This Speaker is nothing less than they deserve

It is often said that a people get the government they deserve (perhaps originally from de Tocqueville, but who knows). Well, this Parliament has the Speaker it deserves. The MPs themselves have twice voted Mr Martin to office, and in the words of Ming Campbell on Martin’s re-election in 2005, "We are delighted to join in the unanimous endorsement of your continuing responsibility to preside over our proceedings." Wonder how unanimous that endorsement is now?

More to the point, he perfectly represents a House which still seems to have difficulty in grasping the public mood over the issue – by which I primarily mean the continuing stream of excuses and “it was within the rules” pleas trotted out with each new day of revelations. There’s a very interesting piece in the Times yesterday by Martin’s former PR adviser detailing an extraordinary reaction to being warned of possible problems with his second home allowance.

Unlike others I reckon the speaker should stay as long as this Parliament remains; he embodies its practices and ethos entirely. In the words of his eminent 17th Century predecessor Speaker Lenthall “I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.” Very apt.

Hat tip re. Times article: Hattie Garlick, Comment Central - Times Online

Nothing British about the BNP

Following up my previous post, I see that Tim Montgomerie and James Bethell have started an important new website. I think it needs as much publicity as it can get, so share it around:

http://www.nothingbritish.com

In the interests of democracy, please lets not have a snap election!

A poll by the BBC’s Daily Politics show has reported that some 65% of respondents want a General Election now, in the wake of the expenses row. While I appreciate the attraction of allowing the electorate to throw out as many of the current incumbents as possible – clearing out the House and ushering in a new era of responsible representatives less interested in feathering their own nests – I believe it would in fact have profoundly undemocratic ramifications.

The BNP may well be the biggest beneficiaries of any poll held in the wake of the current scandal. It’s not impossible they would return a couple of MPs, and certainly they could legitimately begin to claim a public mandate for their policies on the back of a sizeable popular vote.

Better by far to let the dust settle, and allow the electorate to make their choice in a more sombre fashion at the beginning of next year (presuming Gordo will hang on as long as he can). The main parties will still likely bear the brunt of a protest vote, and many individual MPs could lose their seats irrespective of their parties share of the national vote due to the particulars of their own conduct re. expenses. Nevertheless, such a poll would result in a fairer reflection of the populace’s political intentions, whereas now, whipped up by media frenzy and MPs seemingly incapable of appreciating the level of disgust in the country, marginal and dangerous interests are the only likely beneficiaries (just witness the Euros in June if you want proof).

How much extra food does one need to be an effective MP?

So, as the dust finally starts to settle following the Telegraph’s expose-a-thon, there’s one unanswered point arising from the expenses scandal which really stands out for me. Why was it ever considered reasonable to give MPs a food allowance?

There are clearly myriad questions arising over the content of the Green Book, many stemming from the fact that the allowance/expense system was a product of MP’s own creation. But, however poorly policed and adhered to, there was clearly some element of consistency in that the system’s main aim is to allow MPs to do the job they’ve been elected to do – namely represent their constituents both in the constituency and in London. Enabling them to claim the consequent expenses for the cost of securing secondary accommodation seems fair.

But how could anyone have decided that a food allowance should form part of the system. On what premise could it be argued that MPs need to eat more as a result of their positions. If they were to leave Parliament, would they suddenly find their food bills dropping by £400 a month. To me, this is indicative of the lax attitude and thoughtlessness at the core of the whole system, and frankly shows why they deserve all the flack they get. Unless, of course, one’s appetite mysteriously increases on being returned to Parliament. The John Bull-esque physique of some of our representatives suggests this may be more than a flight of fancy.

Phil Woolas – a snivelling little sh*t

Why has more not been made of Phil Woolas’ conduct over the whole expenses affair. Personally I believe that the public’s furore should be directed at those MP’s who have sought to gain significant benefit from the system, primarily those who have flipped their second home designation for no other reason than to claim public funds for expenditure the rest of us would have to stump up ourselves (n.b. I do believe some instances were genuine).

The instances of MPs making claims for small amounts on absurd items, I think, are far less concerning. The might make some look a bit silly, but do we really believe that they were anything more than that – considered and comprehensive campaigns to diddle the tax payer £3.50 a time? No, rather they are evidence of the gung-ho attitude to public money some have, and nothing more.

I initially would have placed Woolas’ misdemeanours in this category – mildly embarrassing but ultimately trivial. But he has reacted appallingly. Firstly, he threatened to sue the Telegraph for insinuating he had claimed for a couple of small items (nail varnish and tampons, presumably for his wife) which, while ineligible for a claim, amounted to very little. He said the Telegraph was wrong, “disgusting” and threatened legal action, sounding appropriately indignant. The Telegraph, however, showed that there was extremely strong (albeit circumstantial) evidence that their story was correct. Namely that the receipt on which the said items were contained came to exactly the same amount as one of the sums he received - £210.31. Hence it seems pretty likely he was reimbursed in full for that claim, tampons and all. His response? “The claim is one document and the receipts are another. The fact that they both add up to the same amount doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean that the fees office paid for the non-food items on the receipt.”

I don’t really like being so brazenly taken for an idiot by a Government Minister. Mr Woolas, you’ve been remarkably silent since your initial outburst. I await the proceedings against the Telegraph with interest…

Eric Pickles turns into Billy Bunter

No, not his erstwhile colleague on the Tory benches, Nicholas Soames, but the real thing! This is the latest e-mail missive from CCHQ, and I was amused by his allusion in the first paragraph to “your chums”. I can hear Pickles using the phrase, actually, but I’m not quite sure what to make of it – folksy northern charm or old-school Tory recidivism. Either way, it doesn’t ring true with the new, funky, tech-savvy world of Cambo’s Tories, does it (which, to be fair, is not Pickles’ brief in the first place).

