The views of the citizens should be regularly sought and heeded, rather than regularly avoided and ignored which sadly may have been the lasting impression gained by observing some of our sitting MP's on the stump during the last Westminster General election. The icing on the cake was Gordon Brown's televised mutterings following a clash with a potential Labour voter up north. The end result was being particularity grim up north for Gordon thanks to the presence of a live microphone - the rest as they say, along with his premiership was history.
Now just over four months or so down the line from Polling day, and after the dust has begun to settle I am still left with the impression that rather than being a historic election it was more of an odd one. This impression has been reinforced by the fact that a significant number of our Parliamentary representatives quite openly and quite deeply resented having to account for how they had fleeced the system, for some years, to line their pockets at our expense.
This impression has been deepened by the fact that so few of our formerly elected representatives who were unluckily enough to get caught with their hands in the till, so to speak, have finally ended up before the bench or the beak (or will at least do so shortly). I suspect that all of this could be said to leave any impartial observer of our questionable democracy wondering about the effectiveness (or not) of the system of checks (rather than cheques) and balances in place to monitor our elected representatives even after the expenses scandal.
It is worth remembering that The Times (back on the 25th September 2009) revealed that 28 prospective Conservative candidates who had a reasonably good chances of becoming Tory MPs were working as lobbyists or public relations consultants on behalf of businesses and other interests. Over a quarter of them had got their jobs after being selected to fight parliamentary seats.
A number of them were duly forced to put up their hands to admit that they had set up meetings for clients with Conservative Shadow ministers, MPs and officials. Others said that they provided advice on the party’s direction and some admitted to lobbying Tory Frontbenchers on behalf of clients. So much for a brave new sleaze free new Westminster world, I wonder how many of them got elected?
The then leader of the opposition, David Cameron (now Con Dem PM) found himself in a potentially difficult situation with at least one fifth of his 150 parliamentary candidates who are likely to get elected working or had worked in the highly lucrative field of public affairs or communications. The Times at the time noted that only 7 Labour and 3 Lib Dem parliamentary candidates (with a chance of being elected) had jobs in public relations or communications.
The real question you have to ask, and it is one that everyone should be asking is with regard to Westminster and every other elected body is how much has really changed?
UPDATE: As for lobby see the Guido Fawkes blog...
Showing posts with label New Labour and Tory Sleeze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Labour and Tory Sleeze. Show all posts
Monday, 23 August 2010
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
A LONG FINAL DAY
A long final day of this campaign, on the doors this morning and this afternoon - New Labour are not surprisingly deeply unpopular with the voters. It's quite interesting, the voters are not in a good mood at all - there is some serious venom (if not hatred) being directed at New Labour on a scale I would suggest with that directed at the Tories in 1997. It's not just New Labour though, the parliamentary expenses scandal has not gone away, people may not be so visibly angry as they were this time last year, but, that anger and discontent has not gone away. I think that Polling Day is going to throw up all sorts of surprises for all of the parties. It's been a long day and its not over yet...
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
NOSES IN THE TROUGH!
Here we go again - a BBC investigation has discovered or rather revealed some hundreds of breaches of parliamentary rules by 'freeloading' MPs who accepted free overseas trips from foreign governments. At least, but probably more than 20 MPs broke rules on declaring hospitality in questions or debates after visiting locations such as the Maldives, Cyprus and Gibraltar. It has been estimated that between them, the MPs - from all the major parties - breached parliamentary regulations on more than 400 occasions.
The BBC lists the following MP's who have breached the rules in relation to foreign trips:
If only there was some way to sack the lot of them - oh Yes... Poling Day!
Sunday, 21 March 2010
A PARLIAMENT OF WHORES!
The Sunday Times (21st March) sting that netted a former Labour cabinet minister (amongst others), who happily boasted about how he used his government contacts to change policies in favour of businesses, should come as no surprise to anyone with an eye to what goes on the what has best been described as this current 'parliament of whores' some members of which are busy selling themselves for personal profit.
The New Labour member in question was good old Stephen Byers, the former trade and transport secretary, he was secretly recorded offering himself “like a sort of cab for hire” (for want of a better phrase) for up £5,000 a day. He also suggested bringing Tony Blair to meet clients. Byers was among several politicians recorded by an undercover reporter posing as a company executive looking to hire MPs for lobbying work.
The Sunday Times names:
The investigation and the interviews were undertaken as part of a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme in which 13 Labour MPs and seven Conservatives were approached. The uncomfortable disclosures should raise further questions about the relationship between the large number of MPs leaving parliament next month and their contacts who remain in government.
