During the predictable discussions on QT last night, Lembit Opik told us that is was all Maggie’s fault. Apparently, in the 80’s she managed to smash the moral compasses of sitting MP’s and left a curse over Parliament that destroyed the good intentions and moral compass of new members, turning them all in to thieves.

It’s a pity that she didn’t manage to cast a spell that turned them all in to freedom loving liberals who believed in free trade, perhaps the country wouldn’t be in this mess now.

There’s obviously only one thing that can be done to save the MP’s from this curse. The Queen must dissolve this rotten parliament now. During the recess she should send in the witchfinders and take the worst affected off to the local court house where they can be sacrificed to the Gods of Law Obeyance. After that the man Legg should be appointed witchfinder general with a permanent position in parliament where he can keep the hex at bay and protect future MP’s from the curse of Thatcher.

Alternatively we could string ‘em up.

Plenty of heat and, quite surprisingly, some light as well.

The Losers

Nick Griffin was an obvious loser, as expected. He looked poorly prepared, very nervous and was almost incoherent at times. When he did get a chance to speak he was inarticulate most of the time and if he is the best the BNP has to offer then we have nothing to fear.

Jack Straw also looked nervous and shifty and was also inarticulate at times, even when he was given the chance to make an opening, obviously prepared, statement. I suspect that was because he knew that he would have little to stand on when the subject got round to labour’s immigration policy, and when it did they were exposed. It was easy to see why disaffected working class Labour voters have turned from them to the BNP.

Chris Huhne looked like someone who had demanded to be on the programme but had had nothing to say. He just backed up my own prejudices about the LibDems, they have now underlying philosophy to drive their policies and look like a tree blowing in the wind of public public opinion.

The Winners

Bonnie Greer was a pleasant surprise; she was humorous and courteous, even with Nick Griffin and had a good command of history and the BNP. I suppose this says more about my expectations of the BBC loading the panel with some lefty celebrity who mouthed soundbites they had been fed but didn’t really know what was going on.

Sayeeda Warsi appeared well briefed and wasn’t scared to tackle the subjects raised and got a few good digs in at Jack Straw. I need to qualify the winner status by saying she looked a bit uncomfortable when it came round to homosexuality and civil partnerships. Whether this was personal or because Conservatives are a bit shaky on the subject t was hard to tell, I’ll be keeping an eye on this one. I was also put off by her accent which sounded affected. I also come from Dewsbury and she sounded more like John Thaw’s affected accent in Kavanagh QC, surely his worst part, than someone from the area.

One cautionary word though. The British are generally a fair people who don’t like to see anyone getting bullied and Nick Griffin may get some sympathy votes. The show came across as a stitch up – David Dimbleby had a list of all the Nick Griffin quotes that Jack Straw used and made sure they got aired. It was also creepy the way that members of the audience were selected by David Dimbleby – the first person was a very articulate black man who made some very good points, then when WW2 was raised we went straight to a young Jew who again articulated the holocaust accusations very well. Finally, when the subject of homosexuality and civil partnerships came up there was a very well spoken lesbian in a civil partnership on hand. They weren’t actors, were they?

Overall thought, I think the BBC was right to have Nick Griffin on the panel and though he shouldn’t be on too often it would be good to see the BNP’s other policies and bigotry being exposed rather than concentrating on immigration.

From The Heresiarch:

With Al-Muhajiroun (or whatever they’re calling themselves this week) Wilders shares an interpretation of Islam: that it is a warlike, intolerant faith determined to dominate the planet. It’s ironic that it was only radical fundamentalists who bothered to demonstrate against Wilders today, because it is they, among Muslims, who found the least to object to in his notorious film. His take on the Koran, after all, is the same as theirs. They hate him not because he is Islamophobic (whatever that means) but because they have convinced themselves that his consciousness-raising poses the most significant threat to their eventual triumph.

As always a very though provoking read and worth the time.

Before showing you the protest I need to explain the background.

A couple of weeks ago we drove to Tuscany. On the way down we stopped off in the Black Forest for a night. We drove down the 294 and found a nice little hotel in a typical village village called Mühlenbach .  This house is typical of most in the village and wider Black Forest:

On the way back we stayed somewhere else and started to get fed up with all the pinks and reds because every house has balconies like this. I suspect there is a lot of local pressure to decorate houses, knowing Germans. Anyway, back to the protest:

It says:  “Our milk prices are a mockery* – no money to put flowers on the balcony”, or words to that effect.

In other areas we found signs saying there was a milk strike**, which I presume is against the CAP.

* Although I have basic German I hadn’t come across this word and used mockery as the best fit from Leo.

