Fraud - Differentiating by degree?

The Telegraph carry the news that:

"MPs who have used taxpayers’ money to pay for “phantom” mortgages on their expenses should be investigated by the police and prosecuted, David Cameron says in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. "

For a while now I have thought that The Telegraph's coverage of the expenses story has been indiscriminate. We need to differentiate between:
1. MPs who have committed fraud - for example by claiming mortgage repayments on a mortgage that had already been repaid
2. MPs who have pushed the boundaries of House of Commons expenses versus tax law to the limits - for example those who have built property portfolios on the back of flipping so as to avoid Capital Gains Tax
3. MPs who have submitted expense claims that seem to have been based on falsehoods - for example every month claiming up to the no receipts required limit
4. MPs who have claimed or tried to claim for ridiculous items that should not be claimed for - for example moat cleaning, £2,000+ televisions etc.
5. MPs who have worked the system and so are guilty of no more than greed
6. MPs who have made only reasonable claims

The MPs who fall into category 1 need to be investigated and charged by the police, prosecuted and tried. All should be made to resign immediately if found guilty and receive no severance pay.
The MPs who fall into category 2 need to named, shamed and if not able to be prosecuted then to have the party whip withdrawn from them.
The MPs who fall into categories 3 and 4 should be made to face reselection by their constituency party ahead of the general election.
The MPs who fall into category 5 should consider themselves fortunate to have no action taken against them.
The MPs who fall into category 6 deserve no praise, they just did what they should have done.

Now to the future for MPs who have to resign or lose their seats. If they fall into categories 1-4 then they should not be considered for elevation to the House of Lords or for paid positions on Quangos or any position in Public "Service". They should find work in the private sector and learn what the real world id all about.

FactCheck UK

Liberal Conspiracy have launched FactCheck UK with The BullShit Awards 2009. Take a trip and have a vote, you know you want to.

Barack Obama team scandal update

The great Illinois Senate seat sale seems to be getting closer to Barack Obama with the news that:

"THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.

Emanuel’s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect’s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor."

Closer and closer to Barack Obama not that you would know it from the BBC's reporting, or lack of, this story; nothing must beallowed to sully the name of the Obamamessiah.

BBC Have Your Say top recommended comments on the George Osborne story

As at 17:00 on Wednesday 22 October, these were the most recommended comments, spot the one agreeing with the BBC line of attack?

"This is a non story. No money was passed to the Conservatives therefore no rules were broken.

Irrespective of whether or not money was asked for, NONE was received.

We all know how Mandleson works. And this has his nasty stench around it.

Stuart forster, London

Recommended by 329 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:14 GMT 08:14 UK

Why? Blair didn't over the £1 million Formula One pay off. Mandleson didn't after he had to leave government twice - before being brought back to spread nonsense like this.

harry portsmouth

Recommended by 263 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:18 GMT 08:18 UK

Labour really are scraping the barrel now! For gods sake stop the tittle tattle, look in a mirror, call a General election, move aside now, whilst we still have a country left!

Darryl Milligan, Wallasey, United Kingdom

Recommended by 256 people




Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:05 GMT 08:05 UK

He's started, the prince of darkness arrives and the innuendos and accusations start. Osborne may have made an error of judgement, but any of us has been guilty of that at one time or another. But with friends like Rothschild who needs enemies. All this is over Osborne questioning why Mandelsson took a job with this incompetent rabble when only weeks before he was mouthing off about McClown.Before anyone starts ranting, up until a few weeks ago I was a labour supporter for 45 years, never again.

Maximus, Boxgrove UK

Recommended by 225 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:05 GMT 08:05 UK

Look, if the media had got hold of this story BEFORE Mr Osborne walked away – and it was the media interest that made him decline the money, then maybe it is worth a story. The fact remains that NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS. You can tell that Mandelson is back in office – the king of sleaze and spin and New Labour cover-ups.

I hope Brown faces an enquiry for his "FUNDAMENTAL MISJUDGEMENTS" of the economy over the last ten years.

Hurst Vanrooj, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Recommended by 216 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:02 GMT 08:02 UK

Muck raking by Mandleson. What exactly has Osborne done other than have a beer on a yacht whilst on holiday, something most of us would like to do. He took no money, unlike Labour with Eccleston etc. I fail to see the story in this. It's just an attempt by Labour to get their friends in the media, especially the BBC, to try and deflect some of the flak Labour should be getting at the moment with regard to their mismanagement of the economy. Come on BBC, you are supposed to be impartial.