Now while this should be grimly embarrassing for Gordon Brown's failing New Labour Government, it should be doubly embarrassing for the Conservatives. As all of this comes about after David ('Call me Dave') Cameron, the Conservative leader, recently said that lobbying was the next political scandal waiting to happen.
He should know some investigative journalism by The Times (25th September 2009) revealed that 28 prospective Conservative candidates who have reasonably good chances of becoming Tory MPs were actually working as lobbyists or public relations consultants on behalf of businesses and other interests.
The Times has revealed that over a quarter of them got their jobs after being selected to fight seats. A number have put their hands up to admit that they had set up meetings for clients with Conservative Shadow ministers, MPs and officials. Others said that they provided advice on the party’s direction and some admitted to lobbying Tory Frontbenchers on behalf of clients.
At least one fifth of his 150 parliamentary candidates who are likely to get freshly elected will have worked in the nicely lucrative field of public affairs or communications. Ironically, The Times notes, only 7 Labour and 3 Lib Dem parliamentary candidates (with a chance of being elected) will have had jobs in public relations or communications.
Concerns within the troubled depths of the Conservative Party may have prompted action from Francis Maude, the Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, who last week suggested that lobbyists may face statutory regulation if they did not volunteer more information on clients and consultants, he went on to say:’ “Greater openness and transparency is needed to help ensure high standards in public life” ‘, I think that the jury may still be out on that one…amongst the Tories, but perhaps not amongst the electorate.
These people (New Labour or Conservative) are so cut of from reality that they think that this sort of behaviour is acceptable - it might be to them and within their obviously pretty limited social circles, but it's not acceptable to most people, especially the voters. We need strict rules to restrict the activities of former elected members in relation to lobby, at a very basic level no one should be able to use the knowledge that they have accumulated while engaged in public service.
For at the end of the day, public service is actually what being an MP is actually about, not using ones position to line your pocket. Former MPs should not be able to get a job that is engaged in lobby activity for a minimum of 5 years after ceasing to be an MP. The bottom line being go get a real job!
The New Labour member in question was good old Stephen Byers, the former trade and transport secretary, he was secretly recorded offering himself “like a sort of cab for hire” (for want of a better phrase) for up £5,000 a day. He also suggested bringing Tony Blair to meet clients. Byers was among several politicians recorded by an undercover reporter posing as a company executive looking to hire MPs for lobbying work.
The Sunday Times names:
- Patricia Hewitt, a former health secretary, who claimed she helped to obtain a key seat on a government advisory group for a client paying her £3,000 a day.
- Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, offered to lead delegations to ministers and told the reporter that he was looking to turn his knowledge and contacts into “something that frankly makes money”. He said he charged £3,000 a day.
- Margaret Moran, the Luton MP who was forced to pay back £22,500 in expenses, boasted that she could ring a “girls’ gang” of colleagues on behalf of clients. Among those she named were: Jacqui Smith, the former home secretary; Hazel Blears, the former communities secretary; and Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour party.
The investigation and the interviews were undertaken as part of a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme in which 13 Labour MPs and seven Conservatives were approached. The uncomfortable disclosures should raise further questions about the relationship between the large number of MPs leaving parliament next month and their contacts who remain in government.
Now while this should be grimly embarrassing for Gordon Brown's failing New Labour Government, it should be doubly embarrassing for the Conservatives. As all of this comes about after David ('Call me Dave') Cameron, the Conservative leader, recently said that lobbying was the next political scandal waiting to happen.
He should know some investigative journalism by The Times (25th September 2009) revealed that 28 prospective Conservative candidates who have reasonably good chances of becoming Tory MPs were actually working as lobbyists or public relations consultants on behalf of businesses and other interests.
The Times has revealed that over a quarter of them got their jobs after being selected to fight seats. A number have put their hands up to admit that they had set up meetings for clients with Conservative Shadow ministers, MPs and officials. Others said that they provided advice on the party’s direction and some admitted to lobbying Tory Frontbenchers on behalf of clients.
At least one fifth of his 150 parliamentary candidates who are likely to get freshly elected will have worked in the nicely lucrative field of public affairs or communications. Ironically, The Times notes, only 7 Labour and 3 Lib Dem parliamentary candidates (with a chance of being elected) will have had jobs in public relations or communications.
