Tuesday 13 May 2014

...And they call benefit claimants ‘scroungers’!

So much is said about the ‘scroungers’ on benefits by the current Government and the right-wing media that you’d almost believe that they are the demonic spawn from Hell that brought the country to its knees (even though we know it was really the bankers).  So blinded by the current ConDem propaganda machine’s output that people tend to overlook the real scroungers and parasites in Parliament, the products of a corrupt political system based on petty tribalism and constant division.

Out of sheer curiosity, I thought I’d look at some of the expenses stories that have actually made it into the Press to show you just how bad things have gotten and how much we really need change in the political system.  But first, I downloaded the (supposedly) complete set of MP’s expense claims for the tax year 2013/14 from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) website and looked at two people in particular – David Cameron and Ed Miliband.

As much as I despise David Cameron, both as a politician and a man, I have one thing good to say about him – at least the expenses he claimed in tax year 2013/14 didn’t include the payment of personal bills and his constituency office expenses (apart from stationary) seem to be confined to a 25% contribution to the research assistant’s mobile phone bill.  In fact, his total expenses claim was rather small at only £7874.63 although, with his annual wage being over a hundred thousand a year and a significant personal fortune, I think even that amount is taking the Mickey.  He must have learnt his lesson after the 2009 scandal.

On the other hand, Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party (supposed champions of the working man), claimed £2734.48 for personal bills (Council Tax, BT phone line, electricity, water, TV Licence and the renewal of tenancy agreement on his constituency house) and a further £6972.91 in bills for his constituency office (rent, maintenance charges, office cleaning, telephone and the installation/maintenance of office equipment) in the same period.  However, Mr Miliband’s total claim for that year was a whopping £22,812.59!  I’ll leave you to work out how much accommodation and travel cost.

Now I can understand accommodation expenses (which I haven’t included) due to his constituency being so far from London but I can’t see why the taxpayer has to foot his personal bills given how much he earns and which, in any other job, would have to be paid for out of a person’s own pocket. 

I really can’t understand why the taxpayer has to pay out any charges for an MP’s constituency office; surely those charges should be covered by their own political party and its local adherents?

But these are rather cheap MPs compared to former Tory leader William Hague who manages to cost the taxpayer £2,000 a day to live in One Carlton Garden in St James’s in London[1].  The former occupant was David Miliband when he was Foreign Secretary for the Labour administration at which time it cost the taxpayer £600,000 a year.  That price tag went up when Hague took residence and over the first three years of his tenancy he has cost the taxpayer £2,170,018.  Considering the personal fortune he made from various activities since stepping down as Tory leader in 2001, I think he should be footing some of the bills in this time of austerity, don’t you?

Disgraced ex-Tory MP Patrick Mercer managed to milk more than £34,000 in expenses since he was caught in a lobbying sting.  He was caught last June accepting £4,000 to do some lobbying on behalf of business interests in Fiji but still kept on claiming expenses until he was forced to quit after being found to be guilty of one of the worst breaches of the MP’s code of conduct in history[2].

In just two months (last August and September), MPs managed to make 35,000 claims totalling a huge £4.58 million[3] including:
  • Despite describing himself as an "ex-politician", Gordon Brown claimed £1,012.75 for the rent of his constituency office.  A bit rich for someone you hardly hear from anymore.
  • William Hague, ex-minister Chloe Smith, Angela Eagle, Nicholas Soames and Peter Bone all claimed for unexplained legal costs each charging the taxpayer £577.70 at a time when Legal Aid is cut off from most people.  How dare they with the money they earn?
  • And Hilary Benn claimed a hire charge of £1,291.17 for a photocopier!  Surely it would have been cheaper to get an office runner to go to a shop with a 5p per copy photocopier service?

In September 2013, Sky News reported that expenses claims soared to almost £100 million which was more in MP’s personal costs and office costs than in the run-up to the expenses scandal in 2009[4].

Part of the problem is the hiring of family members as office staff, something Nadine Dorries knows all about having hired her daughter Philippa for £40,000-45,000 as office manager, followed by her sister Jennifer as senior secretary with a salary of £30,000-35,000[5].

November 2013 brought us the scandal of the 340 MPs who claimed for heating their second homes.  The biggest culprit?  You’ve got it – millionaire Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi who claimed a staggering £5,822 in just 12 months to power and heat his £1million constituency home in a sprawling 31-acre estate[6].  Talk about living in another world!