[handsomeDrProd], England

Recommended by 212 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 08:21 GMT 09:21 UK

Well, what is becoming apparent is the impartiality of a once
great organisation the BBC.

When Cameron made a fantastic speech on the economy last week, it was news story 4 or 5 , not even a headline.

Now this hogwash is centre stage when homes are reprocessed, pensioners are on the breadline, Britain is heading for a police state, shame on the BBC, it was only a matter of time before the state took over the BBC.

Pete Lyons, Wigan

Recommended by 199 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:08 GMT 08:08 UK

No inquiry needed, what is there to inquire about? So far as I'm aware, no money ever changed hands, and this is a fuss over a deal that never was. If you want an inquiry, how about an inquiry over [swoon, socialist hero!] Gordon Brown's mishandling of our economy?

No doubt, this is part of Labour's propaganda fightback against the Tories. I expect it will be fully aided and abetted by the woefully left-wing biased BBC.

Peter, Cambridge

Recommended by 195 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 08:23 GMT 09:23 UK

As per usual the biased BBC are getting over excited about this story,and giving it blanket coverage.

kerry lester

Recommended by 188 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 08:22 GMT 09:22 UK

Why are the press not putting Mandelson under the spotlight. He is another member of government, not elected by the Electorate, put into office by a Prime Minister who will not call an Election and responsible for the current state of our country.
I am far more concerned about what Brown et al are doing apart from piling more debt on the tax payer.
It is obvious Mandelson is back with the 'Sleaze and Innuendo' brigade. Remember all the 'Whitewash' enquiries we have had uner Labour.

[regalPHOENIX]

Recommended by 174 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 08:05 GMT 09:05 UK

Is the BBC the official propaganda channel of the Labour Party?

Fussing over a petty squabble like this really stinks when you consider the way Labour are ruining the country.

Honest John, Earth

Recommended by 173 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:11 GMT 08:11 UK

Only if Tony Blair is prepared to come back and answer to the House on the Formula 1 donation and if we can finally have the truth on Cash for Honours.

Martin, Reading

Recommended by 170 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 08:08 GMT 09:08 UK

No laws were broken and the 'bombshell' letter from the main protagonist has been amended THREE times.

Instead, there is real economic bad news, it seems the BBC is doing the government's bidding in keeping it off the airwaves.

Add to the mix that one BBC journalist is potentially facing an SFO investigation for their part in insider trading that seems to spill over in their reportage.

Osborne had a bad day and credibly gave a full account.

Big deal.

Now, how about some proper news?

Mike Thomas, London, United Kingdom

Recommended by 161 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:11 GMT 08:11 UK

Does anyone really give a 'monkeys' if Osborne asked for money ?
With the state of this country at the moment, if all MP's have to concern themselves with is utter trivia like this, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
I'm no Tory fan, but for God's sake, we should be sorting out why cancer sufferers are denied medicine, why there is a virtual breakdown of law & order, why there is uncontrolled immigration, why old people can't afford to heat their homes etc etc etc
It's pathetic.

Chris, Guildford

Recommended by 151 people



Added: Wednesday, 22 October, 2008, 07:01 GMT 08:01 UK

I am stunned by the ease with which the obscenely rich egos can manipulate our media. Even the question asked here is a corruption.
I ask you "can I give you some money". You say "no". This is surely a discussion about money being gifted! Of course Osbourne cannot answer... either way he looses. The media are then conned into a ridiculous frenzy that frankly is a mega bore.
Further YOU corrupt the question into something not being doubted!! And I thought the BBC had improved of late, geez.

JR Gibson, Telford, United Kingdom

Recommended by 135 people"

The George Osborne story (update)

I have been too irritated by the BBC's coverage of Corfu-gate today to comment until now. The BBC have crossed a line over their coverage of this story; they chose to minimise their coverage of the claims about Peter Mandelson and then pushed the George Osborne story to the top of the news agenda. The reasoning is obvious and it stinks to high heaven.

Some people are taking comfort in the fact that the most popular comments made by those people commenting on the Have Your Say question about this matter "Did Mr Osborne show a lack of judgement? Should he face an inquiry? ...?", show that people are seeing through the spin, I do not. I believe that most people assume that the BBC has to be unbiased and therefore trust what the BBC reports, those who comment are a very small percentage of BBC viewers.