Concerns within the troubled depths of the Conservative Party may have prompted action from Francis Maude, the Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, who last week suggested that lobbyists may face statutory regulation if they did not volunteer more information on clients and consultants, he went on to say:’ “Greater openness and transparency is needed to help ensure high standards in public life” ‘, I think that the jury may still be out on that one…amongst the Tories, but perhaps not amongst the electorate.
These people (New Labour or Conservative) are so cut of from reality that they think that this sort of behaviour is acceptable - it might be to them and within their obviously pretty limited social circles, but it's not acceptable to most people, especially the voters. We need strict rules to restrict the activities of former elected members in relation to lobby, at a very basic level no one should be able to use the knowledge that they have accumulated while engaged in public service.
For at the end of the day, public service is actually what being an MP is actually about, not using ones position to line your pocket. Former MPs should not be able to get a job that is engaged in lobby activity for a minimum of 5 years after ceasing to be an MP. The bottom line being go get a real job!
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
THE FANTASTIC DR FOX
Oops - even as David ('Call me Dave') Cameron considers tightening up on the rules to prevent former ministers using their accumulated knowledge to make a financial killing in private business once out of office, the Times (9th February 2010) has revealed that his own Shadow Defence Minister, (Dr) Liam Fox, has received and accepted a donation of £50,000 (on the 26th January 2010) from a venture capitalist who bought a company that supplies military equipment, last week.
In his defence, if you will pardon the pun, the Shadow Defence Minister has stated that his private office has been supported for some five years by this venture capitalist – so far donations to the Conservative Party from the same source have reached a total of £125,000. Dr Fox as recorded in the Register of Members Interests stated that the donation as accepted “in my capacity as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence”.
Now while it is a recognised fact that the Conservatives are very much into tradition, well there is sadly a tradition of people using their acquired knowledge from alleged public service to enrich themselves and people buying influence in the corridors of power are as old as the hills, but that does not make it acceptable.And last time the Tories tried it, it ended in tears, prison sentences and the surgical removal of duly inserted swords of truth...
In his defence, if you will pardon the pun, the Shadow Defence Minister has stated that his private office has been supported for some five years by this venture capitalist – so far donations to the Conservative Party from the same source have reached a total of £125,000. Dr Fox as recorded in the Register of Members Interests stated that the donation as accepted “in my capacity as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence”.
Now while it is a recognised fact that the Conservatives are very much into tradition, well there is sadly a tradition of people using their acquired knowledge from alleged public service to enrich themselves and people buying influence in the corridors of power are as old as the hills, but that does not make it acceptable.And last time the Tories tried it, it ended in tears, prison sentences and the surgical removal of duly inserted swords of truth...
Saturday, 6 February 2010
ANY REAL CONSEQUENCES
The fact that three Labour MPs and one Tory peer are facing charges under the Theft Act over their expenses claims should be more shocking than it is. What's more shocking is the faint whiff of tokenism that appears to surround the whole sorry saga - barely four - what about the rest of them?
At the end of the day theft is theft, and the law is the law. Any potential use of parliamentary privilege as a defense to allegation so theft is clearly unacceptable in the eyes of most ordinary people. Most ordinary people would end up ruined, sacked, imprisoned and unemployed if they fiddled their expenses on the same scale as some of the MPs at Westminster.
Employers would seek to recover their costs and their loses via the courts - it is important to remember that this is public money we are talking about. Any claims of ignorance or misunderstanding should be treated with a serious degree of scepticism as should the much heard plaintive bleat that everything that was claimed for was within the rules.
Theft at the end of the day is theft. Any MP who refuses to hand back any money they illegally gained should at minimum, if leaving the commons have the difference deducted from the lump sum they recieve when they leave parliament or have their assets sequestrated.
Gordon's Government was pretty quick of the mark to use existing legislation to seize Icelandic assets and Mrs Thatcher's Government was equally quick enough to seize the assets of various Trade Unions in the 1980's - so why not the assets of various MPs?
An ordinary member of the public guilty of mortgage fraud would be unable to use the defense of saying that they payed the money back to avoid any dire consequences, so why should MPs be able to get away with it? Even those MPs who are entirely guiltless will have a tough time on the doorsteps with voters and they would be best advised to forget about trying to defend an institution that has about as much of a moral reputation as piano player in a New Orleans brothel.
We are in for an interesting election and hopefully the electorate will remember what has occurred and duly exercise its options at the ballot to remove those MPs (regardless of Party) from office - if the voters do so then they will have done the country a great service.
