Afghanistan. Europe. General Sir Richard Dannatt. Girl Guides. Mortgages. Royal Mail. Emergency services. Freedom of the Press. Scotland. Poverty.

All important subjects, all worthy of parliamentary debate and all rightly discussed at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Yet there was not a single mention of MPs’ expenses, Sir Thomas Legg, public money or public trust. Not one MP, backbencher or party leader, dared to mention the issue that has fixated them for days and made them the objects of public scorn.

It’s not as if politicians aren’t talking about this. MPs are happy enough to talk about their expenses in the tearooms and corridors at length. But they won’t do it in the House of Commons, which is at least supposed to be the proper forum for national debate. As a collective act of denial, this is beyond pathetic. As a public spectacle, it verges on the surreal.

"A collective act of denial beyond pathetic." I like that a lot. But I would extend it to include the pathetic broadcast media, if not the entire, pathetic MSM (minus, perhaps, in this case at least, the Telegraph).

Bloggers of the net, unite! You have nothing to lose but your piggy MPs.

Slippery Harman

On Sky News just now Harriet Harman has just been doing a creditable impression of an eel so slippery, it's got a PhD from the University of Eels in Slippery Studies. Cameron has stated categorically that his MPs must pay back their trough money or they aren't MPs any more. Harperson has just said that it's "not a party political matter...blah....blah....Cameron is just trying to look tough...blah". See? Slippery.

And, no. Cameron's leading his party and doing the right thing (although I do not think even he's going far enough). What's Harriet doing? Well, she clearly doesn't know because when asked by the anchor for the umpteenth time whether Labour MPs, a number of whom are actually challenging the findings of the Legg review, (unbelievably and suicidally), face the same sanction, slippery Harmon was finally caught.

"But what happens to Labour MPs if they don't pay the money back?" posed the newsreader.

"Er, well, they will...," blustered Harman.

No, Harriet, they won't. That's the bloody point. One of them was actually saying it on another channel as she was speaking!

Watch the polls, folks. Just when you thought Labour might have a chance of recovering a little bit (a horrible thought), along comes dithering Gordon, who couldn't lead the proverbial piss up in a brewery (I could ;) and sinks them.

Suits me.

++Update++
I've just heard on the six o'clock bulletin that Brown has followed Cameron's lead and threatened to fire truculant troughers, or so the reporter said. But listening to his interview from this morning, I'm not so sure that's what he said. It was equivocal to say the least.

Business as usual for Brown, then.

MPs' Council Tax Fraud

Tomorrow's expenses expose in the DT is probably the most gobsmackingly enraging of them all. More than 50 MPs have been over-claiming for Council Tax and pocketing the extra cash, most of them, surprise surprise, Labour. Not content with having all their utilities, mortgage interest and local taxes on their second homes paid for by us (why?), these troughers have gone a step further and actually submitted false tax claims.

Let's just remind ourselves of what the Department of Work and Pensions (you know, the department in which Kitty Ussher recently held a ministerial post, just before she entered the Treasury) says about people who try to cheat the benefits system:

Deliberately withholding information that affects your claim is stealing. That’s why we are targeting benefit thieves!

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) takes benefit theft very seriously. Although the vast majority of people who claim benefits are honest, those who steal benefits are picking the pockets of law-abiding taxpayers. In 2007-08 benefit thieves stole an estimated £800 million from public funds, that's why we are determined to catch them.

The government threats should not be taken lightly. There is no doubt that the government is serious about imprisoning benefit fraudsters - and that is what makes their hypocrisy so abject, and their fiddles so serious. That these thefts from the public purse are perpetrated by lawmakers is one thing, that so many appear to have been happy to misappropriate tax funds is quite another. Let's take a look at what the government says about tax fraud:

Tax fraud is when someone pays too little tax, or wrongly claims a tax repayment by acting dishonestly.The government can prosecute people who commit tax fraud, as well as anyone who helps them to commit the fraud.

As far as I am concerned, the redaction of the original document where these claims are revealed by MPs, who did not know that an uncensored copy would reach the press, shows intent. At the very least it demonstrates that many MPs felt they had something to hide and then tried to hide it. This fact alone merits extensive investigation. Simply repaying money because you've been found out is insufficient - and the police know that, so why are they not acting on information received?

All in all, though, this rotten parliament, as if this needs repeating once again, is morally bankrupt, has lost all authority to make law, is poisoned, paralysed and must be dissolved. Shout it out loud, folks. Every day from now until the dissolution. Many of these people are simply crooks and only a general election can rid us of them once and for all.

Pay Back

The Parliament website has published another list, according to The Times, this time of MPs who've felt the need to unburden themselves of our money. You can see it here. It's a surprisingly long list, given that we're talking about MPs.