The Conservative Party have to accept that Gordon Brown's calling for bipartisan policy making is a sham, he has no interest in being bi-partisan just in reducing opposition and trying to tie the opposition into his new policies. With Peter Mandelson and Derek Draper back in harness the attacks on the Conservative Party both overt and covert will increase in number and ferocity and will be backed up by a willingly compliant BBC.

The Conservative party have a choice; either carry on as they are and hope that the general public see through the drip, drip, drip of the attacks on the probity and competence of the Conservative Party and its leaders or go on the attack. And when I say attack I mean attacking hard Gordon Brown's appalling record of ruining this country's economy, attacking over and over again the sleaze that has been at the heart of this Labour government almost from day one and attacking the BBC for its bias. The Conservative leadership have to understand that the BBC hate the Tories almost as much as Gordon Brown does and that the BBC will work almost as hard to destroy them as Gordon's chums will. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson are planning a three month or so campaign of mud-throwing to be followed by a snap General Election if the polls look to be moving in their favour.

The decontamination of the Conservative brand was acceptable to the BBC because it meant that the Conservative party accepted the BBC line that the brand was contaminated. It also meant that David Cameron had to appear soft and liberal and cuddly to please the BBC's agenda. Unfortunately the time for Conservative cuddliness has passed, David Cameron, George Osborne, William Hague etc. must show some steeliness and willingness to get their fists dirty and slug this one out. David Davis must be made Party Chairman and let loose on the Labour record.

The news agenda is once again being set by the Labour party and the BBC, the Conservative party must retake control of this agenda.

The Labour party and the BBC are not unbeatable but to beat them the fight must start in earnest and it must start this week.

The BBC and the George Osborne story

I can't remember the last time I have heard the BBC sound so cheery about a news story. At last they have a good old fashioned Tory sleaze story to run with and they are going to squeeze every last drop out of it. Odd how they pay so much attention to this story and that of Caroline Spelman but so little to the original Peter Mandelson story, Peter Hain, Keith Vaz or the Tony Blair/Bernie Ecclestone revelations.

So PMQs tomorrow should be interesting, Gordon Brown will have his devastating sixth "answer" prepared and ready to unleash whatever the question, maybe David Cameron should ask his first five questions and forego the sixth, that would confuse Gordon Brown...

Meanwhile recalling Peter Mandelson to his Cabinet looks to have been a rare Gordon Brown master-stroke; the "Prince of Darkness" has taken just a week to work his magic. From now on, aided and abetted by the BBC, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson will try and change "the narrative" to their advantage and see if the political landscape can be changed enough to make the conditions favourable enough to call a snap Spring 2009 general election.

A scorched earth policy

Last November I first blogged that

"This government and its advisers are rapidly losing the plot, maybe they realise that their time in power is coming to an end and they are now pursuing a scorched earth policy."

In July I blogged about Fraser Nelson's article that included these passages:

"The Scorched Earth policy has begun... In the vernacular, Brown has realised that if the Tories win the next election the he is now spending with Cameron’s Gold Card – every by-election bribe, every union sellout will be funded by borrowing with the bill sent to D. Cameron Esq. Cameron will have to tax us to pay for what Brown is today spending.

...

My take is that Brown doesn’t care, not any more. Like a retreating army, he doesn’t want the advancing Cameroons to have any advantage at all.

...

Brown, however, is on a mission to raise state spending - and, right now, it looks likely to be a Tory government that pays tomorrow for the money he borrows today. It is impossible to understand Gordon Brown without understanding his approach to debt. It is his weapon of choice, and if he loses the next election he can right now start turning that weapon on the Tories. So he will have to feast on humble pie, and his own words, as he tears up his rules and lets debt soar above 40%. Yes, he may lose the election. But he has realised one upside to this inevitability: he can start spending David Cameron's budget now."

Today I read that the Conservative front bench are now pushing this message:

"Gordon Brown plans to leave any future Tory government a financial "scorched earth" by borrowing too much, shadow business secretary Alan Duncan says.

He told the BBC News Channel's Straight Talk that the prime minister wanted to "scupper" his party by leaving "a legacy afterwards which is difficult"."

This message needs pushing, it is the dagger to the heart of Gordon Brown and the failed New Labour project. The Labour party pushed the "Tory sleaze" line at every opportunity in the years running up to the 1997 general election and the Conservatives must do the same from now until 2010. Of course Labour were aided and abetted by the BBC in the run up to the 1997 election, whilst in the run up to the next election by way of contrast Labour will be aided and abetted by the BBC...

