Expenses: Have We Just Been Played?

[MSWHPC]

True.

People often look back and ask how Germany "turned evil" during the 1930's. However, it was the result of an electorate disillusioned with mainstream politics, amid huge economic turmoil.

We are in the same place now. There's never been a greater risk of the public electing an extremist party such as the BNP. It will creep up on us, until in 10 years time we could be surprised how we got to the point of sending Muslims to the gas chambers.

This is why I am astonished at the lack of action by the main parties. Perhaps they underestimate the support for the minority parties. It is very complacent.

Prosecutions of the fraudsters and a fresh start is surely preferable to risking extremism.

[Mr Nice]

if the peerage is your safeguard against people of means perpetrating abuses against you, then you are in pretty bad shape.

it really depends what the outcome is of the scandal.

I don't personally think that it will directly lead to reductions by itself, but if they do reduce the number of mp's, that would make your individual vote carry less weight.

[50%deposit]

Watching the news of todays events, something rather chilling has just occurred to me.

Various commentators are now taking a position that part of the solution to these problems is to reduce the number of MPs (to reduce the overall bill), to reform constituency boundaries, or even undertaking some more fundamental reforms of the way in which the MP's represent the electorate.

Now, it is possible that over the years HPC made me a little prone to "tin-foil-hat-ism", but my question is, are we in the early stages of being conditioned to demand drastic reforms that [further] remove even more of our democratic system.

Already, we have lost the traditional hereditary system of the House of Lords (replaced by a system of favours and cronyism); we have lost various rights to trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty; and a whole raft of liberties under the vague excuse of "terrorism". The latter of these examples, the public were conditioned to actually DEMAND the loss of their freedoms and liberties as protection from the "terrorists".

Is the expenses scandal the same? Are we now being set-up, and conditioned to lose faith in the current system of parliament (many people are already demanding parliament is dissolved then reformed), to be replaced with something less democratic and less representative. For example, surely reducing the number of MPs means less local representation, less diversity, less access for the electorate to their own MPs. Surely this undermines democracy, not reinforces it? How far will this go? Are we now being set-up to demand the destruction (at least partially) of our own democratic system?

Or am I just being paranoid?

yes, we have been stitched up.

micheal martin was awesome at or or or ordering, no doubt he'll be replaced by a rubbishy woman with smelly overies.

it should have been brown.

this is evil govt as it is, maintaining power, doing what it wants, blinding us from truth and having awsners for everything even though they are lies.

they have done it again, they have fecked us up the ass and were justing sitting here talking about it. ooooh, at least they used a rubber. dna

[bimyo]

Oh that really is priceless - a wholly hereditary house means that the people in it are only there by chance, a completely genetically random chance, based on who their parents are. A lottery would be by chance...

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/athenianoption

[winkie]

Look if the truth be known, there are many people that don't care, aren't interested, don't vote, don't know the name of their MP and who wouldn't know what a speaker was if it hit them in the face.....If they did vote they would vote for what their father did or the colour of their favorite football team.

That's life you can't change it, unless you can find and hit the vulnerable spot.

[Mr Nice]

Look if the truth be known, there are many people that don't care, aren't interested, don't vote, don't know the name of their MP and who wouldn't know what a speaker was if it hit them in the face.....If they did vote they would vote for what their father did or the colour of their favorite football team.

That's life you can't change it, unless you can find and hit the vulnerable spot.

for the people that actually do care to vote, it isn't a bad thing that so many people are apathetic, it gives a lot more weight to the votes they cast.

all the big brother watchers not voting is darwinism at it's best.

[evilmonkey]

We have been played for years. Regarding the expenses issue, it isn't just one or two rogue MPs who are at it - its pretty much all of them. Everyone who makes decisions about the crucial aspects of our lives are on the take, and they don't even respect us enough to be sneaky about it. Moat/tennis court repairs, anyone?

What bothers me most about the expenses scandal is the extent to which the people in charge of our economy have huge vested interests in maintaining HPI for the benefit of their subsidised prime location London properties. Why would MP's vote for more stringent financial regulation when they stood to benefit greatly by an overheating property market.. Not meaning to imply we are governed by a bunch of crooks, but lets face it - we are.

[winkie]

We have been played for years. Regarding the expenses issue, it isn't just one or two rogue MPs who are at it - its pretty much all of them. Everyone who makes decisions about the crucial aspects of our lives are on the take, and they don't even respect us enough to be sneaky about it. Moat/tennis court repairs, anyone?