There are some interesting entries (which we know about) from the titchy: Cheryl Gillan, Shadow Minister for Dogfood's return of £4.47 (presumably in Pedigree Chum coupons) right up to the really huge: King Labour Pig, Minister for [the] Health [of his bank balance], Phil Hope's monster hit of 42674.13 pound's worth of freshly laundered bills.

The total amount of troughed taxpayer cash regurgitated by the little piggies is £478,616.90.

Given that the amount pocketed, assuming a minimum of £80,000-worth of expenses per MP over 4 years, is around £52 million - but is surely much higher if take into account profits from the sale of flipped dwellings - this is simply not good enough as far as I'm concerned.

Individual MPs must ALL explain themselves to their constituents and be forced to stand for their seats in a by election.

There is, of course, a tried and tested mechanism for this already. It's called a GENERAL ELECTION.

Then we'd see some genuine "pay back".

We Can't Afford MPs

Nia Griffith: we own her crockery

Talk of public spending cuts is all very well but I'm seriously coming to the conclusion, after a brief scan of my and my nearest and dearest's various MPs' heavily censored expenses, that we simply can't afford them any more. If you want to cut public spending, instead of starting with schools and defence, why don't we start a little closer to home? Why not cut a few hundred MPs and then cap the salaries and abolish all the expenses of the remainder?

Why have I suddenly come to this conclusion? Because I'm bloody livid, that's why. My parents, both of whom are retired professionals, should be reasonably comfortable and enjoying their hard-earned rest from long and productive careers.

But they are not because of astronomical utility bills (no "deflation" there), astronomical local taxes (corrupt and inept local Labour government), astronomical food bills (no "deflation" there either) and diabolical public and health services that they invariably end up subsidising despite a lifetime of constant local tax, road tax and national insurance contributions by paying, for instance, for treatment they would otherwise simply not receive this side of 2012.

On top of this, I have now discovered that their Labour MP, ex-public school girl and Oxford educated former schoolteacher (and daughter of Welsh academic royalty) Nia Griffith, who is paid a small fortune anyway as an MP and PPS to Harriet Harperson, has all her household bills, council tax, mortgage interest and food costs effectively subsidised by my pensioner parents. Not only that, but also her second home's furnishings, fittings - even the china - was paid for by the taxpayer. It's impossible to gather from the document, which has been completely mutilated, whether she's flipped homes as well. Judging by some of her exes claims, I think I'd risk a flutter on that one.

Here's an example of what the taxpayer - you, me and my retired folks - paid to make Nia Griffith's second home, a home for which she has no doubt earned a tidy sum during the insane period of Brown's property bubble, just that little bit more luxurious:

I know, I know: they're all at it. Hey, I'm just holding this woman up as an example. Get over there and pick your own! There's hundreds to choose from and she is by no means the worst, hard though that might be to believe. Just someone - please - explain to me why Griffith, who does an average job in my parents' constituency at the best of times, or any other Member of Parliament for that matter, should not have to furnish her own taxpayer-subsidised second properties and pay for utilities, upkeep and council tax, too. Why, exactly, are my pensioner parents paying for her dishwashers, cabinet freezers and £300 pound china sets?

This might be old news, but it remains a very fresh resentment that is not going to go away until some or all of this money is paid back, perhaps out of the money these petty piggy thieves have made from the property boom, screwing the taxpayer from every possible direction in the process.

Tell you what, I wonder who'd give me a price if I wanted to bet that Brown kept the boom going just to keep the troughers and the flippers happy - and sod the country? Wouldn't put that past him, or them.

These are terrible, dark days for Britain. Hard to see when we will start to pull through as long as the 645 current incumbents remain. Why don't we just kick them all out and start again? They're our employees after all.

Small wonder we aren't getting our general election.

Major-General's Song - Raccoon Style

Lyrics by WS Raccoon.

I am the very model of a modern Parliamentarian,
I’ve nothing but contempt for the humble proletarian
I’m anti- drink, I’m anti-smoke, and I’m chastely ecological,
I quote from Hansard and I’m never logical
I’ve learned to speak at conferences, colloquia and seminars
I’ve even sent impassioned pleas to European commissars
I never miss a photo op because it’s free publicity
I smile, shake hands, kiss babies and praise everyone’s ethnicity.

[Chorus:]
He is the very model of the modern parliamentarian
He’s nothing but contempt for the humble proletarian

There is no universal law, that I must live a life of sleaze
Nor is there proof the world is fair, nor that I should do as you would please
I know the code of Green Book Law and which receipts are optional
I bolster up my claims with fabrications risible
Of moats, and porn, and mortgages invisible
Those claims are valid; the Green Book’s a revelation
It says we can, and there’s no taxation

[Chorus:]
The claims are valid, the Green Book a revelation
It says he can and there’s no taxation

You get nowt from Fees office if you can’t show your claim to it
But we never fear de-selection by our constituencies
We wrote the rules, that’s why they’re lax
And we rely on you to pay the tax
That’s why I think I am invincible
The laws of this great land of ours were written with a lot of thought
So when I violate them, it’s important that I not get caught.

