Big Sticks and Small Carrots

I was intending to write a post today called “In Defence of MPs” (really) but then I read this:

The amount of expenses MPs can claim without a receipt is to be cut from £250 to £25 from 1 April.

The Commons Members Estimates Committee ruled out demanding proof over smaller claims, as MPs often use cash on items “for which receipts are not given”.

You what?

I have a lot of experience administering expenses and petty cash in retail. I’ve done it for a large store which was part of a national chain and for a small independent. In both cases, receipts were required for everything, big or small.

Taxis? Just ask for a reciept. Taxi drivers are used to it.

Stamps? The Post Office will give you a reciept for one stamp if you want one.

Train tickets? Petrol? Pencils? Big boozy breakfasts? Hilton Hotels?  Shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, it just wasn’t an issue. I can’t think of a single purchase where a receipt wasn’t available.

To be fair, MPs probably spend their expenses on slightly different things than retailers… hang on, that’s it. I’m coming at this from the wrong angle.

What about prostitutes and drug dealers? I bet they aren’t that keen to provide a receipt for your records…

Tim has received some answers from Tom Watson.

According to the Sunday Mercury, Tom Watson’s wife earns up to £20,000 a year and we now know she earns that working as his PA.

Is that more than average for such a job? Well, the last time I read about how much an MPs PA earns, it was in amongst this lot. The investigation into Derek Conway’s expenses included an interview with his wife. She told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that “her role as his PA had been to deal with correspondence and keep his diary. She also arranged meetings, and visits to Parliament by groups, etc. from the constituency, of which, because of the constituency’s proximity to London, there was a considerable number”.

Conway’s wife is apparently paid £3,271 a month to do this job; that works out at £39,252 per year. According to the Telegraph, this “almost £40,000 a year” is “significantly more than the Parliamentary average for such a role”.

So then, what do they mean by “significantly”? If it means twice as much as average, perhaps £20,000 would be a sensible sum. But twice as much is surely more than “significantly more”; they’d have said Conway’s wife gets “double” the average or something. Or would they?

To be fair, I don’t really know whether these two jobs are comparable. And I don’t know whether Mrs Conway delivers good value for the money she earns.

I do know that the £40,000 a year Conway’s wife gets was not part of the equation when “Guido” attempted to make his bizarre comparison. In fact, Staines is spinning like Alistair Campbell on a Waltzer. He knows better than most Conservative MPs how badly the Conway affair hurt the Tories and even attempted some damage limitation himself. Now, with nothing but innuendo and implication, he’s trying turn that hit around by suggesting that Labour MPs are worse.

This does at least have the advantage of exposing the claim that “Guido Fawkes” treats all politicians equally for what it is. I’d spell it out but I’m trying to give up blog swearing* at the moment.

* Not that I don’t recognise that there’s an art to it. Perhaps the outstanding practitioners have made me realise that it wasn’t ever going to be my field.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…

It’d be even funnier if the government were not wasting huge amounts of money on a monumental disaster waiting to happen.

The good news is that “plans to force passport applicants to get an ID card have been dropped”. Did Jacqui Smith take that decision on a voluntary basis, I wonder? I only ask because Labour’s commitment to roll out ID cards “initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports” was a real lowlight in knowingly mendacious politics. How satisfying to see it fail to do anything other than highlight just how knowingly mendacious they are prepared to be.

Nevertheless, the government appear to be keen to press on with some ad hoc version of this scheme despite the fact that this half-baked version negates many of the arguments they used to justify its creation in the first place. It’s like watching a not very good and all too predictable farce. A happy ending is highly unlikely.

Winston Churchill (may have) said that “the biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter”. Typical patronising Commie pinko bull…

In truth, the quotation touches on a whole series of difficult questions regarding systems of democracy and how they work. Representative democracy by definition is going to involve politicians. Unfortunately, such systems tend to generate a separate political class, a self-serving insulated elite who trust the people about as much as the people trust them. Their central interest is always likely to be persuading enough voters to elect them, something not renowned for fostering a spirit of constructive and honest debate.

All of this has created a situation in which public confidence in politicians is very low indeed. This can clearly be detrimental to the rule of law (people tend to be disinclined to voluntarily obey laws created by those they hold in such low regard) and ultimately to democracy itself. It can be argued that this is an inherent trait in representative systems and that the only way to escape this is to abolish politicians altogether.