What bothers me most about the expenses scandal is the extent to which the people in charge of our economy have huge vested interests in maintaining HPI for the benefit of their subsidised prime location London properties. Why would MP's vote for more stringent financial regulation when they stood to benefit greatly by an overheating property market.. Not meaning to imply we are governed by a bunch of crooks, but lets face it - we are.

We all have our vested interests and the people in power have the greatest power to bend their interests to what would advantage them the most..do many of them care about us and our troubles? Recent history has proved all that many of them are only interested in is themselves and what they can make out of it....the sad part about it we could all benefit from it if only they could take a little less and give a little more....win win.

[brassed off brit]

Don't give in to the fearmongering! the powers that be want you to think that they are the only answer and that voting them out would lead to hitler MII.

they atre trying to limit the damage by saying" we are the best of a bad bunch".

there is a better way, just have faith and go for it, the sooner the big parties are destroyed the sooner we will have real democracy.

[grumpy-old-man-returns]

you mean like that secret session US Congress had last year?

clicky

[grumpy-old-man-returns]

Watching the news of todays events, something rather chilling has just occurred to me.

Various commentators are now taking a position that part of the solution to these problems is to reduce the number of MPs (to reduce the overall bill), to reform constituency boundaries, or even undertaking some more fundamental reforms of the way in which the MP's represent the electorate.

Now, it is possible that over the years HPC made me a little prone to "tin-foil-hat-ism", but my question is, are we in the early stages of being conditioned to demand drastic reforms that [further] remove even more of our democratic system.

Already, we have lost the traditional hereditary system of the House of Lords (replaced by a system of favours and cronyism); we have lost various rights to trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty; and a whole raft of liberties under the vague excuse of "terrorism". The latter of these examples, the public were conditioned to actually DEMAND the loss of their freedoms and liberties as protection from the "terrorists".

Is the expenses scandal the same? Are we now being set-up, and conditioned to lose faith in the current system of parliament (many people are already demanding parliament is dissolved then reformed), to be replaced with something less democratic and less representative. For example, surely reducing the number of MPs means less local representation, less diversity, less access for the electorate to their own MPs. Surely this undermines democracy, not reinforces it? How far will this go? Are we now being set-up to demand the destruction (at least partially) of our own democratic system?

Or am I just being paranoid?

NO.

[Minos]

Watching the news of todays events, something rather chilling has just occurred to me.

Various commentators are now taking a position that part of the solution to these problems is to reduce the number of MPs (to reduce the overall bill), to reform constituency boundaries, or even undertaking some more fundamental reforms of the way in which the MP's represent the electorate.

Now, it is possible that over the years HPC made me a little prone to "tin-foil-hat-ism", but my question is, are we in the early stages of being conditioned to demand drastic reforms that [further] remove even more of our democratic system.

Already, we have lost the traditional hereditary system of the House of Lords (replaced by a system of favours and cronyism); we have lost various rights to trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty; and a whole raft of liberties under the vague excuse of "terrorism". The latter of these examples, the public were conditioned to actually DEMAND the loss of their freedoms and liberties as protection from the "terrorists".

Is the expenses scandal the same? Are we now being set-up, and conditioned to lose faith in the current system of parliament (many people are already demanding parliament is dissolved then reformed), to be replaced with something less democratic and less representative. For example, surely reducing the number of MPs means less local representation, less diversity, less access for the electorate to their own MPs. Surely this undermines democracy, not reinforces it? How far will this go? Are we now being set-up to demand the destruction (at least partially) of our own democratic system?

Or am I just being paranoid?

You're funny.

I've read quite a bit about this democracy thing and I have to say I'm no fan of it, but it's worth a try. It's probably better than what we have now.

[GordonBrownSpentMyFuture]

I'd happily march down to the voting station every week (although I'd rather do it online) to vote on decisions rather than have someone else make those decisions on my behalf. That would be a real democracy.

Take the Iraq war (#2), for example. The public display of protest did absolutely nothing to influence decision making. Had the people been allowed to vote themselves in a referendum I imagine the outcome would've been quite different.

Of course, I realise this wouldn't really work in practise. The novelty would soon wear off for many voters and to make informed decisions you need access to certain information, which many would not bother to read or understand, not to mention the security implications of disseminating that information, but there has to be a better system than the one we currently have and I don't think the current bunch of self-interested crooks are up to the job of reforming themselves.

