From Charlie Brooker’s column in the Guardian:
I showed my dad who’s 85, the stuff about expenses. He said he wouldn’t piss on Brown if he was on fire, and that would be hard because he’s incontinent.
Heh.
From Charlie Brooker’s column in the Guardian:
I showed my dad who’s 85, the stuff about expenses. He said he wouldn’t piss on Brown if he was on fire, and that would be hard because he’s incontinent.
Heh.
The discredited Speaker of The House, Labour’s Michael Martin, on greedy expenses claims:
Says it all, really.
So said the BBC’s chief political commentator and Brown-noser Nick Robinson on the Today programme this morning about the publishing of leaked, unredacted receipts for cabinet MPs expenses by the Daily Telegraph, 2 months ahead of their official release with key details (ie the damning bits) redacted by the MPs themselves.
Robinson has got this one spectacularly wrong. I certainly don’t think it’s small beer and I doubt fellow voters will either.
But to describe it so is classic Robinson. If any one reporter in mainstream British political media is complicit in the normalisation of politicians’ licensed dishonesty it’s Robinson, whose modus operandi at the BBC has been to focus on internecine parliamentary gossip while fastidiously, and despite the rising stench, ignoring the festering corruption right underneath his nose.
Here the Telegraph describes some of the everyday, mundane corruption; it promises there’s much more to come.
Because MPs can claim up to £24,222 each year for their second home, some MPs appear to go on spending sprees at the end of the financial year to “use up†what they have not already claimed.
Some also appear to take advantage of rules which allowed them, until recently, to claim up to £250 in any category without submitting a receipt, resulting in a rash of claims for cleaners, gardeners and repair bills which came in at £249 per month. And because MPs can claim up to £400 per month for food, with no need for receipts, some put in claims for precisely that amount every month, even during the recess when they are not expected to live at their “second†home.
Other tricks of the MPs’ trade come into play when they decide to step down from Parliament, with some arranging expensive building work on their homes just prior to leaving the Commons before selling them on at a profit. Others are thought to avoid capital gains tax when they sell their “second†homes by telling HM Revenue and Customs that the property is, in fact, their main home and hence is exempt from tax.
Robinson says the the public have outrage fatigue, and that they’ll essentially just shrug at today’s revelations. I don’t know who of the public he asked; perhaps he could’ve asked someone who’s just been made redundant with the prospect of living on sixty pounds a week benefit what they think. I know what I’d think about the man in charge of setting those benefits claiming one and a half times my monthly income, from public money, just for food that they didn’t even need – or even necessarily buy:
James Purnell has come under fire today for claiming £400 a month on food expenses. It is believed that the information has come about as more receipts are leaked to the press. The Daily Star also claims the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Stalybridge and Hyde MP claims for his council tax and utility bills. The receipts are to be released to the public in June.
It really does smack of hypocrisy that it was James Purnell who recently admitted on the Sunday Politics Show that £60 a week Job Seekers Allowance wasn’t enough to live on, but those with families could earn up to £400 a week with tax credits (see video above) to pay for cost of living expenses such as food, rent and utility bills etc. Yet he claims £400 a month on food alone.
Under rules set out by the house of commons, MPs don’t have to submit receipts for groceries, but they are able to claim up to £400 a month under the second home allowance. According to the Daily Star, James Purnell tried to claim £475 a month on his groceries, but this was rejected.
That’s without even mentioning some of the smaller items for which MPs’ve claimed reimbursement. One female Lib Dem even had the gall to claim for a 2.50 eyeliner pencil from Boots . She probably bought it to gussy up for an interview with with Robinson. Boy wonder David Miliband, touted as PM, claimed almost £200 for a pram for his adopted child – it was rejected, but that illustrates better than any other claim the entitlement which MPs feel.
I’m going to spend my morning reading; much as I loathe the Telegraph as a newspaper, and leaving aside my outrage at the substantive issues, to the Westminster scandal junkie and blogger an unprecedented info dump like this is not small beer at all. It’s a gift, a gigantic box of succulent fresh cream truffles and license to eat every single one.
North Korea’s video instructions to the populace on how to vote:
See, apathetic UK voters, it’s easy. Step up, bow to the nice party officials, and don’t forget to vote overwhelmingly for the Dear Leader. It certainly works for Kim Jong Il, who got 99% of the vote in the last North Korean election: it could work for Gordo too. He could put a copy through every letter box along with the swine flu leaflets.
It’s the only way Labour under Brown will ever get elected again anytime soon, despite their members’ best efforts to subvert the vote.
Labour MPs know this. They see the gravy train rapidly steaming out of the station. That’s why there are so many carefully placed rumours Charles”I’m ashamed to be a Labour MP” Clarke is plotting for the leadership as a Blairite ‘safety’ candidate, just to get rid of Brown.
Prepare for mean, stalking safety elephant on a media rampage and worse; like the once-laughable Squirrel Nutkin Hazel Blears and the lightweight James Purnell being touted as actual contenders for PM.
But the Blairites’ve tried it numerous times before, and like the Dear Leader Brown’s still there, despite being universally loathed by the public and his own party alike.
They’ve all failed to dislodge Brown; despite every failure, every disaster, every mismanagement and however many Nokias and printers he’s attacked in temper, the bugger’s still bloody there. It’s at least a year until the general election. We may yet get the instructional voting videos in the post.
New Labour’s just so bloody, bloody inept. Only Gordon Brown could manage to position himself against a wall of swastikas, complete with gurning grin, much to the glee of lobby correspondents and picture editors. You’d think he’d show a little more sensitivity, having literally just paid a visit to Auschwitz.
As if that dreadful image management weren’t enough, now Jacqui Smith’s giving fascists the oxygen of publicity too, having banned Fox-sanctioned eliminationist rabble rouser and ‘shock-jock’ Michael Savage from Britain:
Ms Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.
She told BBC Breakfast that Mr Savage was “someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country”.
But Mr Savage, real name Michael Weiner, insisted he has never advocated violence.
No, but he’s certainly adept at deliberately winding up those who do, in between churning out crappy books on nutrition. Sorry Savage, no 1st Amendment here.
He’s suing Jackie Smith for libel, for damaging his reputation. Good luck with that…
A libel in England is defined as “….any published statement(s) which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them”
I’m a reasonable person and his banning couldn’t possibly make me think worse of Savage.
Savage’s all over the airwaves saying he’s got seven (or was it nine, or twenty-three) lawyers on the case. Seems to me the Home Secretary actually has a legal leg to stand on, for once: given Savage’s inflammatory statements and status as a public figure, a banning appears to be nothing but fair comment and besides, truth is always an absolute defence.
I hope he does sue, I can’t wait for the show. But then again maybe not: he’s desperate for ratings since times have changed, his audince is dwindling and he’s losing advertisers. Smith and New Labour, in their typically inept way have given Savage exactly what he needs. So much for ‘no platform.’