ThunderDragon Blog

Even though our government appears to think that it is, with this being only the latest of a long list of Big Brother policies:

Everyone who buys a mobile telephone will be forced to register their identity on a national database under government plans to extend massively the powers of state surveillance.

Phone buyers would have to present a passport or other official form of identification at the point of purchase. (The Times)

Hence why I’m supporting this plan to send a copy of George Orwell’s 1984 to every single MP:

This book cost less than a fiver; are you prepared to spend the price of a couple of pints for your freedom?

On November 5th 1605 Guido Fawkes, ‘the only man to enter Parliament with honest intent’, sought to end the repressive rule of a King from Scotland who brought repression to the Country. The rule of the Stuarts ended on the battlefield of Naseby, with Absolutism subordinate to the rule of Law and Parliament.

The United Kingdom has now become riven with Cameras, unaccountable Local Authorities losing millions in Iceland. Who are speaking up for the people of this Country, as we are plundered as taxpayers to prop up the Banks, not the MPs that’s for sure.

We want to send a message to Parliament, we want 646 copies of ‘1984′, one to be sent to each member of Parliament - make your pledge at 1984@lpuk.org to send a copy to arrive on November 5th.

I have signed up, and will be sending a personalised version of 1984 to Parliament. It isn’t an instruction manual, and it is time that our elected representatives remembered that.

We want our freedoms, and they seem determined to take them away in the name of “protecting us”. As Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Please sign up and send a copy to your MP - or any other, for that matter.

via DK

But only for a few years. Unfortunately not permanently [for some at least].

The reason being that the Commons needs to be renovated and more than 500 miles of water pipes, electricity and telephone cables replaced - because they were last replaced during the Second World War.

This renovation, including the removal of asbestos, will cost £350 million and take several years to complete. And if the work was carried only during summer recesses, it would take 25 years to complete.

So MPs will have to move out of the Commons and hold sessions elsewhere - possibly even in the Lords chamber.

The question I want an answer to is: why haven’t they used any of the summer recesses since World War II to do any sort of renovations? It’s been more than 60 years! The Parliamentary authorities are rubbish - it’s taken them more than 27 years to clean Westminster Palace, and still hasn’t been completed.

What they need to do is pull their finger out and get to work. Every recess should be filled with relentless activity of this sort.

But because the Parlia,entary authorities are useless, it seems that they have achieved what the Nazi’s coulding’t - MPs will have to evacuate Parliament for three years.

MPs have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen when they take their seat in the House of Commons. But anti-monarchy campaigners want to challenge this requirement in the courts on human rights basis.

There is also an early day motion proposed by Lib Dem front bencher Norman Baker proposing an alternative oath, claiming that “some honourable members would prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than the monarch”. It has so far been signed by 22 MPs - 14 Labour, 7 Lib Dems and one Conservative.

Frankly, it is ridiculous. The Queen is our Head of State. She is also a constitutional monarch, and so holds no real power in her own hands. That resides in the Prime Minister and in Parliament. The Queen is simply a unifying figurehead and symbol of our nation, and her entire family costs us just 66p each a year, for a more than full-time job.

The claim that the requirement to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen discriminates against Catholics, Muslims, members of other religions and atheists by requiring them to swear allegiance to the head of the Church of England, and presumably against repoublicans by requiring them to swear an oath of loyalty to the monarchy, is stupid. The Queens role as Head of State is separate to that of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

When it comes down to it, there are no human rights issues over this oath of loyalty. An MP can - like the Sinn Fein - not take their seats if they don’t want to make the oath. And other officials can not take the job.

In these oaths, although the wording references “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors”, the meaning is rather towards her position as Head of State. It isn’t a personal oath to Elizabeth II, but an oath to the nation she represents. If they can’t see that, then there are, frankly, big questions over their ability to take any office where this oath is required.

Women should be encourgaed to beome MPs. But I find the reasoning that some people employ to argue for them idiotic.

Commons Speaker Michael Martin is to hold a conference aimed at finding a way to ensure more women and people from ethnic minorities become MPs.

He said he would try to end “disparity” between society and Parliament.