** Poor bloody cows! Or maybe they are just flushing the mild down the drain.

Mark Reckons, like a lot of Lib Dems, wonders why the Lib Dems  can’t break through:

If all this does pan out like this then the biggest question I think my party will have to answer is how the hell did we allow the best opportunity for electoral advance in a political generation to slip through our fingers? Let’s have a run-down of the situation we are in and some of the major political events that have happened in the last couple of years:

I’m no political scientist but I have been around for a few years. I gave it some thought as I drove back from Italy and here is my reply:

You say this is your best opportunity for a breakthrough but is it? Libs and Lib Dems have been saying this for as long as I can remember and failing for the same reason, you don’t stand for anything in the eyes of the wider public.
In the early to late 60’s and early 70’s Wilson and Heath were very much the same and bringing us close to bankruptcy. No breakthrough. Why? From what I remember because you had no underlying philosophy (not even classic liberal even then) that captured the imagination and drove your policies. (I’ll return to this later)
In ‘79 there was no love for Thatcher, and Callaghan was liked but Labour generally despised because of the Unions. No breakthrough, though.
Mid to late 80’s. Labour’s “suicide note”, Thatcher and Tories despised. No breakthrough. You couldn’t even capture the working man’s left vote even though you attracted some powerful Labour people and became LibDems. (Big mistake, we don’t understand European style social democracy in this country and you have done sod-all to explain it (more later))

By this time you have clearly set you stall as being anti Tory left, and not much different from Labour. Confusion in the eyes of the electorate as theydon’t understand what makes you different to Labour – your both on the discredited left.
‘92 – Tories despised, Kinnock despised. No breakthrough. Mainly I believe because Tory voters had nowhere to go as you have made it clear you are lefties who will tax them just as highly as Labour.
’97. Too late. Tony convinced Tories that a left of centre party could be trusted and attracted disaffected swing voters who had voted Tory in the past.
Now we are in a similar position, no love for Tories but Labour and left of centre politics discredited, again. As I see it a large number of people will hold their noses and vote Tory rather than for you – Vote LibDem, get Labour is the message that comes across.
But the real problem is that there is no base philosophy that drives your policies, so you lack consistency. What’s worse, if I want to know how you will think on the latest subject I just need to open the bedroom window and see which way the wind is blowing. Harsh? That is how you come across because you try to be all things to all men and people detect that.
Think about it – when Labour speak they are seen as coming from looking after the working class (or were) and all their policies and announcement are couched in these terms, even if they just looking after themselves. When the Tories speak they are seen as looking after the middle class and big business, despite what Cameron says. When you guys speak you are seen as just trying to be heard for the sake of being heard.
You make it worse by always banging on about the electoral system like some child wailing “its not fair”. You may have a point but the public just see that as a way of you feathering you own nests and they don’t believe your true intentions. What’s more, as you are seen as a left of centre party your voting reform is looked at as just an excuse to shaft the Tories and ensure they never get in to power, so you will never get Tory protest vote – Vote LibDem, get Labour.
IMHO you need to start to declare your philosophy and what motivates you at every opportunity, because I don’t know what it is and I take more than a passing interest in politics and always have done. Is it Social Democracy? If so what does it mean? If it is you should start all your policies, statements and general discussions by saying how this shapes you policies. If it isn’t what is it?
Stop feeling sorry for yourselves and blaming FTP and the MSM and make yourselves truly different, if you can.

(PS I read your post on Sunday while on holiday in Italy and thought about on the drive back, hence the delay and long winded nature of it!)

Hot on the heals of the MP’s expenses row my local Council, High Wycombe, has published details of Councillor’s allowances.

Members of our community stand for election to become councillors voluntarily, but we do not believe that anyone should be discouraged from standing due to financial concerns. Councillors are allocated an allowance every year; the allowances claimed by all of the elected district councillors for the 2008/09 financial year is listed below.

I quite agree with statement, especially as I would like to see a move to more localism with less centralised power. So lets look at what we are getting for our money. The highest claimant is the leader of the council, Lesley Clarke,  who received £20, 928.98. As it happens she has a blog, so lets have a look at what she has to say for herself and what she does:

I was really pleased that the new Sainsbury’s store in High Wycombe opened its doors to members of the public this morning. This whole development is the culmination of a number of years of partnership work between Wycombe District Council and Sainsbury’s – a partnership which has also provided a new, well-used skate park – and is another key milestone in the regeneration of the town centre.

You wouldn’t believe that we already have a Tesco and Morrison’s  in the Town Centre,  wonder what they think about the free publicity given to their competitor? As I point in the comments “Your job is to ensure that our taxes are used efficiently not act as a tax payer funded PR and marketing consultant for big business.”

What about this one:

Steve Cohen (editor of the Bucks Free Press) and I had a productive meeting this morning. It’s clear that taking pride in Wycombe is at the centre of both of our agendas and we’ll be working together to move this forward.

One thing that horrifies me and has been commented on by readers of this blog is the amount of litter in our town centre. We’ll be looking at ways to tackle this as part of Take Pride in Wycombe, but as we one reader pointed out, we all need to be responsible for this.

This is the council leader whose role is to set council policy and ensure it is implemented. If we are worried about litter how about more bins and road sweepers?

If we are going to move to localism I think we need better councilors.