Other culprits include:
  • Ex-Labour Cabinet minister Peter Hain who claimed £4,571 on his designated second home in his South Wales constituency.
  • Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg put in expenses for £254.
  • Dame Margaret Beckett, who has been Labour MP for Derby South since 1983, claimed £3,960 on gas and electricity on her constituency home.
  • Culture Secretary Maria Miller, master scrounger, claimed £2,011 on electricity bills in the 12-month period on a £970,000 constituency home in ­Basingstoke, which she rents.

Not all MPs are such rogues as The Telegraph reported in 2009 that: “The best-value MP is shown to be Philip Hollobone, a backbench Conservative who has no staff at Westminster and handles all his own casework.

He had the lowest expenses claim of any MP last year while maintaining an attendance record that was well above average.[7]

Well, if Mr Hollobone could do it, why can’t other backbenchers?

George Galloway was reported as being rated the worst-value MP in the same article, having turned up for only one in twenty votes, far fewer than any other MP, yet claiming £136,000 in expenses.

In May 2009, Chris Spivey published a list of the MPs that The Telegraph had been investigating the expenses claims of[8]; here are a few choice titbits:
  • Gerry Adams and four other Sinn Fein MPs claimed more than £500,000 over five years even though they refuse to attend Parliament
  • Bob Ainsworth claimed nearly £6,000 for the redecoration of his designated second home
  • Danny Alexander claimed £2,000 for work on kitchen and £2,000 for sofa and chairs. Also received £1,140 for the cost of alcoves, shelving and a desk for flat
  • Ed Balls and wife Yvette Cooper “flipped” the designation of their second home to three different properties within two years. Mr Balls,  the then Schools Secretary, also attempted to claim £33 for poppy wreaths
  • John Bercow “flipped” his second home from his constituency to a £540,000 flat in London and claimed the maximum possible allowances for it. Bercow, a candidate for next Speaker, “repaid” £6,500 capital gains tax on the sale of two properties. He also twice charged the public purse for the cost of hiring a chartered accountant to complete his annual tax return
  • Tony Blair re-mortgaged his constituency home and claimed almost a third of the interest around the time he was buying another property in London. He also put in a claim for almost £7,000 of roof repairs just two days before stepping down as Prime Minister
  • John Butterfill paid no capital gains tax after making a £600,000 gain on the sale of his taxpayer-funded house which he told the parliamentary authorities was his designated second home
  • David Cameron limited his claims to mortgage interest payments and utility bills. He also paid off a loan on his London house after he took out a taxpayer-funded £350,000 mortgage on his designated second home
  • Nick Clegg claimed the maximum allowed under his parliamentary second home allowance
  • Caroline Flint claimed £14,000 for fees for new flat
  • George Osborne was forced to deny taking advantage of the expenses system following claims he “flipped” his designated second home from London to his constituency farm house after taking out a £450,000 mortgage on the rural property. Separately, he was rebuked by the Commons authorities for using public money to fund his “political” website.
  • Sir Peter Viggers included with his expense claims the £1,645 cost of a floating duck house in the garden pond at his Hampshire home.

In 2010, The Guardian published three league tables of MPs travel expenses for October to December 2009[9] and there isn’t much to argue over most of the entries as most of them come from the most distant areas of the country and, therefore, would be expected to claim the most.  There is, however, one name that sticks out on the league table for the top ten claimers for family travel during that period - Conservative master scrounger Maria Miller, Basingstoke, who claimed tenth place with a claim for £605.

Now I realize that these stories come from all over the place in terms of time but it just goes to show that now, as it was back in 2009 during the big expenses scandal under Labour’s administration, the problem of MP expenses still exists and is still an expensive drain on the nation’s coffers.

It seems that as much as people would like to blame the people on benefits for everything that’s wrong with the economy and call them ‘scroungers’, there are an awful lot of scroungers who are very well paid but still want to supplement their lifestyle with money from the public purse.  Some of them, like David Cameron, have personal fortunes.  Some of them, like Iain Duncan Smith, live rent free on large estates.  So why do we allow such people to claim such large amounts of money when they are quite capable of paying out at least some of their expenses from their own very deep, capacious pockets?

