MPs' expenses are in the news again, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9619022/Expenses-scandal-27-MPs-let-one-home-and-claim-for-another.html
They have done nothing wrong so I don't blame the 27 MPs but I do blame a system that allows them to gain another income from their position in Westminster. We want our MPs to be paid appropriately for their important role. The trouble is that we have gone through one scandal in which MPs could rent a DVD or get their moat cleaned and bill the tax payer. More importantly the same scandal allowed MPs to have a second home a few miles from their first home and not pay for it. There is a long list of abuse and some MPs were found to have acted illegally. What the public wanted is a system that is transparent and fair and that is what we still want.
MPs don't need to be given a second home across the road from the Houses of Parliament. They do need accommodation nearby but that's not the same thing. So an MP with the bonus of an expensive home in Westminster is still seen as wrong and that's why the Telegraph's story will gather support from across the nation. There have been important improvements in how MPs can claim expenses and if this means that some can't afford a really expensive flat then there is a really simple answer - move house.
Change the world
Friday, 19 October 2012
Sunday, 14 October 2012
What does this robust mean?
The last time I wrote about a 'robust' system it related to Justine
Greening describing the selection process for the West Coast main line.
She was obviously wrong in using this word but I haven't heard any
apologies yet. Apart from the obvious error that the system was far from
robust, her use of this word must now mean we need to take a pinch of
salt whenever we hear it. Another Tory offered a possible defence for
Justine in that ministers don't look at any details and rely on their
advisers. My point was that a minister still remains responsible
regardless of how much advice they receive.
Today I heard that the Defence Secretary, Phillip Hammond had used the word robust. So did he mean to say frail? The Sunday Times had filmed some retired military officers who were able to lobby on behalf of defence companies and so influence ministers. What did these officers do wrong? It is fairly certain that ministers can't make decisions for themselves and need help from experts.
The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19940473 reported that 'The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was investigating whether it was possible for anyone to secure "privileged access" and whether any rules had been broken'. You don't need an investigation as I can tell you what one former Secretary of State for Transport (Justine) would say. Ministers need help from others and this may be termed privilege as many companies, and individuals for that matter, would like to bend back their lug holes. These retired officers fit the bill as advisers except for one detail. They retired less than two years ago and rules state that retired officers have to be out of touch before they can offer advice.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told Andrew Marr "There is no way that retired officers influence the way military equipment is procured. I'm satisfied that the system we have is completely robust". Well why is it only possible to get help from officers who have retired for at least two years? Does robust mean frail or does it mean out of touch.
Change the world
Today I heard that the Defence Secretary, Phillip Hammond had used the word robust. So did he mean to say frail? The Sunday Times had filmed some retired military officers who were able to lobby on behalf of defence companies and so influence ministers. What did these officers do wrong? It is fairly certain that ministers can't make decisions for themselves and need help from experts.
The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19940473 reported that 'The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was investigating whether it was possible for anyone to secure "privileged access" and whether any rules had been broken'. You don't need an investigation as I can tell you what one former Secretary of State for Transport (Justine) would say. Ministers need help from others and this may be termed privilege as many companies, and individuals for that matter, would like to bend back their lug holes. These retired officers fit the bill as advisers except for one detail. They retired less than two years ago and rules state that retired officers have to be out of touch before they can offer advice.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told Andrew Marr "There is no way that retired officers influence the way military equipment is procured. I'm satisfied that the system we have is completely robust". Well why is it only possible to get help from officers who have retired for at least two years? Does robust mean frail or does it mean out of touch.
Change the world
Thursday, 11 October 2012
More for support than illumination
David Cameron went to a posh school and wants everyone to go to a similar school. Yesterday the theme of his speech may have been aspiration and there is nothing wrong with that, but does he really expect anyone to believe that all schools will become like Eton. I can't believe it, I don't think most people would believe it, in fact I don't even think David's audience believed him. The local comprehensive does not have Eton's facilities and never will. I suppose David is right and aspiration is always possible but when does this simply become not the politics of greed but the politics of envy.