Everywhere I have worked, including serving in the Army, expenses policies have had a test of reasonableness. Some of the organisations had very proscriptive policies and some loosely defined, but no matter what the rules said there was always a test of reasonableness. I even incorporated one when I ran my own company. From my dealing with the taxman, always via my accountant, they have a similar test when it comes to expenses.

There is a very good reason for this, it s impossible to account for every situation we find ourselves in. I was once stranded at an airport in India and the only room I could get for the night was in a hotel that was above my notional limit. Not only that but it was too late to cancel the room that was waiting for me in New Delhi. This meant that my expenses for that night were way above what anyone would consider in an expenses policy, but all would agree that they were reasonable, even the tax man.

So what, you might ask? Well, the latest squealing from our MP’s over being asked to pay back some of their expense claims strikes me as being somewhat petulant, and, given their very low standing with the public, very stupid:

Hundreds of MPs have had their expenses claims for the last five years reassessed by Sir Thomas Legg.

Many backbenchers are livid, saying they must now repay claims that were fully approved by Commons officials.

Sir Thomas was asked to look at every expenses claim after they were leaked to the Daily Telegraph in May.

On the advice of Sir Thomas, Downing Street said on Monday that the Prime Minister would pay back £12,415 that he claimed largely for cleaning and gardening, even though the claims had been within the rules at the time.

There is even talk of Tory and Labour backbenchers working together to protect themselves – quite insulting given that they aren’t prepared to work together to protect our basic freedoms like habeus corpus, double jeopardy and a host of other intrusions into our liberty.

Anyway, back to the expenses. Gordon Brown, a self styled man of principle, has claimed £12,415 for gardening and cleaning that Legg thinks is greater than the test of reasonableness.  This makes me wonder how much he did claim for these expenses, £20k, perhaps? Lets just consider what you could get for the £12k for now.  At just above minimum wage, say £7.50 and hour,  (we would expect a good socialist to pay a bit extra, especially using our money wouldn’t we?) that would buy around  40 x 40 hour weeks of someone’s time, almost a full time worker.

Whilst I do support the need of MP’s to have second homes this does appear to  be bit excessive to say the least. And then there’s £12k for a new kitchen, ours just cost us under £4k and we didn’t hold back, what are they getting installed?

I’ve picked on Gordon Brown’s expenses here because they were easiest and I don’t intend to go through anymore. Suffice to say that when you hear them squealing, just ask yourself honestly, was it reasonable? I suspect that the answer will be no.

But what of the retrospective nature of the claims? I don’t agree with A very Britsih Dude:

You know how it’s rotten that there’s one rule for them, and one rule for us? Sure I’m disgusted that the likes of Elliot Morely and Jacqui Boots have got away with what amounts to Fraud. But MPs are people, and as such they need to be treated according to the rules of natural justice, rather than Mob Rule.

At the moment the Tax Man cannot retrospectively charge you for taxes that you paid correctly last year. (I know the appalling misuse of the ‘Proceeds of Crime’ act by the HM R&C can bankrupt you for a £400 VAT tax error, but that’s a different matter). Nor can an employer claw back wages if you turn out to be rubbish at your job.

MP’s controlled the fees office and set there own expenses policies with no independent oversight. We were told, by them, that they were a trustworthy bunch: they lied. Now that a grown up has looked at their expenses they have been shown to fail a test of reasonableness. Its not a retroactive law imposing income taxes on past earnings, its about people spending money to cover legitimate out of pocket expenses. If I am found to have cheated thae taxman 5 years ago he expects my to pay the money back, with interest and I may also get a fine and go to jail. MP’s are getting off lightly and should be very careful.

Update:

Thanks to Devil’s Kitchen we find that  MP’s did have a test of reasonableness after all, they just couldn’t be bothered to read their own rules:

As Guido highlights, a good number of the expenses that MPs claimed were not actually “within the rules”.

Sir Thomas Legg has outlined his approach to expenses in a note to MPs which is now in the public domain [PDF]. Legg confirms that payment of the second homes allowance under the Green Book rules was subject to “fundamental principles of propriety”:

The fundamental principles required MPs personally to ensure that their use of the ACA was: (a) necessary for the performance of their parliamentary duties; (b) not extravagant or luxurious; (c) in accordance with the Nolan principles of selflessness, accountability, honesty and leadership; (d) strictly in accordance with the rules governing the allowance; (e) above reproach; (f) took account of the need to obtain value for money; and (g) avoided any appearance of benefit, or a subsidy from public funds, or diversion of public money for the benefit of a political organisation. These principles together amount to a general requirement of propriety.

We ‘ve just got back from a holiday in Tuscany where in front of us at the local Coop were four Mancunians. From their discussions* and dress it was apparent that they were builders and working there on a project.

I wonder if Berlusconi agrees with Gordon’s approach to nationalism and believes in Italian workers for Italian jobs?

PS Uncouth as they were I would use these builders, they’ve got the gumption to get off their backsides and get some work.

*Littered with the F word, but they probably didn’t even realise they were using it.