Listening to our "walking dead" Prime Minister the other day, prattling on about how "the system" (wrt MPs' expenses) was at fault for the claims for floating duck islands, fake mortgages, moats etc I was struck by how what the PM said exemplifies the very heart of the problem of the Nanny state.
The PM ignored the fundamental issue, it is not the system that is at fault but the people. It was not compulsory for our MPs to claim for duck islands and moats, they did so voluntarily and with gusto!
The PM and these greedy MPs are using the "procedures" argument as a defence, in exactly the same manner that a doctor, social worker, police officer, teacher, FSA CEO or council officer uses "rules and procedures" to justify what they do and to justify their mistakes.
How many times have we heard the phrase "we followed the procedures"?
That is meaningless if the end result is failure/death, or a cold hearted application of a petty rule.
Nanny's rules and procedures proactively encourage people to stop thinking for themselves and taking personal self responsibility for their own actions/mistakes.
The PM so eloquently highlighted (unintentionally) the very weakness at the heart of the Nanny state; namely, no one needs to ever take personal responsibility anymore, so long as they follow procedures.
Without personal responsibility, individuality, risk taking and thinking outside of the box we are most assuredly set on the path to our own self destruction; as we drown in bureaucracy and petty rules, all of which have been designed to suffocate initiative and growth.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Bloody excellent post !
ReplyDeleteKen:
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth noting that the PM's attitude to his ministers level of wrongdoing is also dependent on whether the said minister has been critical of him or not. Squirrel Nutkin made the mistake of taking the mickey out of his UTube appearance and hence why her behaviour is unacceptable and yet the other two, that have done the same thing apart from being critical of him, are deemed to be "no problem."
I feel that the media have driven this witch hunt and appear to be making too much out of it. Yes some MPs have, on the face of it, committed fraud or theft, others have used the system to top up their pay and others have milked the system to build up property portfolios. It is interesting that the media only appear to approach members of the public from the lower social economic classes whose general attitude appears to be; I haven't got it so why should they have it. That is the politics of envy.
I feel the fees office should also take some of the blame, after all, they have approved these claims.
There is fault in the system, the users of the system and those charged with administering the system.
I watched Question Time last night and to be honest, I was very disturbed by the lynch mob mentality displayed. It does need sorting out but, texts and comments saying prosecutions must follow, pensions should be seized and property confiscated is not the answer. Most of the claims have been within the rules and thus, in most cases, no prosecution would succeed.
I accept that claiming interest relief on a mortgage that has been paid does appear to be fraud and a prosecution could and perhaps should follow.
Flipping property appears to be allowed according to HMRC's guidence and therefore is an avoidence scheme rather than evasion.
Many of the extrvagent claims, such as the moat, duck island and £400 a month for food, do leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
I feel the same rules should apply to MP's expenses that apply to ordinary business. Ie only those items that are required solely for the purpose of carrying out the role of MP should be allowed.
The system does need sorting out, it was put in place to allow Labour MPs to be able to afford to sit in parliament, I would not like to see a return to past times when only the very wealthy and trade union sponsered candidates could sit in the HofC.
It is also worth stating that the rules were put in place when the tag "Honourable" was still true; Politicians went into politics for public service and had high levels of integrity, honesty and morality sadly, modern professional politicians appear to often lack these qualities.
I also feel that the party system has in effect destroyed our democracy and we end up with little more than an elected dictatorship, but that's another subject!!
We need the Telegraph to put this story to bed and allow the authorities to put it right.
I would like to see a similar release of MEPs expenses, I suspect that would be even more of an eyeopener.
Ken,superb post sums up all that is wrong with this country today.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant article. Have linked from my blog with accreditation.
ReplyDeleteI would actually like a return to the old style of parliament. I.e. Only those rich enough can be MPs.
ReplyDeleteWithout pay & without expenses the only people who will be MPs will be those that care about the country & its people. Sure, they will probably be buffoons & have no concept of what the lower clases need. But Hey! At least their hearts will be in the right place which is a damn sight more than todays breed of "Career Politicians" whose incentivisation is to sit around making up policies rather than working at a real career.
I work a shift pattern (7 days of 12 hours followed by 7 off), my colleagues & I travel considerable distances from our homes to work.
We can claim no relief on the secondary accommodation we have - holes with just a bed to sleep when off shift. Hot-swap beds (we can't afford more) where people share the same bed, as one goes off shift, the other gets up & goes on shift. Yet MPs can claim so much because they need a 2nd home to do their job?