David's adoring crowd liked the idea of the aspiration nation, it sounds so much better than a divided nation but you do need division in order to promote aspiration. If you cut benefits then you have to admit that benefits are not being used appropriately. If you explain why benefits should be cut and give specific examples of how overpayment is being made then that's fine. If you just want to hurt those on benefits then don't explain yourself, just announce it to a Tory conference.
I was also moved by David's emphasis on getting rid of red tape. One business had plans to build in Liverpool but planning took so long that the company went abroad. Wouldn't it be nice to know the detail as it sounds like we won't get any further investment in this country. Could it be that the company wanted to carry out an unsafe practice which is legal in other countries? In this case we should be looking at criticisms of those countries. I don't know because David didn't tell us.
Whether it is welfare savings, school reform or simply a nice anecdote, this speech was similar to a drunken man using a lamppost, more for support than illumination.
Change the world
David's adoring crowd liked the idea of the aspiration nation, it sounds so much better than a divided nation but you do need division in order to promote aspiration. If you cut benefits then you have to admit that benefits are not being used appropriately. If you explain why benefits should be cut and give specific examples of how overpayment is being made then that's fine. If you just want to hurt those on benefits then don't explain yourself, just announce it to a Tory conference.
I was also moved by David's emphasis on getting rid of red tape. One business had plans to build in Liverpool but planning took so long that the company went abroad. Wouldn't it be nice to know the detail as it sounds like we won't get any further investment in this country. Could it be that the company wanted to carry out an unsafe practice which is legal in other countries? In this case we should be looking at criticisms of those countries. I don't know because David didn't tell us.
Whether it is welfare savings, school reform or simply a nice anecdote, this speech was similar to a drunken man using a lamppost, more for support than illumination.
Change the world
Low Police Morale
Morale can't be too high in the police service and raising morale
must be a priority for those who are standing for election as Police
and Crime Commissioners. The police are facing significant cuts despite
the major party in the coalition being the 'party of law and order' and add to that at least one member of that party who thinks the police are plebs. It
also doesn't help morale when officers are murdered. Add to that the
Hillsborough effect. The errors of judgement by some senior officers
followed by an extensive cover-up must have tarnished the reputation of
all officers.
Then yesterday evening there was an article on the news about an officer from Greater Manchester who used excessive force on a teenager http://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2012-10-09/pc-in-court-after-misconduct/ This officer was given a suspended sentence and had resigned the previous day. However the CCTV that we saw did not look that bad. If there was CCTV footage of a fight in the street or a heavy tackle in a rugby match then the force used in this case was much less. I have been to one open day at a police training centre and the arm behind the back was a basic technique.
This particular youngster repeatedly ignored instructions to empty his pockets. He 'may have posed no threat to anyone' but he wasn't doing what he was told. Even his mother said he was no angel, so when I heard the words 'an exercise in deliberate degradation and humiliation' I thought it referred to how the officers must have felt when their repeated requests were being ignored. What is the appropriate technique for getting anyone to empty their pockets? The GMP say that the officer's actions were totally unacceptable but no mention was made as to what was acceptable.
The officer was described in court as a broken man. No wonder. The problem I have is that I have come across many people who have given anecdotal evidence of excessive force used by the police. There will be many officers, perhaps all serving officers, who are now concerned about there previous use of force. They must be wondering how they are to deal in the future with those who do not cooperate.
Change the world
Then yesterday evening there was an article on the news about an officer from Greater Manchester who used excessive force on a teenager http://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2012-10-09/pc-in-court-after-misconduct/ This officer was given a suspended sentence and had resigned the previous day. However the CCTV that we saw did not look that bad. If there was CCTV footage of a fight in the street or a heavy tackle in a rugby match then the force used in this case was much less. I have been to one open day at a police training centre and the arm behind the back was a basic technique.