Currently about one in five MPs is a woman, compared with approximately half the population. (BBC)

Parliament is not a reflection of society. MPs are not delegates. They are representatives. As such, that there is only 125 female MPs out of 646 is not an issue in and of itself.

The issue is only that women appear find it harder to get into Parliament. And this something for the parties to resolve internally - but it also perfectly possible that this lower number is simply down to a smaller number of women who want to become MPs.

Women should be encouraged to become MPs, but candidates should all be evaluated on the same basis - equality is essential. Gender should not make any difference. After all, if Parliament is meant to be entirely representative of society, why do we vote at all and not just pick people by lot?

I’m seriously impressed. This something that I called for just over a month ago, and they have produced it.

However, I do have some criticisms:

To start with, there is no summary of the full amount that each MP has claimed from the taxpayer under expenses. This makes a real comparison harder, though I’m sure that there are plenty of junior people at various national newspapers frantically adding the figures that they have together. Each section - staff, office, communication, additional costs alliance, and travel - should also really have their own total cost as well.

In the “Other” section, the level at which specific items are required to be reported must be lower - any individual item of over £100 should have to be declared.

Whilst the area for “additional notes” is good, it would instead be far better to require a more detailed breakdown of expenditures as the use of that area varies massively between MPs.

Also, I can see no reason for the names of every staff member employed by an MP to be declared in this return. All we need to know is how many employees they have and whether any of these are family members [and a definition of "family" would be helpful, too], and the total cost of all staff members.

Finally, this return should be a three-whipped activity. No Conservative MP should be allowed to not declare their expenses. If they miss two returns, they should lose the whip until they have made a full delcrartion. If this takes more than three months, they should be automatcially and formally deselected by the party. This seven should be ashamed of themselves.

This shows that the Conservatives truly are determined to tackle the expenses issue, and I am absolutely certain that this is the only way to go - but they definitively still have further to go. One thing that they should do now is produce an ethics manual for Tory MPs to abide by, firmly establishing the principles and specifics - and the Conservative party as determined to actually wipe out sleaze rather than just claim to be “whiter than white” without any evidence.

David Cameron’s statement that

Politicians need to do everything they can to regain the trust of the British people, and transparency has a key part to play in that process. We must show that we’re spending taxpayers money sensibly and correctly.

We are the first party to demand this information from our members, and our MPs are voluntarily revealing a much more detailed breakdown of their expenses than official rules require them to. I’m glad that we’re leading the way.

shows that he know the way forward. By making these declarations public, the Conservatives have shamed Labour and the Lib Dems. Labour’s response just highlights the difference.

Note: My day job is in compliance and dealing with this sort of return.

Matt Wardman has tagged me in a meme to name “the best £200k waste of public money you can think of” in response to Tom Harris MP’s post bemoaning the £200,000 spent on the Haltemprice and Howden by-election.

Despite the question being a bit of a contradicion in terms ["best waste"? Matt!] I’m going to do my best to continue it.

To start with, what Tom Harris is suggesting is that £200,000 of our money should not be spent on allowing us to cast our votes. [£200,000 is little to pay for a bit of democracy, Tom. Maybe you and your party would like to give us all a chance to cast our votes...? Thought not.]

And how great a percentage is £200,000 of what the government spends every single day? A thousandth? A millionth? At any rate, not very much. I’m sure if we wanted, we could come up with Daily Mail style list of what £200,000 could have bought… such as ‘two hospitals, 5,000 hip operations, twelve nurses, nine police officers…’ etc**. But that is just stupid. Because the money wouldn’t have been used for that.

Matt’s suggestions for the “most monumental waste of 200k” are:

But I ask just one simple question: How much does it cost for one MP in the House of Commons for one parliament?

Let’s be generous and say a salary of just £60,000 and expenses of only £20,000 per year - and a parliament of four years. So, £80,000 times by four = £320,000. And by the time we’ve added on any other costs they that encur to us, we’re bound to be nearing £400,000. And if we add in the cost of running their office as well…

I’ve got an idea! Let’s abolish one MP [since you're so concerned about our financial situation, are you going to offer, Tom?] and use that money to hold two - or even three! - surprise by-elections per parliament, with an MPs name picked out of a hat completely at random. This will cost us no extra money and give us a greater say over our democracy.