They stink.
The Fees Office actively encouraged the culture of greed. Apparently they approached MPs who hadn't claimed the maximum they were entitled to under the "rules" to point this out and say "come on, what about it?"
ReplyDeleteThis can only have happened with the active encouragement of Speaker Martin, who seems to have viewed the whole issue with typical trade unionist cronyism.
"How many times have we heard the phrase "we followed the procedures"?
ReplyDeleteExcellent post and excellent website, Ken. However, doesn't the above excuse remind one of
"We were only following orders?"
Whilst agreeing with you to a large extent, Tonk, I don't think you can blame the Daily Telegraph or any other section of the media. They weren't the ones guilty of fraud, theft or even using the system to their advantage. And why shouldn't the views of members of the lower social economic classes be taken into account? After all they pay taxes like anyone else. Whilst I accept that most of the claims were within the rules, in my opinion anyone who has committed fraud or theft should be prosecuted without any hesitation and, as you say, MPs expenses should be only be available for the requirements of carrying out the duties of an MP.
I do agree with you that the party system has in effect destroyed our democracy and we end up with little more than an elected dictatorship.
I too should also like to see our wonderful MEPs (and local councils) put under the microscope in this manner: I bet their results would be equally revealing!
The saddest thing about all this is that the government and parliament have lost all moral authority, through their own conduct, so haven't a leg to stand on when criticising the equally reprehensible behaviour of certain individuals and organisations in other sections of the community, in particular, those who may be responsible for the current state of the economy.
Lord of Atlantis:
ReplyDeleteGood afternnon to you Sir!!
Yes, those that have committed theft or fraud should indeed face prosecution. In general terms, The Theft Act 1968 section 1 defines theft as; the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanantly deprive the owner of the benefit of the said property. I feel there may be massive difficulties in proving the mens rea (guilty mind) element of the offence as most appear to be within the rules.
It could also be argued by a sharp lawyer, that the accused may be unable to get a fair trial if the public witch hunt continues for much longer. I would have some sympathy with that argument.
It is true the Telegraph did not commit the fraud or theft however, I feel the drip drip drip method they have used, perhaps to sell papers, is wrong. It appears to me that the newspaper has aquired a large number of receipts and claims and have taken little notice as to whether the whole or part of each claim has been paid. I suspect that many of us at some some time or other in our lives have submitted claims to both the Inland Revenue or our bosses on a "suck it and see" basis.
The reason I comment on those of the lower socio-economic class being targetted for comment is this, they are more likely to adopt the politics of envy approach when expressing their views. I just feel that the MSM targeted that group knowing full well they were likely to have such views and were unlikely to have been able to give a full reasoned response to the claims as they were only likely to be in receipt of the "facts" as given by the MSM. Concentrating on duck islands and moat cleaning will play into the hands of those that may be envious of the person's wealth and status. I actually find the building up of a property portfolio and claiming for food, given that we all need to eat no matter what we do, is far more offensive. Moat cleaning and duck islands, although offensive to most of us, are small fry compared to the interest relief and avoidance of CGT.
I suspect some former Labour ministers have abused the system even more in terms of building up property portfolios.
There are rotten eggs in all baskets but we should not allow a national newspaper to tar all MPs with the same brush and we should not encourage a lynch mob mentality. This whole sorry situation needs to be sorted out quickly and measures need to be put in place to prevent a repeat.
Have a good weekend.
I definately agree that the MPs shouldn't be claiming some of the things they have and have overclaimed on other things.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the amounts and things they are allowed to claim are very excessive.
However I am annoyed at the 'drip drip' method Tonk refers to of releasing the information to the public. They could have released it in one single day and just provided a list on the website to the list of claims that people have made (which the BBC does have).
All this constant whining about it is really just to get us all riled up so we change who we are likely to vote for in the elections in a couple of weeks.
Absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteIt really bothers me when you hear these MPs exclaiming "I have nothing to apologise for - I followed the rules!"
That tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with these people. That they somehow believe that they are entitled to claim our hard earned money to pay for their luxuries, while the general taxpayer is going without just to GET BY!
Absolutely incredible and of course you're spot on once again.
Tonk. said...
ReplyDelete"In general terms, The Theft Act 1968 section 1 defines theft as; the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanantly deprive the owner of the benefit of the said property. I feel there may be massive difficulties in proving the mens rea (guilty mind) element of the offence as most appear to be within the rules.
It could also be argued by a sharp lawyer, that the accused may be unable to get a fair trial if the public witch hunt continues for much longer. I would have some sympathy with that argument."