Direct democracy, however, is not without significant problems of its own. The tyranny of the majority can be a real danger, for example. And, of course, despite the fact that it may sound patronising, it really isn’t a good idea to ask people to vote on issues they don’t have the time, inclination or intellect to fully understand.

The idea that there should be a referendum on the new EU treaty is a case in point. How many people have (or will) take the time to read through the approximately  300 hundred pages (pdf) of the treaty and then take an informed view as to whether the UK should ratify it? Not many. Not me; I lack the time, inclination and intellect. I made a half hearted attempt but the thing is virtually impenetrable.

Perhaps that’s a deliberate tactic perpetrated by the political elite precisely so that the average voter cannot make an informed judgement as to its content. On the other hand, would a treaty drawn up through some process of direct public participation involving the populations of 25 European countries be any simpler or easier to understand? It hardly seems likely. And who would create such a process of direct public participation anyway?

That’s only scratching the condensation on the lacquer on the paint on the surface of this issue but with confidence in politicians at such extraordinarily low levels, it is something which needs to be seriously discussed.

Unfortunately, rather than tackling any of this, many of our elected representatives  continue to play Punch and Judy to the audience instead. “You promised a referendum!” “Oh no I didn’t!” “Oh yes you did”". Constructive debate it most certainly is not. In the end, you have to wonder whether our elected representatives will be the architects of their own demise.

“Guido” has launched an attack on Tom Watson.

Tim has already had a good look at “Guido’s” post, incluing asking some questions regarding Tom Watson’s expenses, but let’s just expand slightly on the way Paul Staines has done his maths:

Last year Watson pocketed his £60,000 salary and his parliamentary expenses amounted to £150,000-plus – bringing his total package to £211,000 - making him the 73rd highest claiming MP out of 646 MPs. Quite an achievement for an MP not claiming for travel to and from Scotland. He of course employs his wife Siobhan at the public’s expense, his brother, Dan, is constituency director to Euro MP Michael Cashman, Dan Watson’s wife, Joanna, has no fewer than three jobs. Like her husband, she also works for Mr Cashman and for Wolverhampton Labour MP Pat McFadden, yet still finds time to be a Labour councillor in Sandwell. Amy Watson, cousin of Tom and Dan, works for Birmingham Northfield Labour MP Richard Burden. The West Midlands constituency Labour Party offices are packed with Watsons…

The total annual cost to the taxpayer of the Watson family’s five not-so-little piggies is in excess of £300,000. Far more than the disgraced Derek Conway fiddled…

The Conway scandal centred around £40,000 he’d paid to his son and it has to be said that £300,000 is definitely far more than £40,000. You can’t argue with numbers.

But what is “Guido” comparing? The £300,00 is in large part made up of Tom Watson’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£150,000). The £40,000 is not in large part made up of Derek Conway’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£140,000).

(By the way, Conway’s London constituency is about 100 miles closer to Westminster than Watson’s. “Guido” never mentioned that.)

Instead, the £40,000 refers to specific money paid by Conway to his son. Having investigated whether these payments were justifiable, the Standards and Privileges committee said they were “astonished that there appears to be no evidence, independent or otherwise, of any aspect of Freddie Conway’s work for his father”. They also concluded that Derek Conway had paid his “all but invisible” son bonus payments which were substantially larger than allowed by the rules.

I can find no similar report from the Standards and Privileges Committee regarding Tom Watson and £300,000.

So is it a like for like comparison? Obviously not. I feel silly even asking the question. And yet, “Guido” has attempted to suggest that it is.

I can’t say for sure why Paul has attempted to make this ridiculous comparison but I suspect it has something to do with his willingness to treat all politicians with equal distain…

So, what conclusions can be reached about attempts to have an honest debate with Donal Blaney?

My own efforts have been hampered by the fact that the two comments I’ve submitted have not been published. Would I be paranoid to believe that Blaney is aware of this but has no intention of doing anything about it? Well, about an hour after I submitted the second comment, Blaney wrote:

I’m trying to get a venue for quarterly debates between leftists and rightists. The debates would be held according to traditional British debating rules. I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

There is no other Garry in the thread. As such, there seem to be two realistic explanations. The first is that Blaney has read my comments but not allowed them through moderation. The second is that he has read my post linked above. Either way, the evidence strongly suggests that Blaney has consciously decided not to engage with me on t’interwebs.

It could be argued that Blaney’s decision is due to his distaste for “anonymous blogging”. Well, it could be if I blogged anonymously. But I don’t.