At the end of the day theft is theft, and the law is the law. Any potential use of parliamentary privilege as a defense to allegation so theft is clearly unacceptable in the eyes of most ordinary people. Most ordinary people would end up ruined, sacked, imprisoned and unemployed if they fiddled their expenses on the same scale as some of the MPs at Westminster.
Employers would seek to recover their costs and their loses via the courts - it is important to remember that this is public money we are talking about. Any claims of ignorance or misunderstanding should be treated with a serious degree of scepticism as should the much heard plaintive bleat that everything that was claimed for was within the rules.
Theft at the end of the day is theft. Any MP who refuses to hand back any money they illegally gained should at minimum, if leaving the commons have the difference deducted from the lump sum they recieve when they leave parliament or have their assets sequestrated.
Gordon's Government was pretty quick of the mark to use existing legislation to seize Icelandic assets and Mrs Thatcher's Government was equally quick enough to seize the assets of various Trade Unions in the 1980's - so why not the assets of various MPs?
An ordinary member of the public guilty of mortgage fraud would be unable to use the defense of saying that they payed the money back to avoid any dire consequences, so why should MPs be able to get away with it? Even those MPs who are entirely guiltless will have a tough time on the doorsteps with voters and they would be best advised to forget about trying to defend an institution that has about as much of a moral reputation as piano player in a New Orleans brothel.
We are in for an interesting election and hopefully the electorate will remember what has occurred and duly exercise its options at the ballot to remove those MPs (regardless of Party) from office - if the voters do so then they will have done the country a great service.
Sunday, 3 January 2010
CAMERON'S LEGACY AND INHERITANCE
With David Cameron's Conservatives already (allegedly) thinking out loud about Tory 'legacy projects' before then even win the next Westminster election - they might do well to actually win the election first before planning their legacy. The electorate might do well to think about what they (the Tories) left us the least time they were in Government before casting a vote for the boys and girls in blue.
A growing economy (admittedly one built on questionable credit and even more questionable expansion of the banking sector) - ironically this fact was something which had scant impact with voters and did little to help the Conservatives avoid an electoral hammering in England and Conservative and effective electoral extermination in Wales and Scotland.
A privatised railway system - something which benefited the few at the expense of the many - New Labour had little problem with a privatised railway system, going so far as to say that if it had not been privatised then they (New Labour) would have privatised it themselves.
One thing they (the Tories) won't make much of is the privatisation of the old building societies - which following their disappearance into the larger financial institutions helped contribute in the longer term to the financial mess that we are all paying for at the moment (and for the foreseeable future).
Privatised utilities - a real Tory legacy - the whole process of privatisation can best be described as 'the age of pillage' - when a Tory clique (and their friends in the city) helped themselves at our expense when it came to plundering the assets of the state for a quick short term profit.
The dash for gas - which led to the rapid development and rapid use and decline of a priceless assets, which has left the UK dependent upon imported gas from questionable suppliers in potentially unstable regions of the world.
The damage done to the British Army was accelerated by Jon Major's 'Options for Change' - which was in turn driven by a Conservative Government hastily trying to cash in on the 'peace dividend' following the end of the Cold War.
The NHS...hopspital borne infections, and 'an internal market' within the Health Service, PFI (which has been happily and expensively continued by New Labour) enough said...
Cameron's legacy may (if elected) consist of another bail out for the banks, war with Iran and the quiet ditching of electorally useful green Tory tinge...and more sleaze...
Roll on Polling day...
A growing economy (admittedly one built on questionable credit and even more questionable expansion of the banking sector) - ironically this fact was something which had scant impact with voters and did little to help the Conservatives avoid an electoral hammering in England and Conservative and effective electoral extermination in Wales and Scotland.
A privatised railway system - something which benefited the few at the expense of the many - New Labour had little problem with a privatised railway system, going so far as to say that if it had not been privatised then they (New Labour) would have privatised it themselves.
One thing they (the Tories) won't make much of is the privatisation of the old building societies - which following their disappearance into the larger financial institutions helped contribute in the longer term to the financial mess that we are all paying for at the moment (and for the foreseeable future).
Privatised utilities - a real Tory legacy - the whole process of privatisation can best be described as 'the age of pillage' - when a Tory clique (and their friends in the city) helped themselves at our expense when it came to plundering the assets of the state for a quick short term profit.
The dash for gas - which led to the rapid development and rapid use and decline of a priceless assets, which has left the UK dependent upon imported gas from questionable suppliers in potentially unstable regions of the world.