This particular youngster repeatedly ignored instructions to empty his pockets. He 'may have posed no threat to anyone' but he wasn't doing what he was told. Even his mother said he was no angel, so when I heard the words 'an exercise in deliberate degradation and humiliation' I thought it referred to how the officers must have felt when their repeated requests were being ignored. What is the appropriate technique for getting anyone to empty their pockets? The GMP say that the officer's actions were totally unacceptable but no mention was made as to what was acceptable.
The officer was described in court as a broken man. No wonder. The problem I have is that I have come across many people who have given anecdotal evidence of excessive force used by the police. There will be many officers, perhaps all serving officers, who are now concerned about there previous use of force. They must be wondering how they are to deal in the future with those who do not cooperate.
Change the world
Friday, 5 October 2012
Should we investigate?
Should the allegations made against Jimmy Savile be investigated? This is the question as I watch Question Time. Janet Street-Porter answered by giving us the background details which mentioned that inappropriate sexual activity was endemic in the 70s. The problem with this particular investigation, of course, is that Mr Savile is not around to defend himself. It may well be that he would be arrested if he were alive. It may well be that he could have been found guilty on all sorts of charges, but all of this is hypothetical. What does matter is that investigation may set an example and act as a catalyst to changing attitudes in which the silence of victims would not be an issue.
This catalyst may lead to Janet coming forward with her evidence regarding her suspicions of illegal sexual activity. I didn't name Jimmy Savile in my blog of the 8th November 2011 but he was the subject of very strong allegations by Jerry Sadowitz. Who was listening to Jerry? Why was there so little on the internet about Jimmy at that time. The closest I got to digging any dirt was to see a documentary on the Nolans and this evidence is far from conclusive. I also found that Jimmy had managed to stop any mention that he had visited a children's home but that didn't prove any guilt. I wasn't convinced but Jerry Sadowitz was, but if he was then why weren't others.
There is hope. Any suspicions are easily checked on the internet. Mobile phones and technology in general allow support for those who are not in authority. Video footage was a great help in stopping the death of Ian Tomlinson being swept under the carpet. Prince Harry knows all about the use of technology at private parties. We don't have a perfect world with perfect people in it, but at least we have a more open society in which the guilty have less room to hide.
So yes, we should investigate the Savile allegations even though the police had insufficient evidence in 2007 and even though the BBC have no evidence of any abuse.
Change the world
This catalyst may lead to Janet coming forward with her evidence regarding her suspicions of illegal sexual activity. I didn't name Jimmy Savile in my blog of the 8th November 2011 but he was the subject of very strong allegations by Jerry Sadowitz. Who was listening to Jerry? Why was there so little on the internet about Jimmy at that time. The closest I got to digging any dirt was to see a documentary on the Nolans and this evidence is far from conclusive. I also found that Jimmy had managed to stop any mention that he had visited a children's home but that didn't prove any guilt. I wasn't convinced but Jerry Sadowitz was, but if he was then why weren't others.
There is hope. Any suspicions are easily checked on the internet. Mobile phones and technology in general allow support for those who are not in authority. Video footage was a great help in stopping the death of Ian Tomlinson being swept under the carpet. Prince Harry knows all about the use of technology at private parties. We don't have a perfect world with perfect people in it, but at least we have a more open society in which the guilty have less room to hide.
So yes, we should investigate the Savile allegations even though the police had insufficient evidence in 2007 and even though the BBC have no evidence of any abuse.
Change the world
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Everyone deserves fair treatment
When Nick Clegg recently called for the Conservatives to back a wealth tax there were some Tories who suggested that there was no need for any further redistribution of wealth. You often hear about a brain drain and maybe some people do leave the country because of slight changes in the rate of taxation, but I can't see this being top of their list.
I also heard comments along the lines that high earners deserved their money because they worked hard for it. The trouble with this argument is that everyone works hard. You used to be able to make jokes like how many council workers does it take to plant a flower - three. Two to lean on spades and one to do the planting. You can't make jokes like this now because they are all working. Many people work very hard on minimum wage.