It could be that he thinks I “cower behind the written word”. My first comment started with an attempt to question the thinking behind this baffling concept and we know that that wasn’t hugely productive. Personally, I believe the written word can be a very pure form of debate and countless philosophers and scientists throughout history seem to have held similar views. Blaney, however, appears to have an aversion to debating in written words. Strange considering that Iain Dale dropped by to assure me that Blaney is a much better writer than I am. Willy waving isn’t really my thing so I can’t say that bothers me one way or the other.

I do feel confident that I have a basic level of ability to explain and debate in written words. In the absence of any sort of explanation from Donal, I can only presume that he is not confident in his own ability to do the same.

And that brings us on to the kind of debate he does want to have. I have no qualms about admitting that I’d be hopeless in a filmed public debate. I’ve not had the training for it and am not naturally good at it either. It’s part of the reason why I blog.

As chief executive the Young Britons’ Foundation, an organisation which “provides unique one-day training workshops around Britain that focus on developing activists’ public speaking, debating…”, Blaney is undoubtedly aware of the importance of training in these skills. The sort of debate he wants would put me at a huge disadvantage against someone with his background and experience. Maybe its my paranoia but I have a feeling he understands this all to well.

Interestingly, the YBF also do training in “internet activism”. At first glance, this makes Blaney’s reluctance to participate in honest debate in written words even more puzzling. On reflection however, “internet activism” doesn’t necessarily involve engaging with those who want to challenge your views in an honest and transparent manner. For some, indeed, training in “internet activism” might well include the teaching of methods to avoid this sometimes awkward predicament. It would, however, be speculative to suggest that such techniques are taught by the YBF.

In any event, it’s fair to say that my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Donal Blaney has been spectacularly unsuccessful. While acknowledging that an attempt was made, he has refused to participate and has provided no explanation for this refusal.

Quinn, of The Obscurer (who, for the benefit of conspiracy theorists I have never met or communicated with in any way), did have a tiny bit more success. His first comment was not published but his second attempt was. He said of his first effort that “I left a comment on this post yesterday that appears to have got lost, so I will try again”. That is the sum total of Quinn’s expressed opinion as to the missing comment

Blaney’s reply:

Quinn: your paranoia as to the fact that your supposed original comment wasn’t posted is rather disturbing. As are the threats that I have received from some people in the past 48 hours (which I have been left with no alternative but to report to the police). I’m happy to debate people on here in a civil manner but when it comes to threatening me and my family, that sums up quite how unpleasant blogging can get.

Regular readers here or of Bloggerheads will recognise this type of response immediately.

Undeterred and calm in the face of this provocative reply, Quinn responded:

No paranoia required; my previous comments didn’t appear, that is a statement of fact. I’m truly sorry that you have received threats, that is disgraceful, but from the off I have conducted myself in a polite manner and asked reasonable, straightforward questions directly pertaining to things you have personally said; in response you said that I “clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me”, a group you previously wondered about as being onanists, intellectually weak, deeply unhappy, insecure, lonely, bitter and “better off ending it all”. I didn’t much appreciate being lumped in with such a bunch, and now you accuse me personally of paranoia; and this from someone who charges others with using terms that close down debate?

So, I am glad you are happy to debate with people in a civil manner, as that is all I have done. Now, is there any chance of you responding to my previous questions?

That was posted the evening before last but Blaney has not responded. The answer to Quinn’s question would appear to be “no”.

Conclusions? Given that the post that both Quinn and I attempted to engage with was an attack on those who Blaney said refused to participate in honest debate, it’s not looking good for him.

If he’s not confident of his ability to defend his views in written words he may want to consider publicly admitting to the fact. As is, it appears that Blaney is the one who refuses to participate in honest debate on a level playing field. Unless it involves a method of debate which is likely to give him a substantial advantage over his opponents, he doesn’t want to play.

What this says about the “robust” nature of his views, I leave to the reader to decide.

PS. Having switched off comments for a couple of days, comments are back on in his most recent posts. I wouldn’t be “paranoid” enough to suggest that he was playing silly buggers in the hope of provoking a certain type of response. Instead, given the absence of an explanation, all we can do is guess as to the reason.

Dan Hardie: Fine Words, Shabby Deeds

Do you like reading fine words? Here is the Prime Minister on the subject of Iraqi ex-employees of the British Government, speaking in the House of Commons on October 9th, 2007: ‘I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our civilian and locally employed staff in Iraq, many of whom have worked in extremely difficult circumstances, exposing themselves and their families to danger. I am pleased therefore to announce today a new policy which more fully recognises the contribution made by our local Iraqi staff, who work for our armed forces and civilian missions in what we know are uniquely difficult circumstances.’