Guess the party (part xx)

KVOA news report that:

"TUCSON, AZ - The son of a U.S. Congressman from was arrested in Willcox Sunday, charged with human smuggling. According to court documents John F. Boyd son of Florida Congressman Allen Boyd, attempted to drive through a Border Patrol checkpoint in Willcox on Sunday with five illegal immigrants, including a 6-year-old girl.

In a statement sent Tuesday, Congressman Allen Boyd said, "On September 14, 2008, my 30-year-old son, John Boyd, was arrested in Arizona, and at a preliminary hearing yesterday, he was charged with alien smuggling."

"This is a family matter that my family and I will be dealing with privately. John is a grown man and must face the consequences for his actions, but he has the love and support of his family," says the elder Boyd.

A criminal complaint states, "At the primary inspection area, a Border Patrol K-9 alerted to the possible presence of illegal aliens in the bed of the truck. A primary inspection agent approached the truck and saw an individual hiding under a piece of plywood in the bed of the truck."

According to court documents the illegal immigrants said they were to pay Boyd $3,000 each to be smuggled into the United States and transported to their final destination.

Court documents also state that the vehicle contained, "two plastic bags that contained several rocks of crystal methamphetamine, four unopened syringes, a spoon with white residue and burn marks on the bottom, and three knives. A further search of the vehicle revealed a Beretta 22LR pistol loaded with eight rounds of ammunition and a spare magazine loaded with eight rounds of ammunition in a suitcase in the bed of the truck."

Boyd is expected in federal court on Wednesday."

Hmm no party affiliation is mentioned, I guess that means that he is a Democrat. Yes, this is yet another example of the media hiding the party affiliations of a Democratic politician, where they would not be so coy if it had been a Republican. It is the same in the UK with Conservative politicians having their party mentioned as early and as often as possible, whilst Labour politicians appear party-less.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Barack Obama

Here is a story that you won't here on the BBC or the American news networks.

"Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them... Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem."

Now take a read of this about Franklin Raines, Barack Obama's campaign manager but previously a Fannie Mae executive. If true, this story is dynamite but it won't receive any attention from the mainstream media who just love Barack Obama.


You might also care to take a read of this similar report that:

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie's PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs."

The names of the top four recipients of Campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie over the last 10 years is also interesting - Christopher J Dodd, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.


Of course the other story is why Freddie and Fannie lent such large sums to such poor credit risks. I am sure you can guess the story but I will fill in the gaps soon.

BBC attack dogs unleashed again

The BBC are "reporting" that:

"Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has dismissed a story that he broke his own party's rules by accepting up to £10,000 for speaking at a conference.

He told the BBC he had publicly declared the money seven months ago and was surprised to see it making news."

As usual this is a "Tory sleaze" story and so gets prominence, unlike any story concerning allegations against a Labour MP.

Labour sleaze and therefore not to be found on the BBC

The Mail report that:

"A Labour MP used almost £500,000 of taxpayers' money over six years to help run an office from his home which was staffed by his wife.

David Marshall, 67, who has quit to spark the Glasgow East by-election on July 24, used the expenses to pay for a constituency office and staff.

But Mr Marshall's office was in his semi-detached Glasgow home and he employed his wife Tina as his secretary. It is also believed he paid his daughter Christina to work from his home from the same pool of money.

A Commons spokesman said MPs can use their home as an office but only claim for additional costs like 'extra phone lines, heating and lighting'."

Strangely whilst the Mail reports that

"Mr Marshall is said to be suffering clinical depression. Party sources said he felt 'under pressure' over the expenses allegations."

the BBC simply report that

"Mr Marshall, 67, announced his decision to step down after almost 30 years in the House of Commons on grounds of ill health."

Why the coyness by the BBC, they seem very concerned to minimise any stories relating to sleaze and the Labour party, not something that they follow in relation to "sleaze and the Tories".

BBC and Tory sleaze

The BBC are obsessed with sleaze, so long as it is Tory sleaze, any excuse and off they go. The Caroline Spelman story is the lead on Newsnight again, that's the 10 year old story. Other headline Tory sleaze stories recently have been: Derek Conway and his son, Giles Chichester and the Wintertons. Meanwhile try and spot stories about the far more serious allegations against Ed "Gordon's Brain" Balls and Yvette Cooper, Wendy Alexander or Peter Hain (a much underplayed story). These stories about Labour politicians are always underplayed almost to the point of invisibility, whilst the TORY SLEAZE stories are headline news.

The BBC's pro-Labour bias is so blatant that it is little more than a Gordon Brown propaganda conduit.