The damage done to the British Army was accelerated by Jon Major's 'Options for Change' - which was in turn driven by a Conservative Government hastily trying to cash in on the 'peace dividend' following the end of the Cold War.
The NHS...hopspital borne infections, and 'an internal market' within the Health Service, PFI (which has been happily and expensively continued by New Labour) enough said...
Cameron's legacy may (if elected) consist of another bail out for the banks, war with Iran and the quiet ditching of electorally useful green Tory tinge...and more sleaze...
Roll on Polling day...
Friday, 11 December 2009
HERE WE GO AGAIN...
Here we go again - collective parliamentary noses in the trough. The Westminster Parliament's website has published hundreds of thousands of pages of new claims from 2008-09 totalling more than £10 million. It may come as little surprise to more cynical observers that many soon to be retiring MPs have continued to squeeze the system despite pretty vocal public displeasure at the widespread abuse of the second-home allowance.
The cream of the current crop (so far) appears to be one Quentin Davies, the Labour MP for Grantham & Stamford, who slipped in an invoice in February for repairs to a bell tower and roof at Frampton Hall, his castle / mansion in Lincolnshire. The defence minister, who previously defected from the Tories (in 2007), was only reimbursed for 25% of his claim after it was ruled that he had exceeded the £24,006 annual maximum.
The Times points out that his claim would have exceeded the average pay of an army private, which is £20,449.
Some three months later (according to the Times) he then wrote to the authorities claiming that he had never intended to use public money to maintain the bell tower. Oddly enough this letter was sent some ten days after newspapers began to print (leaked) details of expenses.
The hopefully soon to be former MP was quoted as saying that it was "unfortunate" that a single invoice was issued for repairs to both his roof, which he regarded as a legitimate claim, and the bell tower, which he now says was not.
The Times reveals that claims, for April 2008 to June 2009, showed some 60 MPs had claimed the annual maximum of £24,006, including the Shadow Chancellor (George Osborne), whose submitted claims accidentally exceeded the upper limit, with the average MPs claim under the second-home allowance was £18,270.58.
Roll on Poling Day...
The cream of the current crop (so far) appears to be one Quentin Davies, the Labour MP for Grantham & Stamford, who slipped in an invoice in February for repairs to a bell tower and roof at Frampton Hall, his castle / mansion in Lincolnshire. The defence minister, who previously defected from the Tories (in 2007), was only reimbursed for 25% of his claim after it was ruled that he had exceeded the £24,006 annual maximum.
The Times points out that his claim would have exceeded the average pay of an army private, which is £20,449.
Some three months later (according to the Times) he then wrote to the authorities claiming that he had never intended to use public money to maintain the bell tower. Oddly enough this letter was sent some ten days after newspapers began to print (leaked) details of expenses.
The hopefully soon to be former MP was quoted as saying that it was "unfortunate" that a single invoice was issued for repairs to both his roof, which he regarded as a legitimate claim, and the bell tower, which he now says was not.
The Times reveals that claims, for April 2008 to June 2009, showed some 60 MPs had claimed the annual maximum of £24,006, including the Shadow Chancellor (George Osborne), whose submitted claims accidentally exceeded the upper limit, with the average MPs claim under the second-home allowance was £18,270.58.
Roll on Poling Day...
Thursday, 19 November 2009
PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES
The news that the Police investigation into the allegations of abuse of parliamentary expenses (by both MPs and Peers) will soon be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service is welcome news. Hopefully the 3 MPs and 3 Peers who may be charged are only the start of the investigation, especially as some 27 members of Parliament were allegedly under investigation.
The Police investigation follows the exposure of MPs (and Peers) questionable claims in The Daily Telegraph which exposed the fact that MPs had claims (which covered everything from a duck house to cleaning the moat at a country home etc) stoked public fury.
At the end of the day or even the Parliamentary session - the bottom line in all of this is that fraud is fraud is fraud and anyone who has made fraudulent claims should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and any monies fraudulently obtained should duly reclaimed - failure to pursue this will result in a further potentially damaging loss of confidence in our democratic system.
The Police investigation follows the exposure of MPs (and Peers) questionable claims in The Daily Telegraph which exposed the fact that MPs had claims (which covered everything from a duck house to cleaning the moat at a country home etc) stoked public fury.
At the end of the day or even the Parliamentary session - the bottom line in all of this is that fraud is fraud is fraud and anyone who has made fraudulent claims should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and any monies fraudulently obtained should duly reclaimed - failure to pursue this will result in a further potentially damaging loss of confidence in our democratic system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)