[bagsos]

Dunno if you're paranoid, but the alarming erosion of civil liberties disturbs me greatly. Parliament Square was a no-go area on monday night (my taxi had to take a very expensive diversion as a result) to avoid anyone seeing the treatment of the tamils.........tells you all you need to know really

[Bardon]

Or am I just being paranoid?

Bring back Cromwell

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do. I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!

Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

[Johnny Storm]

for the people that actually do care to vote, it isn't a bad thing that so many people are apathetic, it gives a lot more weight to the votes they cast.

all the big brother watchers not voting is darwinism at it's best.

Something interesting i learnt a few weeks back, it is compulsary to vote in Australia. What a great idea!

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

clicky

ta.

I was just gonna ask if someone had that C-SPAN link

[Minos]

Bring back Cromwell

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do. I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!

Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

That's a lot of words. I only like one liners. I'll have a look at it after I've caught up on last night's Eastenders.

[Minos]

Something interesting i learnt a few weeks back, it is compulsary to vote in Australia. What a great idea!

Yes, a great idea that only tax payers should be able to vote.

Edited to say what Johnny said (which is what I meant).

Edited May 20, 2009 by Minos

[GordonBrownSpentMyFuture]

I also think that fewer MPs representing the people of the nation will cause problems down the road. Whether this is their intention now? Well, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they try to use this to their advantage.

If necessary, increase their salary a bit (only a bit!) and, of course, clamp down on their expenses but I'm sick of hearing the argument that so and so MP could be earning whatever figure in industry so are entitled to a remuneration of £XXX,000.

If they want to earn an industry salary then go and work in industry. Naive I know, but politics and governance should be about wanting to do the job of representing the people.

I'm sure there are many respectable Britons who'd be happy to represent their constituency on a 5 figure salary and be quite prepared to feed their own family and pay off their own mortgage, with that salary, while they did it.

[Johnny Storm]

Yes, a great idea that only tax payers should be made to vote.

You mean able to as well as made? Id agree with that.

[General Melchett]

True.

People often look back and ask how Germany "turned evil" during the 1930's. However, it was the result of an electorate disillusioned with mainstream politics, amid huge economic turmoil.

We are in the same place now. There's never been a greater risk of the public electing an extremist party such as the BNP. It will creep up on us, until in 10 years time we could be surprised how we got to the point of sending Muslims to the gas chambers.

Excellent post. This, to me, is one of the key dangers we must be on guard against. And it could come about through so many routes, not just BNP: A continuation of the current direction of Liebour for another 10 years could easily get us there.

[Timm]

I strongly disagree. We need a combination of an elected house (Commons) and a hereditary house (Lords). The unelected house acts as important counter-balance to the elected bit. Elected positions attract people with either the MEANS (financial) and or DESIRE for power and office (both quite dangerous things). Anyone with these means, with the right network and campaigning can get elected to office, or elected on behalf of those who have the means to put them there.

However, a wholely heriditary house means that the people in it are only there by chance, a completely genetically random chance, based on who their parents are. They are not people who had desire to hold that office, but were just born into their title. This means that no amount of money or power can buy you (or someone on your behalf) a heridary peerage. This acts as a safeguard to ensure that persons with suitable means cannot gain control of both houses. Or at least didn't used to be able. The recent reforms to the lords means that you can effectively buy a peerage, meaning that people with sufficient means can gain influence in both the upper and lower houses. The safeguard that had been in place for hundreds of years is now gone, and so the system is now open to massive abuse.

Excelent post.

Problem is, they were a massive VI.

Though I agree appointees are worse.

This of course is all true.

Yes, the VI issue is a problem.

The safest system would probably be to have two Houses, one consisting of elected representatives, and one consisting of members appointed through an entirely random lottery of the whole population (a bit like jury duty), rotated every few years.

I like the idea of a lottery, but would prefer to see longer appointments so that the representatives could be trained and gain experience. A life appointment? Perhaps.

[Justice]

well if this so called new independant watch dog is anything like the IPCC then it's all a waste of time and just adds another level of bueroacracy to the system.

Who will be employed to fill the new posts ? a$$ licking boys that are already in the system not people like you and me.

it's one big white wash if you ask me and tell camron i'm voting BNP and not for the con's if an early election is called as they have been on the take just as much as zen-labour

Edited May 20, 2009 by Justice

[Timm]

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/athenianoption

Thank you. This is worth a skim too:

http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/Citleg%20Introduction.pdf