The Caroline Spelman case

Even the BBC have had to finally move the Caroline Spelman "scandal" off of the News front page and indeed down to just a sidebar piece on the politics home page. Meanwhile I can find no recent stories on the BBC about the somewhat stronger and certainly allegations of more recent financial impropriety made against Ken Livingstone.

Why would the BBC prefer to major on alleged Tory sleaze from one year around ten years ago rather than Labour sleaze over more than five years during the last eight years?

Michael Crick has raised 32 questions about the Caroline Spelman case on his Newsnight blog, the comments show that most people are not fooled by this distraction device. Here are a few extracts:

"What about the questions that Michael Crick should answer?

Should he really have broken an 11 year old story with such little evidence, which looks to be based on very unfair misleading questioning of the nanny?"


"Were this a current affair I would support such questioning. However this is way way too old to care about now. From reports she and her party behaved reasonably to find and correct something that 'looked' wrong.


Given the fast movement over this issue in the last year or so, the possible shredding of expense documentation, NOW, this is a complete non story and only appears to be gross anti Conservative in house bias from the BBC.


I equally have no interest in 10 year old expense irregularities from times with different atmospheres on the issue from any party. Find a scandal of Harold Wilson's expenses, just bin it no one cares now.

Oh and MEPs, we all know the EU is corrupt, that is what we expect! They can not even sign off their accounts!

This all 'looks' like a plan devised after the crushing of Labour in the local elections by the BBC to shore up their soul mates."


"Another question for Mr Crick:

Why did you miss the Labour MPs paying their insurance premiums from their allowances and dig this old news up?


You have clearly nailed your political colours to the mast Mr Crick, and seriously damaged your credability."


"Ah the Salem Witch trials continue with Michael Crick as the Witchfinder General.

Shame he does not apply his diligent approach to Beckett, Blair, Brown, Harman etc.

Need I say more?

Clearly the TV Licence is being wasted once again. Time to franchise out the BBC Current Affairs Dept!"


"The great Michael Crick (pbuh) brings the searchlight of truth onto a 10 year old story

Given that there are 650-odd current MPs to investigate plus MEPs and MSPs why are you spending so much time on Ms Spelman?

Perhaps you might like to consider investigating the entire Kinnock family?

Where did the tip-off come from, eh?"


"So what questions are to be put to ed balls and yevette cooper - about their remote holdiay home suddenly becoming their 'main residence'.

They live in london and that is where their kids go to school. So why is their london house now consdered their 'second home' so being paid for by the taxpayer?

What about the massive mortgage x,00% the blairs used to launch their property empire?

Is there anyone at the BBC who has any independance?"

The BBC are in full attacking the Tories mode in a, hopefully, vain attempt to stop the Labour vote dropping any further. Quite how this is in any way the proper function of the UK's independent by charter national broadcaster I am not sure.

Unbelievable - Sadly not

The Times reports the unsurprising news that:

"THE House of Commons has shredded more than 1m documents detailing expenses claims by MPs that were due to be revealed to the public.

The Commons authorities said last week they had destroyed all documents for MPs up to April 2004, even though official guidelines state that such records should be kept for six years.

Martin Bell, who was elected as an independent MP on an antisleaze platform in 1997, said: “I think it is likely that some racketeering by some MPs has been so outrageous that, if it was revealed, they would be under pressure to resign.”"

I wonder how many of the shredded documents relate to senior Labour MPs? Why have I heard nothing on the BBC about this story, just more and more about TORY SLEAZE Carolind Spelman.

The return of Tory Sleaze?

The BBC have been playing the Tory sleaze card very strongly over the last week and tonight's Newsnight is really on the attack against Caroline Spelman for allegedly paying an aupair, 10 years ago, from her House of Commons expenses. This is being treated as as the most serious matter by a BBC desperate to throw as much dirt as possible at the sleazy Tories and so help the beleaguered Gordon Brown.

Oddly the BBC seem less exercised by the news in The Mailthat Tony Blair may have had a 300% mortgage on his constituency home, Myrobella and then borrowed even more:

"In fact, at virtually no cost to themselves, the couple has made a paper profit of at least £210,000 on the property (its estimated value of £300,000 today, less the £90,000 loan they took out) - all thanks to loans of up to £200,000 from the public purse.

It must be stressed that there is nothing illegal in this, but for a couple who were earning in the region of £300,000 a year - from the prime ministerial salary and Cherie's QC work and lectures - it is hard not to conclude that the Blairs have reaped a rich harvest from the MPs' mortgage payments expenses system."