This isn’t just a Tory problem.  This isn’t just a Labour problem.  It’s all pervasive.  I’m not saying that every MP is a parasite but a lot are and it’s about time we came up with a system that stops this parasitism, once and for all.



Sunday 11 May 2014

Some random thoughts on politics and my political stance



I have been troubled by flashbacks of some the comments of some of the critics of my Your Thurrock blogs regarding being a left-wing commentator and, as a result, have been inundated with random thoughts about my political views.  The only way I’m ever going to get rid of these thoughts is to send them out into the world in some way so below are some of the thoughts that have occurred to me.

I despise all partisan politics and prefer to look at the basis of political thought.

I realise that a lot of my blogs on political matters are to some degree or other left leaning but that is more to do with the fact that I see myself as having a social conscience and that I’m interested in social justice rather than being a left-winger.

I have a worldview that is actually incompatible with left-wing politics because left-wing politicians are (supposed) to have a view of the human race as basically social and would, given the chance, act in the best interests of society as a whole and I see the human race in the right-wing view of needing to have a firm hand in being governed because humans are basically selfish bastards.

When I was reading up on the various political ideologies, I was drawn to some of the ideas put forward by Karl Marx regarding Socialism and the ultimate goal of that ideology.  I saw how incompatible New Labour was with the ideals of Socialism and that even having a Socialist party at all is incompatible with Marx’s vision.

The ideals that Marx envisioned was of a transitory government based on Socialist principles that valued the worker’s rights and common ownership of business that would eventually give way to a Communist State which he described as a stateless State.  Government would literally fall away in a Communist State as, by the end of the Socialist era, everyone would be working in the best interests of society as a whole and politicians would no longer be needed.

The negative view of a Communist State comes from the bastardised version of Communism that was evident in the former USSR and states based on that model.

Communism of the Russian variety was inherently flawed because the leaders failed to follow through on Marx’s vision and this was due to the fact that the leaders didn’t overcome the inherent selfishness buried deep in the human consciousness.

The idea of mechanisation in industry was supposed to provide workers with the ability of producing the amount of work needed to satisfy their basic requirements for life, based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, in a shorter time – a worker might have had to work 12 hours a day to produce enough of a final product by hand to cover their basic living needs but could produce enough final product to cover those same needs in 6-8 hours using machines.  It was supposed to be a time-saving revolution in industry that would allow workers to do the work necessary to cover their needs and allow them time to pursue ‘higher’ activities allowing them to become more accomplished and rounded human beings.  Mechanisation would also allow employers to cover their needs and the cost of the associated overheads of running a business whilst allowing them to also pursue more self-actualising activities.  Unfortunately, employers gave into the inherent selfishness and greed of the human condition, seeing the possibility of gaining more money for themselves than they actually needed by continuing to insist on paying workers the same wage for the same hours whilst actually over-producing whatever product they were in business to make.

The idea of a Communist State is seen as bad for competition in the marketplace because there is less choice in the products available and as a society in which everyone has to have the same amount of wealth; neither idea is actually true.  Choice in the range of products can still be achieved with different manufacturers producing their own versions with their own innovations and consumers can choose whichever one suits their particular needs – a vibrant market achieved and one that could still be compatible with the ideals behind the mechanisation of industry.  Prices could be fixed at exactly the same rate for all products of a similar type or there could be a variation in prices, either position could work.  As for people having the same amount of wealth, this is ridiculous as a worker can elect to work for more hours than they need to cover their basic needs to give themselves a higher income if they wish and if their employer is willing to agree to it; in fact their employer would probably be happy to allow it.

With a fully Communist State based on Marx’s original principles, people would have more time to pursue activities that would enrich society as a whole whilst still having their basic needs met.  The society would work in the interests of the whole of society rather than selfish individual needs and it would be a society that could work without the need for politics and politicians.

Of course, with all that said, I still believe that, even though a society such as that described above would be a good thing for the human race, it is a vision that could never come true because selfishness and greed are too ingrained in the human psyche to ever be overcome in the interests of all.

Despite my interest in the idea of a selfless society and the left-wing path that could take us there, I have a large amount of right-wing views which are incompatible with a left-wing view; in some respects, I can be God-damned intolerant – the very genetic signature of a right-winger.  That being the case, I decide to live as a political observer commenting on what I believe is right and criticising what I feel to be wrong.  But wouldn’t it be nice to have a less selfish society?


Originally posted at