[Chorus:]
The laws of this great land of ours were written with a lot of thought
So when he violates them, it’s important that he not get caught.

My financial pursuits have caused a few to say I’m cynical
I can say I’m not and not be one ounce hypocritical
When wreathes are laid, I cough and clear my phlegm
I’m confident that someone else will pay for them
I serve on 10 committees, none of which do anything
I formulate agendas and debate them with the rest of them
But don’t ask me to implement, I leave that to the rest of them

[Chorus:]
Yes, the Green Book will save this troughing riparian,
He is the very model of a modern parliamentarian

I’ll guard the health of my pension by self-interest most astute:
I realise that you voters find my avarice quite vital
I’ll give back your money if you can prove your title
And spin the tale with arguments convolute
Until my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, ‘Ridiculous!’

[Chorus:]
Until his lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, ‘Ridiculous!’

I love to say at any chance that everything is relative
And prove it with statistics showing nothing is correlative
About this act I haven’t even moments of remorsefulness
I have the utmost confidence in the whips’ resourcefulness
So though we have run quite amok, we readily will go away
If for my worthless time, you were an extra £60,000 to pay.
In short, with economy shrunken and democracy gone,
For all my years of graft, my C.V. is just one line long

He was an MP and now he has gone

[Chorus:]
Oh yes, he has gone, but there’s more of the same on the way,
There’s more of the same on the way.

Brilliant :)

Another One Bites The Dust

Fraser Nelson reports that another Tory grandee is to fall on his sword after making dodgy expense claims.

Only this morning, Andrew MacKay said that he would stand for election again - but after a conversation with David Cameron he has now decided to stand down at the next election. The open meeting he held had several calls for him to go, and there was talk of a petition. The grassroots momentum was significant. This, make no mistake, is a personal loss to David Cameron who relied on MacKay to be his eyes and ears in the backbenches.

It's become pretty obvious that Cameron intends to purge the Tories of all those who have abused a lax system, whether their claims fell within the rules or not. The party faces a torrid time over the next week or so, but one thing is now abundantly clear, whatever you might think about the main parliamentary parties' behaviour generally, the battle between Brown and Cameron on how to deal with the issue is being comprehensively won by Cameron.

As I said a few days ago, thanks to his indecisiveness, mixed messages and perennial favouritism Brown faces the impossible task that is reshuffling a tainted and split cabinet. Another minister broke ranks today providing a front page story for the Times and further evidence of a government in total disarray not just over the expenses fiasco but over the management of the economy and home affairs, too. Caroline Flint, the over-promoted minister of something-or-other in question and friend of chipmunks everywhere apparently

...risks angering Downing Street by saying that Ms Blears had technically done nothing wrong, despite Mr Brown’s branding her behaviour “completely unacceptable” after she failed to pay capital gains tax on the sale of a flat.

Ms Flint says that Ms Blears is “one of the last people who would ever come into politics to gain some kind of financial benefit”.

So, not only wrong but wrong-headed and a thinly-veiled assault on Geoff Hoon, the Lord High Chancellor of Troughers. Combine this backbiting with the brewing tempest over the economic mismanagement apparently exacerbating an already serious situation vis-a-vis the debt crisis, with the UK about to lose its AAA status according to CNBC and you quickly see the Times is way off-beam with its characterisation of the mood within the Parliamentary Labour Party...

In a further sign of the febrile atmosphere at the top of government, some ministers are now speculating that Mr Brown could be persuaded to call an autumn election. They say that, with Labour apparently heading for certain defeat next year, the only way Mr Brown could rescue his party would be to be bold and go to the country...

They shouldn't bother talking to 'some ministers'. There is not one snowball's chance in hell that this outcome is even remotely likely. On the strength of the evidence so far, Brown will either hang on until the last possible minute of this parliament (not a chance) or he will be metaphorically assassinated (probability rising with each passing day) soon after the June 4th wipeout by the growing mass of disaffected Labour MPs faced with unemployment.

Not to see this is not to appreciate the state of panic among Labour's rank and file, or the total lack of leadership or connection from the Prime Menacer. While they are ponderous and slow on the uptake, predictably, they will eventually come to the conclusion that they chose him and they can depose Brown. Whatever they might think of him personally, they will look at David Cameron and see tough, sure, decisive - even brutal - leadership from a fairly normal human being. They will then look at Brown and see a bully who cannot see past the end of his own nose, inconsistency, dithering and, above all, a willingness to burn anyone to save his own bacon.

It will finally dawn on them that he is a liability and has to go.

Pick A Pocket

Ah, some English satire:



Wish it was a bit longer though!