What, you mean they won’t go for that? I wonder why…

Seriously though, £200,000 is pennies to the government. I am absolutely certain that they waste way more than £200,000 of our money pretty much every day in one way or another. Be it on white elephants like the Dome, on IT fiascos, or on making polcemen fill in paperwork rather than patrolling the streets and many others.

The simple fact is, whatever you think of David Davis’ resignation in order to spark a by-election, you can’t call it a “waste of money” unless you think all elections are. If you think that, go live in Zimbabwe.

It is our money - something Tom Harris seems to have forgotten - and there are certainly many many worse uses that it can be put to than on an exercise in democracy.

I tag: Devil’s Kitchen, Steve Green, Ian_QT, Tony Sharp, Croydonian, and Trixy.

* The cost of one MP over a parliament

** Please note that these examples have no basis in fact just like the Daily Mail’s

Sam Coates at the Times‘ Red Box blog asks “is your MP on the roll of shame?” He is, of course, referring to the list of MPs who voted to keep their exploitative and expensive [to us] expense system.

That list of MPs can be seen here, containing 146 (of 172) Labour MPs, of which 33 are ministers - including Cabinet members Jacqui Smith and Andy Burnham.

To answer the question, yes my MP is on the list:

… Claire Ward (Watford) …

Which is why I am out delivering leaflets today, to remove her from Watford and to make Ian Oakley, who is by far the best parliamentary candidate of the three main parties. Both for Watford and for the country.

Even as they vote to restrict their salaries to a below-inflation rise [and send the blogosphere into shock] - presumably to get some good headlines - they are refusing to overhaul their expenses system:

MPs threw out plans to overhaul their expenses, insisting on their right to buy kitchens, televisions and sofas on the taxpayer.

Plans for rigorous external audits, a reduction of the threshold of receipts from £25 to zero and a ban on furniture or home improvements were all thrown out by MPs who voted against the proposals by a majority of 28…

The vast majority of MPs — 146 of the 172 — who voted to keep the “John Lewis list” were Labour, including 33 ministers. (The Times)

Disgusting.

Rather than vote for proper reforms, MPs have gone down the route of lower salary and exploiting expenses instead.

Their expenses must be fully reformed. If they want to be respected, they must ensure that their expenses are clear. It is a sad time when the members of the unelected House of Lords are more respected than thopse who supposedly have a democratic mandate to lead us.

Every MP who voted against the expenses reforms must be punished at the ballot box.

It’s amazing. MPs have voted against awarding themselves an above-inflation pay rise.

And yet I haven’t seen a single blog post on this piece of news by any non-journalist come through my RSS reader.

The blogosphere must be in shock.

This is not the sort of thing that MPs should say:

Labour’s fight to regain the support of the electorate took a less conventional turn this week as David Clelland began an epistolary battle with one dissatisfied voter.

Mr Clelland, who has represented the people of Tyne Bridge in Newcastle for 23 years, has written to one resident informing him that he had no desire for his vote in the future.

“I accept your offer not to vote for me again,” he wrote, in bold defiance of the usual conventions that exist in communications between elected representatives and their electorate. “I do not want your vote so you can stick it wherever best pleases you.” (The Times)

We are your bosses - and your customers - you arrogant shithead. You only do your job and have your responsibilities at our discretion.

As for anyone who works in a service role, there is one simple rule: be polite. Disagree with people all you like, but be polite about it. What you certainly don’t do is tell them to “stick” anything anywhere. And I feel no sympathy for him. Want to vent? No problem. Just do it in private.

MPs should not write anything that they do not mind being published. They should reply to constituents letters telling them why they agree of disagree with them, and try to win them over - even if they have no chance of actually doing so. After all, if they can’t justify what they do, they damn well shouldn’t be doing it.

Let’s just hope that David Clelland MP is told “stick your job” by his constituents.

Image: David Clelland