Even if they have operated within the rules, it's certainly morally wrong, even if it's not illegal.
Tonk said
"I suspect that many of us at some some time or other in our lives have submitted claims to both the Inland Revenue or our bosses on a "suck it and see" basis."
Very true, but that doesn't make it alright, as I'm sure you will agree. Do you remember, some years ago Lester Piggott was sentenced to 5 years in prison (and was stripped of his honour)for tax evasion? I just feel that government ministers and MPs should not be treated more leniently because of the fact that they are MPs.
Tonk said:
"The reason I comment on those of the lower socio-economic class being targetted for comment is this, they are more likely to adopt the politics of envy approach when expressing their views."
When people are losing theior jobs left, right and centre and are having their homes repossessed, you cannot really blame them for being p~****d off with peopl;e whom they see doing 'very nicely, thankyou' at their expense.
Tonk said:
"I actually find the building up of a property portfolio and claiming for food, given that we all need to eat no matter what we do, is far more offensive. Moat cleaning and duck islands, although offensive to most of us, are small fry compared to the interest relief and avoidance of CGT."
I couldn't agree more!
This whole sorry situation needs to be sorted out quickly and measures need to be put in place to prevent a repeat."
Again I fully agree with you. There are some very good MPs who would never dream of doing this sort of thing. For their sake as well, I feel it is imperative that the 'bad eggs' are brought to account.
I hope you have a great bank holiday weekend too. I may not altogether agree with you on this, although I do to a very large extent, but I do very much respect your views.
Tom said...
"It really bothers me when you hear these MPs exclaiming "I have nothing to apologise for - I followed the rules!"
That tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with these people. That they somehow believe that they are entitled to claim our hard earned money to pay for their luxuries, while the general taxpayer is going without just to GET BY!"
Quite agree, but clearly the rules need looking at too!
Lord of Atlantis:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments on my points.....When people talk about prosecutions, they always mean legal prosecutions as we can't take people to court for being prats or morally bankrupt.
What does intrigue me somewhat is the notion that the law makers need to set up another body to oversee the, well, errr;Lawmakers!!
If we can't trust the lawmakers who can we trust?
Sadly, we appear unable to be able to trust the current crop of lawmakers. We therefore need to skim off the dross and replace them with some people of the right moral metal. Where they will come from I don't know. I do not feel Esther Rantzen nor those of her ilk, are the answer.
I feel I will vote for UKIP in the EUSSR elections and my normal Conservative Party for the locals as I feel, locally, we cannot afford a LibDem nor a Labour council.
I have never liked Mr Cameron and although I am a lifelong Conservative, I have found myself unable to back him as I feel he is not really a Conservative at all.
My own local MP, John Redwood, is an excellent MP and a traditional Conservative. Perhaps the best leader we have never had.
One last point, just for clarity, I feel anyone has the right to express an opinion even those of the lower uneducated sub classes, the point I have been trying to make throughout, somewhat clumsily I admit, was this; the mainstream media did appear to target the aforementioned group for comment, to the exclusion of most other groups and in my opinion, for no other reason other than that group were the most likely to be very vocal and hostile to people that were better off and/or better placed than themselves.
Having read back through my last paragraph, I do sound like a pompous upperclass toff, which I assure you I am not, however I can't think of any better words to make my point with:-D
Another way in which Gordon Brown reflects what's wrong in our society is in his recent comment in Parliament that voting Conservative would “lead to chaos” - i.e. he reckons it's entirely reasonable to attempt to frighten people if it might contribute to him being re-elected.
ReplyDeleteWe're not currently in the grips of the catastrophic Swine Flu epidemic as predicted but we are in the grips of an epidemic of people who try at every turn to frighten the population into following some desired course of action.
Health & Safety warn us about the dangers of becoming impaled on railings if we try to erect a flag. Some newspapers have been showing pictures of Black Widow spiders on their front pages leaving readers to assume that they're spreading uncontrollably across the country. Government leaflets warn that we have no natural protection against Swine Flu.
A few months ago, figures were released showing that people literally are becoming frightened of living, and that something must be done about this latest trend towards manipulation through fear and/or panic.
It would help if the Prime Minister showed some leadership and attempted to buck the trend rather than follow the trend.
Apologies to Tonk if I'm just paraphrasing what he's already written on this blog before, but I think I reached a tipping point today after reading yet another example in a newspaper of interpretation being deliberately distorted in order to spread fear in the population.