Go on, legalise drugs – everyone’s up for it

Peter Wilby’s piece in the New Statesman caught my eye this week. Among his various  meanderings, he suggests that large swathes of the political elite have privately come to the view that hard drugs should be legalised – a view they’re unwilling to air in public. I’ve long agreed with them, if indeed his assertion is true, and its only the thought of actually administering “the handover” that gives me reservations. I imagine there would be serious teething problems unravelling an industry so enmeshed in our criminal culture, not to mention how one would regulate import channels which would remain criminal in much of the rest of the world.

Nevertheless, Wilby’s arguments make sense to me, in particular the public health problems caused by the dodgy provenance and manufacturing processes involved in producing much of the stuff consumed weekly in Britain. He compares the ignorance over the constituents of any given drug (i.e. the actual pill one might be about to pop) to not knowing if one was about to buy whiskey or pale ale. Its not; it actually equates to not knowing whether the whiskey you’re buying was produced by a quality and reputable distiller, or knocked up in a lead lined drum using meths and marmite in someone’s garage (my preferred production technique). In all seriousness, that’s a much more frightening analogy than the one he uses.

On a related point, I’ve always wondered whether liberalisation of drugs in this country is just a waiting game. For the younger generation recreational drugs are more of a fact of life than for previous generations. A vast amount of young(ish) people in this country, across all sectors of society, have either taken drugs regularly, tried them occasionally, or know someone well who does – and for the most part with little or no detrimental effect to their wellbeing, productiveness and utility to society. As the political and business elites of our nation become festooned with members of my generation (born in the 1970s) I suspect attitudes to illicit drugs will soften. Or will we simply morph into our parents and continue to lecture our children on what they should and shouldn’t stick in their bodies while taking a drag on our ciggies and another quaff of the hard stuff.

How not to DJ: Lesson 1

It’s got to be one of the most irritating aspects of listening to radio (as opposed to enjoying one’s own music collection, in whichever format its held). A few days ago Christian O’Connell on Virgin…sorry, Absolute…puts on Sultan of Swings by Dire Straits. A great tune by (in my opinion) a hit and miss band. Now, this tune plays at a total of around 5 minutes 50 seconds, a fact that the radio station presumably knows. Furthermore, the best part of the song comes towards the end – the guitar solo – a not uncommon feature of the some of the longer rock classics to which I’m partial. So why would the DJ cut in over a minute before the end and ruin the song! Look, there’s a reason songs such as the Stone Roses’ I Am The Resurrection and Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Free Bird don’t get played much on the radio – they’re long, but it would be criminal not to play them in their entirety – so stations mindful of clogging up airtime avoid them. So DJs – if you’ve decided to go for the occasional long player, please, please, please leave it to run its course. Do yourself a favour and at least pretend you know something, however little, about the music you’re playing. End of rant…

Loss of talent or good riddance…

God I’m getting increasingly fed up with the City. As the son of a banker, and with numerous friends employed (still) by financial institutions (Jeez, even Lady Westwood works for a hedge fund), I might be expected to sympathise with our poor capitalist compadres who continue to be the focus of such ire. But this line being trotted out about the loss of talent that will result from a 50% tax rise is too much. Fine, its not just those working in the City who will be affected, and there are arguments about how much revenue will actually be gained (or even lost) as a result of the move,  but bankers are the prime focus of such moves. And they believe it is a killer argument that we will now lose the brightest and best because of Wednesday’s budget announcement. For god’s sake, that is the best bloody argument for the rise I’ve heard yet. These were the twats who got us into the shit in the first place, and now they think we might worry that they’re all going to leave. Get a sense of self-awareness – what a bunch of see you next Tuesdays.

A Labour candidate counts her chickens…

Interesting post from Iain Dale today (guess what, it concerns one of his apparently endless media appointments with Sky News…) Its not the point about the banking bail-out that interests me, but the Labour Party candidate for Leeds West, Rachel Reeves, who seems to have rather jumped the gun in making references to “my constituency” and “my constituents”, despite the fact the seat is currently held by John Battle, the Labour MP who steps down at the next election.

Leeds West is a pretty comfy Labour seat, with Battle having taken over half the vote in 2005, and the rest of the turnout fairly evenly split among the other parties, with no one achieving more than a third of the winners 18,704. Nevertheless, with polls as they are, and Labour currently predicted to get less than 230 seats, should Miss/Mrs Reeves be showing so much confidence. More to the point, how should Mr Battle, a loyal local MP for more than 20 years, and a city councillor before that, react now that his franchise seems to have been stolen from under his nose in such an undemocratic manner!

Opening Ceremony

Having hesitated for some time, I’ve finally decided  to begin publishing my own blog.

There are several reasons for naming my blog "Ludi Plebeii", Plebeian Games, not least because I think it has a good ring to it. The classical pedigree of the name has some vague notions of the type of blog I hope it will become - a popular forum for debate, reflecting the democratic and pluralist nature of both blogging and my own approach to politics (although one shouldn't read too much into that). It should also be entertaining, high-spirited, and a little hectic; and perhaps, in an echo of what passed for entertainment in ancient Rome, a little blood will be spilled…

There is also a small personal link I hold with the Ludi Plebeii - and its not that I am in fact an ancient Roman – but perhaps that's for you to work out. As for subject matter, it will primarily focus on UK current affairs, politics and the law, but I won't be afraid to digress into other areas of day-to-day life that interest me, and possibly you. Lets see how the whole thing unfolds...

Anyway - I hope you enjoy it, and as importantly I hope I enjoy doing it.