I'd like to start out by expressing my extreme displeasure towards Blogger who managed to wipe out around half of the original content of this particular entry sometime between its original publication (on Saturday) and my subsequent verification all was as it should be 5 seconds later. What follows is a re-write of the lost material - hopefully I've managed to replicate most of the points I was attempting to make...
This blog is more or less born from the MP expenses scandal that's been hitting the headlines over the last month or so. And honestly I'm surprised the shit hasn't hit the fan on this score much sooner than now especially since "The John Lewis List" was published well over a year ago. This list details the cost that is considered reasonable for goods and items MPs can claim on their second home allowance. The list generated controversy and anger at the time as the prices quoted in the list can hardly be considered representative of best value. Now lets be clear here, MPs conduct most of their business Monday to Friday at the Houses of Parliament, Westminster, London, most of them live primarily in their constituencies, most of which are outside reasonable daily commuter distance. As such many of them require a residence in London so they can attend Parliament. Maintaining two homes is a rather costly endeavour, particularly if one of those is in London, therefore the second home allowance is there to help with the cost. So I'm not saying there should be no second home allowance. The grievance is with what expenses are allowed and how they are used. A quick glance at The John Lewis List reveals some of the "reasonable costs" are a far cry from reasonable. MPs are, for example, entitled to up to £1000 towards the cost of a bed, how reasonable is that? Well, at Ikea bed frames can be obtained for less than £200 and even allowing £200-300 for a high quality mattress the total cost is still far shy of £1000. Another figure that caught my eye as suspiciously high was the £750 allowed for a TV - that'll buy you a stupendously large Full HD TV today, and it leaves me wondering why any MP would need a TV of such size or quality - surely a smaller 20-26 Inch LCD HD ready for £150-300 would be adequate? Investigations into most of the goods MPs are allowed to claim for yield similar results - the quoted reasonable cost is far in excess of what is actually reasonable - allowances are permitted to a level most people would consider luxurious. To further underline this second home allowances can be worth £23,000 a year - a full years wages for the average UK citizen, but to MPs the cost of running a second home alone - tell me that's not excessive or luxurious. Furthermore MPs are allowed to claim up to £400 on food per month without receipts and any goods up to £250 without receipts - it practically begs abuse really. £400 on food per month for a one person? No wonder Prescott is a fucking whale. Some MPs aren't taking criticisms of their expense claims lying down, Lothian MP Michael Connarty reportedly commented "Some people think MPs shouldn't have anything, but where does that end? Are we only allowed to buy things from the 99p store?" when asked about his own expenses which included a clock radio at £249.99, one might suggest that if Mr Connarty had shopped around a bit he may have stumbled across this sexy little number, a steal at <£60, and would also have saved the tax payer the £211 Mr Connarty claimed for his Bose iPod speaker dock. No one is asking you to shop at a 99p store Mr Connarty, you'll find there's actually quite a few intermediares between John Lewis and The 99p Store, we want you to bear in mind you're spending tax payers money and that it's your duty to use that money responsibly. If that means shopping on Amazon for your electrical goods rather than at John Lewis then suck it up or fuck off and get another job. Wank. Another MP who had a bit of bother accepting criticism over the £87,000 over four years he claimed in expenses for his home including a forestry inspection for his trees and guarding his shrubs from rabbits was Tory Anthony Steen who branded such criticisms as "jealousy" - No Mr Steen it's not jealousy, it's incredulity that you seem to think it's OK to spend the national average wage on your gardening every year out of public funds, that you deem this "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from your main UK residence". The good news is that Mr Steen will be standing down at the next general election - good riddance - Parliament will be better without individuals as lacking in judgement as he. As frivolous as Connarty and Steens claims may have been they do appear to have been within the rules - largely down to the overly lax shitty nature of said rules - there have been other MPs who have downright abused the system including several who claimed on mortgages they had already paid off or for properties they no longer resided in or owned, others, most famously Hazel Blears have abused the system by claiming second home allowance on properties then avoiding capital gains tax upon the sale of the property by declaring it a primary residence to the Inland Revenue - Ms Blears did pay the capital gains tax back eventually, but only after she was caught out. Other MPs are claiming second home allowance on properties <15 miles away from their primary residence. But as I've said, the rules are shitty and lax, so should MPs be held responsible for any claims they make within the rules even if they seem morally ambiguous? Some MPs have been throwing up their hands and complaining that it's not their fault that the rules are shitty and lax, including my good friend that Wank Michael Connarty who said "We didn't set up this system." - as well that may be Mr Connarty, but if you thought something was wrong with the fact that you were able to claim for a clock radio costing almost £250 without a receipt why didn't you or anyone else raise the issue? You may not have set up the system, but you were damn well in a position to change it and you did fuck all, so suck it up or fuck off and find another job. Wank2. We're probably not going to see the full outcome of this shit stain on British politics until the next general election - at that point we'll see whether the people are actually bothered about this or if it's just the media making a lot of noise to sell newspapers. It's fairly obvious Labour seats are going to take a hit in the next election - they're going to lose a lot of floating voters who typically vote with public opinion and first time voters who'll have largely forgotten the successes Labour had during their first two terms. Lack of confidence in Gordon Brown may even push many longtime Labour supporters away.
The question is who these voters will turn to. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are the next two largest parties, and given the landscape of British politics many voters won't even consider any party outside the big three, so these parties can expect to pick up quite a few voters this election. David Cameron (Cons) and Nick Clegg (Lib Dem) have both been making obvious attempts at attracting attention to themselves - Cameron has been particularly strict with his MPs over the expenses debacle and making noises about reform - something that'll look good to Joe Voter, and Clegg was an instrumental voice in the lead up that resulted in the disposition of Michael Martin from the role of House Speaker citing Martins hesitation to reform the ugly expenses situation - again making himself appear to be pro reform and forward facing. Less importance nationally - but loss of confidence in Labour and "British" parties in general could push more Scottish voters towards SNP in the national elections - Scotland has been traditionally very much a Labour safe haven and loss of any Scottish seats would be a considerable blow to Labours safe-seat base.
Labour may still come out of then next election with the most seats - but I don't think they will have a majority - in fact I don't think any party who wins the highest number of seats will gain a majority - this is likely to mean coalition. Any coalition is likely to be formed between the Lib Dems and either Labour or the Conservatives, just which depends on who best match the Lib Dem ideology at the time - they may also be tempted to go with the party with the lower number of seats to give themselves a larger voice in the coalition and effectively, Government.
Coalition is often viewed as a weak form of government - one that leads to compromise - however it is my belief that a government who is willing to compromise for the greater good of the nation as a whole rather than acting on behalf of their supporters alone (Under the first past-the-post electoral system of the UK it is possible to obtain a majority of seats with a minority of votes, therefore any government elected in such a manner who acts only in the interest of their own supporters is ignoring the majority of the population) may actually produce better results on the whole.
Interestingly I read this today on the BBC, Health Secretary Alan Johnson suggests the UK undergoes a fundamental reform of its political system including electoral reform - including introducing an element of Proportional Representation. This, to me, is a massive step forward for representation in the UK - introducing PR, even just in part would ensure the the number of seats parties hold is more closely tied to the number of votes they receive - this would go a considerable way to making the situation I outlined above a reality.
Parliament better get its shit together, because our fate is very much in their hands for 4-5 years before we get to judge their performance again and give them the boot if need be. Closing note: this re-written version has ended up being quite different to the original, I don't feel as good about it as I did the last one, but it'll have to do.
I've been freedoms_stain, one very concerned British citizen, and I'm out.
No comments:
Post a Comment