Snapshots
Culled from today's papers:
Matthew Parris:
I returned on Thursday to find my country in one of its periodic fits of moral horror. At such times, witches have been burnt, monkeys hanged as French spies and Catholics hounded out of office.
Simon Heffer:
Government fears cutting spending in a meaningful way because of the impact that would have on its own clientele. There is a pretence that all public spending is a good in itself, and that only social harm can come of reducing it.
Should you seek further evidence of why that is nonsense, just look again at how your hard-earned money is being spent by Members of Parliament. The other good that must come out of this disgusting scandal is that the microscope now needs to be applied to everything else the state does, to see how much more of our money is being wasted, and could instead be taken off the total deficit.
Charles Moore:
The "political class" which most of us heartily dislike is not an accident. Commentators rightly note that all parties have colluded in the creeping growth of perks and allowances, which goes back, in relation to second homes, to Edward Heath's Tory government in 1971. But the big money in this game only began under New Labour. It is only since 1997 that property fortunes have been made through taxpayer largesse.
The reason for this is that Labour really does believe in a political class. It thinks that having lots of full-time politicians paid lots by the state is good for them and good for the rest of us. It thinks that if they are paid by the state they will not be corrupt, and that, government being a self-evident good, it is better to have more of it.
…
Another false argument is being made – that the House of Commons is hopelessly out of date, and that all its "fusty" traditions need to be cast aside. Actually, it is the best tradition of Parliament – that being an MP is a greater thing than being a minister – that has been ditched. We do not want a revolution, but a restoration.
Andrew Grice:
"There's more blood on our carpet than Labour's," one Tory aide reassured me yesterday. It was a revealing comment. Yes, the public does want blood over the expenses scandal. But do they really want the heads of MPs to be chopped off in such an arbitrary way?
Polly Toynee:
In the summer of 1944, during the Normandy invasion, surely the nation was proud of its leaders? Not really. Gallup had the effrontery to ask what voters thought of their politicians, and even then only 36 percent thought them to be acting for the good of the country, while 57 percent thought they acted only for their own or their party's interest.
Britain has always held its politicians in low esteem.
Jenni Russell:
Meanwhile, the Telegraph's editor, Will Lewis, says he understands the strain that MPs are under, and it's not his intention to make the process difficult. But it's the paper's job to meet the public interest and get the facts out, and his teams are moving as fast as they can. There are 45 journalists working full-time on the story.
- - -
It all makes work for the working man to do!
COMMENT THREAD
Friday, May 22, 2009
Out there in the big bad world ...
... where an astonishing number of people have never heard of Nadine Dorries, despite the overwrought statements she makes, the debate seems to be hotting up. Yes, dear readers, I mean Ireland.
Thanks to Dr Anthony Coughlan of theNational Platform we hear of an interesting letter by Dick Roche, Ireland's Europe Minister (pictured).
Replying to a letter by a Richard Murphy in the Irish Examiner, Mr Roche gets quite venomous. Mr Murphy had, apparently, proposed that the second Irish referendum should not take place till after the British general election, which is likely to bring in a Conservative government. With the Lisbon Treaty not in place, the Conservatives have pledged to have a referendum.
Mr Roche pours scorn on Mr Murphy's trust in the British Conservatives. On the whole I share that point of view but Mr Roche is not concerned with their rather feeble attempt at standing up to the juggernaut.
Having first informed the readers, somewhat erroneously (if we are to speak charitably) that the Lisbon Treaty will be modified by the various legal guarantees now under negotiation (it will not be modificed), Mr Roche goes for the jugular:
His faith in the Tory party is touching. I wonder what in the history of that party’s dealings with Ireland makes him want to put our future in Tory hands? Perhaps he hankers after the union we left in 1922 and sees our future in a more intimate relationship with a Tory-governed Britain.Ireland's future, Mr Roche tells the readers, must be decided in Ireland, not in London. A fair point but why is Mr Roche wanting to have Ireland's politics decided in Brussels? Why is he insisting that the people of Ireland could not have known their own minds when they voted against the
Dr Coughlan writes:
Ireland's Europe Minister Roche has spent the last year pressing various Governments in other EU countries - Sweden, the Czech Republic etc - to complete their ratification of Lisbon as quickly as possible so as to isolate his own country politically and put maximum pressure on Irish voters to reverse last year's rejection of Lisbon in the referendum re-run the Irish Government intends holding in October.Could the Minister be worried? Charlemagne at the Economist thinks he has reason to be worried. Charlemagne is worried, too. Those uppity Irish might not listen to their betters once again.
The Minister's letter shows his concern that if Irish voters become aware of the Conservative commitment to a UK referendum on Lisbon if it is still unratified when they come to office, it will make it harder for him and his fellow Yes-side campaigners to threaten Irish voters with isolation if they stand by last year's vote in the Lisbon re-run.
COMMENT THREAD
Posts
