Topic: Jacqui Smith's husband spanks the monkey.

[Commie Bobbie]

Why did he have to pay for it?

There's always redtube.

[Rafas Tapas]

Well said.

What gets me is the total lack of embarrassment or acknowledgement of fault at the 2nd house expenses claim in comparison to this porn story and her superior political class stony faced alien stare as she adamantly proclaimed to the cameras "I was doing nothing wrong".

They really seem to have a death wish now and appear to be brazenly lining their pockets before leaving office for Lord Snooty and his pals to have a go instead.  I even doubt she will ever resign no matter what happens as the longer she holds out now, the larger her ministerial pension if she's not re-elected, a foregone conclusion I expect, and what else is she going to do next?

I do wonder what John Smith would have thought of this load of pygmies, especially when you think of all the waste and squandered opportunities of the last 15 years. Trouble is, these bastards are in with the woodwork of the party now, their people control everything, and getting rid of them will be very difficult.

With the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't SWP and Militant clown entryism that Labour should have ever been worried about, it was the Blairite opportunism bandwagon that slipped in unnoticed under the cover of that particular witch-hunt and consolidated its grip and simply worshipped and desired power and privilege at any price, yet strangely neglected or seemed to fear the ability to make changes for the common good that such power presents.

But as an old school socialist friend is fond of saying to me when me moan to each other about the current political state of the nation, "We haven't gone away you know, we're still here".

Absolutely agree - your analysis is especially spot-on concerning the identity of the real entryists.  These are the sub-Roy-Jenkins middle-class metropolitan liberals, best exemplified by the deplorable Harriet Harman, but represented in huge numbers in the government - Purnell, Benn, both Millibands, Balls and his missus, Flint etc etc.  The worst of the lot is of course St Helens' millionaire Tory turncoat Woodward.  Brown himself at least understands the meaning of collectivism; even though he is badly damaged goods, strangely fixated with the false notion that Angle-Saxon capitalism is perfectible, he is genuinely a man of the Left.  Hazel Blears seems OK, and I don't mind Alan Johnson.  I imagine that most are already breaking their balls fixing themselves up with fat new jobs for next year - not "Tory" directorships in industry, of course, but "ethical" ones with NGOs.  I admire your mate's optimism, but bear in mind that Harman might be the next leader.  If she is, I can promise you that the party will have one fewer member.   

[blurred]

For anyone interested in how much the MPs are claiming:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_Q3_-CakkCvX7ZpN3GexUA

[SP]

New Labour is frighteningly like Sunshine Desserts.

[Rafas Tapas]

For anyone interested in how much the MPs are claiming:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_Q3_-CakkCvX7ZpN3GexUA

An interesting list - no surprise to see MPs clustering at the top end of the range.  I noticed Philip Hollobone, at just £40k, and Googled him assuming that he had died or left office (like Tony Blair, another inexpensive one) during the year.  But no:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7845210.stm

Dennis Skinner also appears towards the bottom end of the range - can't say I'm surprised at that.

[The Gulleysucker]

Mr Fabian Hamilton at £159,035?

With a name like that, I bet he went to a local comprehensive and worked his way up.

Ah, silly me, I just checked and no, Mother a Judge and Father a Solicitor and yes, Public School. Very New Labour.

And Anne Keen at £167,306...?

And Lembit Opik on £154,898..cheeky?

And we don't seem to hear much of Dr Ladyman do we at PMQ's? "The Right Honourable Ladyman will now outline....."

It must be a struggle for these people, you know, everyday life and decision making on our behalf.

[Rafas Tapas]

That German Labour MP - Giselle someone - was on the wireless this morning prattling on about how, when she entered Parliament in 1997 MPs were on the same kind of wedge as GPs and head teachers, but have since fallen behind.  She was fretting in case "middle-class professionals" are put off entering politics.  My heart almost broke listening to her. 

She's orthodox New Labour so presumably thinks that the market should decide.  In that case, let's consider what a rudimentary supply curve would look like.  Even at today's paltry £65k plus perks, there is huge over-supply of people wishing to become MPs.  If MPs were paid minimum wage, there would still be huge over-supply I would say; or if there were no salary, or even if MPs had to pay a subscription.  MPs' salaries were brought in (in 1911) as a progressive measure, to open Parliament to people without independent wealth.  £65k meets that requirement more than adequately.

   

[SP]

£65k meets that requirement more than adequately.