There may well be extra pressures on those who hold greater responsibility and this may be a factor in them deserving extra pay. These extra pressures sometimes make the news. Three senior civil servants were suspended following the West Coast rail fiasco but the trouble is that it could turn out that they receive full pay and then return to normal duties. I wrote about the minister at the heart of the fiasco in my last blog entry and she seems to have made a side step to avoid responsibility. We hear today that the head of the Rochdale Social Services has resigned having missed opportunities to protect children in the sex abuse scandal. There were calls for sackings but this manager managed to get promoted and now leaves with 'many fond memories' despite last week's damning report. In all these cases the extra authority does not seem to relate to extra responsibility, but this hasn't affected their pay.
The point is that many of those who are well paid do not receive the same treatment as those whose work is more mundane, and everyone deserves fair treatment. Jimmy Carr can tell you how a good accountant can help those who can afford their service. We don't need to protect the wealthy. They can look after themselves, even if they do work hard.
Change the world
I also heard comments along the lines that high earners deserved their money because they worked hard for it. The trouble with this argument is that everyone works hard. You used to be able to make jokes like how many council workers does it take to plant a flower - three. Two to lean on spades and one to do the planting. You can't make jokes like this now because they are all working. Many people work very hard on minimum wage.
There may well be extra pressures on those who hold greater responsibility and this may be a factor in them deserving extra pay. These extra pressures sometimes make the news. Three senior civil servants were suspended following the West Coast rail fiasco but the trouble is that it could turn out that they receive full pay and then return to normal duties. I wrote about the minister at the heart of the fiasco in my last blog entry and she seems to have made a side step to avoid responsibility. We hear today that the head of the Rochdale Social Services has resigned having missed opportunities to protect children in the sex abuse scandal. There were calls for sackings but this manager managed to get promoted and now leaves with 'many fond memories' despite last week's damning report. In all these cases the extra authority does not seem to relate to extra responsibility, but this hasn't affected their pay.
The point is that many of those who are well paid do not receive the same treatment as those whose work is more mundane, and everyone deserves fair treatment. Jimmy Carr can tell you how a good accountant can help those who can afford their service. We don't need to protect the wealthy. They can look after themselves, even if they do work hard.
Change the world
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
Where does the buck stop?
On the 18th August I wrote about the success of FirstGroup in winning the franchise for the West Coast Main Line. I did not understand how this company could do so much better than the current provider, Virgin, and shortly afterwards we heard that Virgin didn't understand it either. Now the Government don't understand it. The Department of Transport tell us today that the contest was flawed but Richard Branson knew that the system was "flawed and insane for some time".
I know that it is an expensive mistake and just paying the four companies back for the cost of their bids will cost £40 million. Heads may roll. The loss of this money is significant and there may be more financial implications but responsible people sometimes make genuine errors just like those with less authority.
For me there were two important points. Firstly, what does Justine Greening say now. She was the transport secretary when the winning bid was announced and she described the process as robust and fair. It would be nice to know what she has to say for herself now but I guess she will just be blaming her civil servants. Where does the buck stop? If it stops with the minister then she should stand by her words and apologise for her error.
Secondly, what is the DfT doing issuing any announcement at midnight? Are we expecting future press releases when most of the nation are tucked up in bed? It sounds like the Government are trying to bury their bad news but wouldn't it be nice if they actually apologised.
Change the world
I know that it is an expensive mistake and just paying the four companies back for the cost of their bids will cost £40 million. Heads may roll. The loss of this money is significant and there may be more financial implications but responsible people sometimes make genuine errors just like those with less authority.
For me there were two important points. Firstly, what does Justine Greening say now. She was the transport secretary when the winning bid was announced and she described the process as robust and fair. It would be nice to know what she has to say for herself now but I guess she will just be blaming her civil servants. Where does the buck stop? If it stops with the minister then she should stand by her words and apologise for her error.
Secondly, what is the DfT doing issuing any announcement at midnight? Are we expecting future press releases when most of the nation are tucked up in bed? It sounds like the Government are trying to bury their bad news but wouldn't it be nice if they actually apologised.
Change the world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
