Friday, May 22, 2009
Looking the wrong way
Nadine Dorries, interviewed on the BBC Today programme lifts the lid on the "expenses" crisis, telling Sarah Montague that the Additional Cost Allowance is a lump sum – not expenses, an allowance - firmly part of MPs' salaries. Further, she asserted, all the political journalists knew that, including those on the BBC, giving the current Telegraphcampaign the smell of a McCarthyite witch-hunt.
Montague simply did not want to hear this, and could not wait to get rid of Dorries, but the same message as to the real status of the ACA is given by Labour MP Stephen Pound on Politics Home. He claims of the Commons fees office, "They used to ring people and say you're under-claiming this month." "In reality," he adds, "they were helping us over the cliff."
As to what both these MPs are saying, this is no more or less than what we have been stating, most recently yesterday. It is also what Booker was writing last week.
All of that makes the frenzied efforts to "reform" the expenses system as much a deception as the Telegraph's campaign which, in lovingly regaling us with the details of the expenses claims, quite deliberately misses the point. It projects a falsehood every bit as egregious as that perpetrated by the MPs.
However, as Dorries points out, the real fault lies with successive governments and their prime ministers, who have never had the courage publicly to address the issue of MPs' salaries and what they are worth. Instead, they have opted for back-door increases as a way of keeping the MPs quiet, without incurring public and media wrath.
This is also the case with the tax issue, as it was Blair's government which introduced the clause in the (then) Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill, giving MPs a free gift equivalent to £8-10,000 a year, through their tax exemptions. For sure, MPs approved the Bill but it was a government initiative that put it there in the first place.
Apart from the fact that Blair personally was a beneficiary of this change, there is a crude logic in paying MPs sub rosa. Stuffing their mouths with gold keeps them quiescent, which the underhand nature of the payments helps keep them under control. The unspoken threat of "outing" was a powerful tool in the hands of the whips, who would have been well aware of the claims individual MPs were making.
In that sense, the furore about "expenses" is entirely misplaced, and dangerously so. It obscures the greater deceptions and systemic problems, while giving the executive – with the ready agreement of opposition leaders – further opportunities to weaken parliament.
Of course, the claque does not want to hear this, lapping up the theatre and positively revelling in the lurid disclosures, offered to them daily by a media which is conspiring with the Telegraph to paint an entirely false picture. Thus, rather than the claque - which is but a parasite feeding off the media and reacting to it – making the running, it is being left to old-fashioned journalists like Camilla Cavendish and Booker to piece together the real story.
That, itself, is another story. The claque - aka political blogosphere – held out the promise of being a counter to the "spin" and deception of the MSM, looking behind the fluff to give us the "real" stories. Instead, the blogosphere is dominated by self-referential, introverted lightweights, every bit as venal and ignorant as the MSM herd, leaving – as always – just a few individuals attempting to shout above the crowd.
In what is actually, a real constitutional crisis, that has been building to a crescendo for more than thirty years as the executive has progressively neutered our parliament, the crowd is looking the wrong way.
COMMENT THREAD
Climbing the learning curve
"Public outrage isn't just about expenses: it's that politicians have blithely handed over authority to the EU and quangocrats," writes Camilla Cavendish in The Times.
She continues in this vein, arguing that it is the absence of power that is an important part of public outrage. "Westminster has given up so much power - to Europe, to quangos, to judges - that people wonder what they are paying for," she says. "Half the time, a big issue comes up and politicians say it's not their responsibility."
So far so good – an intelligent journalist contributing a more thoughtful diagnosis of our present ills - although she does not really understand the "human rights" appeal on soldiers' "right to life". This, she avers, is a direct consequence of the Blair Government's rush to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, but that is not wholly or even mainly the case.
As we pointed out, the first line of redress was parliament and it was only when constituency MPs, then the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Opposition failed to react that there was resort to the courts. This is not, as Cavendish argues, "a bonanza for lawyers" but simply lawyers filling the vacuum of power left by parliament.
The lady is also amazed by the readiness of politicians to relinquish power, but if she really understood the dynamics of government, and the realities of modern party politics, she would not be. Again, as we pointed out – some time ago, the EU succeeds (and does the quango culture) because it is convenient. On the one hand, it allows governments to by-pass the restrictive and time-consuming processes of democracy and, on the other, it relieves politicians of the tedium and sheer hard work of law-making, giving them more time to enjoy the trappings of power and indulge in their party political soap operas.
Outsourcing has the additional benefit of allowing governments and politicians both get rid of the spadework of governance, so that they can concentrate on pursuing their own personal agendas and micro-managing our lives, with ever more trivial and intrusive legislation and edicts. As long as the EU and the quangos are looking after the shop, the boys and girls can play to their hearts' content.
Once again, we drew attention to this earlier, remarking that the real conspiracy – especially in parliament – is idleness and stupidity. MPs cannot be bothered to do their real jobs, so they leave them to others.
Thus, Cavendish only gets five out of ten for her contribution – a good effort, but she is way down the learning curve. That her piece is so remarkable for what it does offer, though, sadly illustrates how low down on the curve is the rest of the pack.
COMMENT THREAD
Another day ...
... another press release from Libertas.eu. Well, one of several, I suspect and all attacking UKIP. I still find that rather odd. Having made it clear that they are frightfully "pro-European" or, put into real language, in favour of ever more integration in the European Union, why do Libertas think that potential UKIP supporters will vote for them instead.
Then again, is anybody apart from me reading those press releases? Has anyone sighted any mention of Libertas.eu in the media? People out there are discussing UKIP's and the BNP's chances but I have not heard a single mention of Libertas.eu, not in Shepherds Bush cafes and launderettes, not around Oxford dinner tables, not nowhere nor nohow.
This particular attack on UKIP calls them political dinosaurs but it has nothing to do with the view that nation states are the way forward, an idea that Libertas.eu clearly disagree with, unless they consider Europe a nation. This is about Godfrey Bloom announcing that he keeps his accounts in cardboard folders and not on-line. Presumably, that means he will not be publishing them on the internet, though he might if he is told to do so.
The question is, have those Libertas.eu candidates who are sitting MEPs published their accounts on the internet; the next question is when did they do so; and if they have not why not.
Incidentally, Libertas.eu still maintains that President Klaus has endorsed their party in the Czech Republic, though evidence there comes none. A little more honesty from the knights in shining armour would be in order. Still no attacks on the Conservatives, though their supporters may well vote Libertas as the ideas are not all that dissimilar. Hmm?
COMMENT THREAD
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/.
Posts