If you throw in the pension and perks it dwarfs a £65K salary spending power. It would be far more honest to pay MPs £100K, but stop all of the perks. Make them take out stakeholder pensions from their income like everyone else. No 2nd homes allowance. Let them have a standard class train season ticket  between their constituency and London and use of a basic government supplied bedsit. Allocate the MPs an office in the local council offices, with secretarial support from the council pool. If they need a researcher, they should use a civil servant (who can't do party political stuff). If they need assistance for party political stuff, then get their party to pay for it.

Simple.

[The Gulleysucker]

  £65k meets that requirement more than adequately.

Yes, you would think with New Labours fixation on cost-performance and target setting and measurement they would put MP's jobs out to tender and accept the lowest bidder.
I'm not seriously suggesting this because as you rightly point out, the 1911 act was to try and ensure that representation of the people was fairer and didn't continue to rely on 'Lord and Lady Bountiful' independent income types who took up Politics as a hobby to assuage their guilty consciences at the self evident unequal and frequently unfair distribution of wealth and privilege.

What I fear, is we seem to be moving (maybe backwards is the new forwards?) to a Medieval model of governance of 'robber' Barons, or certainly people of that mentality, being again in charge, not just in Politics but also all levels of Industry and throughout the Western world. Maybe it's always been that way and Social Democracy has been a 20th century illusion or con-trick perpetrated on the masses.

It seems all that these people are interested in achieving is some kind of legacy, and not an altruistic one, but more along the lines of preserving personal inheritance and generating such obscene Pensions and pay offs for failure that even their Grandchildren will never have to do an honest days work in their lives. Then these grandchildren can become MP's and so the circle will continue. Depressing.

[Rafas Tapas]

Yes, you would think with New Labours fixation on cost-performance and target setting and measurement they would put MP's jobs out to tender and accept the lowest bidder.
I'm not seriously suggesting this because as you rightly point out, the 1911 act was to try and ensure that representation of the people was fairer and didn't continue to rely on 'Lord and Lady Bountiful' independent income types who took up Politics as a hobby to assuage their guilty consciences at the self evident unequal and frequently unfair distribution of wealth and privilege.

What I fear, is we seem to be moving (maybe backwards is the new forwards?) to a Medieval model of governance of 'robber' Barons, or certainly people of that mentality, being again in charge, not just in Politics but also all levels of Industry and throughout the Western world. Maybe it's always been that way and Social Democracy has been a 20th century illusion or con-trick perpetrated on the masses.

It seems all that these people are interested in achieving is some kind of legacy, and not an altruistic one, but more along the lines of preserving personal inheritance and generating such obscene Pensions and pay offs for failure that even their Grandchildren will never have to do an honest days work in their lives. Then these grandchildren can become MP's and so the circle will continue. Depressing.

Again I agree absolutely.  The developments that you refer to are encapsulated, in the UK anyway, in the perversion of the word "meritocracy".  This should mean "government by the people most fit to govern" - i.e. by the "wisest" individuals in a society.  But the term has been twisted to justify obscene inequality in rewards.  The ethical connotations of the word "merit" have at the same time been stripped from it; now it simply means "talent", especially intelligence, which is usually innate and inherited, and the distribution of which is down to pure blind chance.  This is profoundly regressive, going back even further than the robber barons: it reminds me of the archetypal caveman social set-up, where the dude with most "merit" - the best hunter, fighter, possibly shagger - was on even better perks than a modern-day MP.  In order words, talent was the determinant of how much an individual could take from society, rather than an index of how much he or she was able to give.  Labour used to have this the right way round.

In fact, I would say that the concept of noblesse oblige that you refer to was in some respects healthier than modern "meritocracy": at least the more enlightened members of the nobility in bygone days realized that they occupied their station in life through sheer fluke.

[Finn Solomon]

If you throw in the pension and perks it dwarfs a £65K salary spending power. It would be far more honest to pay MPs £100K, but stop all of the perks. Make them take out stakeholder pensions from their income like everyone else. No 2nd homes allowance. Let them have a standard class train season ticket  between their constituency and London and use of a basic government supplied bedsit. Allocate the MPs an office in the local council offices, with secretarial support from the council pool. If they need a researcher, they should use a civil servant (who can't do party political stuff). If they need assistance for party political stuff, then get their party to pay for it.

Simple.

I'd agree with that. Be honest, give them more money upfront, but stop all this hidden expenses and claims rubbish.