Tory sleaze is of interest to the BBC, Labour sleaze shhhhhh

Guido's sleaze update

Guido's sleaze update

"ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage"

I am a monarchist not a republican but Oliver Cromwell's Speech on the Dissolution of the Long Parliament Given to the House of Commons seems pertinent now to both the current House of Commons and their putative masters in the EU.


"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored 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 gone!

So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"




Thanks to The Appalling Strangeness and Devils Kitchen for this thought and link.

Quiz answer to: Why are these people officially better than the rest of us?

I asked yesterday what these people had in common and why they were better than us:
Mr Frank Doran, Aberdeen North, Labour
Janet Anderson, Rossendale & Darwen, Labour
Rt Hon Mr Nicholas Brown, Newcastle upon TyneEast and Wallsend, Labour
Mr Simon Burns, West Chelmsford, Conservative
Mr Christopher Chope, Christchurch, Conservative
Derek Conway, Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative
Rt Hon Frank Dobson, Holborn & St Pancras, Labour
Mr Brian H Donohoe, Central Ayrshire, Labour
Mr Neil Gerrard, Walthamstow, Labour
Helen Jones, Warrington North, Labour
Mr Kevan Jones, North Durham, Labour
Rt Hon Greg Knight, East Yorkshire, Conservative
David Lepper, Brighton, Pavilion, Labour
Mr John Randall, Uxbridge, Conservative
John Thurso, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Liberal Democrats
Pete Wishart, Perth and North Perthshire, Scottish National

These are the MPs on the Administration Committee that decided recently that they were so superior and so much more important than the non-elected MPs that work in the Houses of Parliament that they needed to issue this memo to everyone who works in their hallowed place of work.


"Access to Services

Before the recess the Speaker approved the Administration Committee’s recommendation that Members should have priority access to services throughout the Commons part of the Parliamentary Estate.

With effect from today, staff and other users should be prepared to give way to Members when queuing for retail and catering services, the post office, travel office or when using other facilities such as lifts, photocopiers, telephone cubicles, etc.

When using parliamentary facilities, please bear in mind whether there is, or is likely to be, a heavy demand from Members and, if so, try to amend your own plans or schedule.

Peter Grant Peterkin
Serjeant at Arms

Sue Harrison
Director of Catering Services"


Public servants? Representatives of the people?

This Labour government is so anti-democratic and full of self importance. Do you remember Tony Blair's convoy using the M4 bus lane soon after it opened, far too important to wait in traffic with the voters. When the Olympics are on it has already been decided that certain lanes on London's main roads will be for Olympic related business only, anyone want to bet that this will include all MPs? Pretty soon after that we will have lanes reserved for politicians and party workers and then Gordon Brown and his apparatchiks will be able to drive around in their nice new Zills just like he always dreamed.

Quiz question: Why are these people officially better than the rest of us?

Mr Frank Doran, Aberdeen North, Labour
Janet Anderson, Rossendale & Darwen, Labour
Rt Hon Mr Nicholas Brown, Newcastle upon TyneEast and Wallsend, Labour
Mr Simon Burns, West Chelmsford, Conservative
Mr Christopher Chope, Christchurch, Conservative
Derek Conway, Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative
Rt Hon Frank Dobson, Holborn & St Pancras, Labour
Mr Brian H Donohoe, Central Ayrshire, Labour
Mr Neil Gerrard, Walthamstow, Labour
Helen Jones, Warrington North, Labour
Mr Kevan Jones, North Durham, Labour
Rt Hon Greg Knight, East Yorkshire, Conservative
David Lepper, Brighton, Pavilion, Labour
Mr John Randall, Uxbridge, Conservative
John Thurso, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Liberal Democrats
Pete Wishart, Perth and North Perthshire, Scottish National

UK electoral system inherent bias

The Labour party is excessively favoured by the electoral system and here are some figures to explain this - In the 2005 election across the whole UK Labour received 36.2% of the vote but 56.5% of the seats, by way of comparison the Conservatives received 33.2% of the vote and 31.5% of the seats, the Lib Dems figures were 22.7% and 9.9%. In English seats the Conservatives won 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour's 35.5, yet Labour won 286 seats to the Conservatives 194. Fair? Labour's majority in the 2005 election on a reduced vote (compared with 2001) was achieved despite receiving the lowest share of the vote for a "winning" party since 1832. Fair?

Take a look at this, this and this.