Fine words. What about deeds?

A small number of Iraqis - fewer than a dozen, according to people close to the operation who are in contact with me- were removed from Iraq in the early autumn of 2007. Since the Prime Minister’s admirable declaration of October, how many Iraqi ex-employees have been evacuated from Iraq? According to all the Iraqis that I am in contact with: none.

Read the rest.

All the evidence suggests that the government will not do the right thing if left to their own devices. Public pressure may well make a difference. Please consider acting on Dan’s recommendations. For some Iraqis, it could literally be the difference between life and death.

On Saturday, Donal Blaney, “Guido’s” legal muscle, wrote an extraordinary post in response to Unity writing at Liberal Conspiracy. Iain Dale thought Blaney’s post was worth including in his “Daley Dozen” and I agree that it should be read as widely as possible. Probably not for the same reasons as Iain though.

Here’s a, er, highlight:

It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people. Their bitterness at life radiates from every sentence they write. You wonder whether they’d be better off ending it all so as to avoid the further trials and tribulations of life.

Remarkable, isn’t it? And in a post bemoaning the “venom and vitriol” of his critics.

Blaney central, er, argument is that his critics “will not engage in honest debate”.

I submitted a comment to his post yesterday afternoon. Blogger told me that my comment would be visible after approval by the blog owner. Blaney has published three posts since then, one last night and two this morning. No sign of my comment yet though.

I was going to write this post after my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Blaney but it isn’t going very well so far. Perhaps he thinks I’m “cowering behind the written word”.

(Possibly more later this afternoon when I’ve got more time . A veritable smorgasbord of possibilities are contained within Blaney’s post.)

Update

Still no sign of Blaney actually wanting to participate in honest debate. Rather the opposite, in fact. Checking his blog to see whether anything else was happening (it wasn’t), I’ve just noticed that the three posts referred to above all have something in common.

I’ll save you the bother: the comment feature has been disabled. Without wishing to leap to conclusions, this does rather suggest that Donal has taken another* leaf out of the Nadine Dorries’ book of blogging (foreword by Iain “I taught her all she knows”Dale).

* He’s already done the whole “I’m under personal attack from evil bastards” bit.

Perhaps an explanation for the apparent removal of the comment facility will be forthcoming in due course but in the meantime, it is not possible to express an opinion on Blaney’s new posts. Admittedly, I wasn’t able to express my opinion on his old post either so this might not be a hugely significant turn of events…

Update 2 (9.30pm)

My second attempt to leave a comment (around 7pm this evening) has not been published either but there has been movement in the thread.  A comment by Quinn was also not published but a second attempt was. Quinn merely mentioning this has resulted in Blaney accusing him of paranoia.  Absolutely textbook. Quinn appears to be well able to defend himself though. And then there’s the threats…

Blaney does at least acknowledge that I’m trying to communicate with him in his latest addition to the thread (at 8.18pm).

I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

Progress, ladies and gentlemen, progress.

No explanation has been given as to how someone “cowers behind words”. Perhaps, Blaney doesn’t want to have an honest debate in just words.

So, on to the sort of invitation. Blaney is a trained solicitor, one time 18 Doughty Street co-presenter and chief executive of an organisation which runs media and public speaking training. I’m a blogger who has never appeared on TV or radi and have had no media or public speaking training whatsoever. I feel slightly uncomfortable when a family member breaks out the camcorder.

I just don’t understand why Blaney prefers the one method of debate over the other…

Or willful ignorance?

Who remembers when concerns about UK involvement in “rendition” were ridiculed as conspiracy theories? Let’s have a quick trip down memory name courtesy of Obsolete to remind ourselves of the way these denials were formulated.

Here’s an extract from a leaked briefing document written by a Foreign Office official at Downing Street’s request.

The Home Office, who lead, are urgently examining our files, as are we. But we now cannot say that we have received no such requests for the use of UK territory or air space for “Extraordinary Rendition”. It does remain true that “we are not aware of the use of UK territory or air space for the purpose of “Extraordinary Rendition”". But we think we should now try to move the debate on from the specifics of rendition, extraordinary or otherwise, and focus people instead on the Rice’s clear assurance that all US activities are consistent with their domestic and international obligations and never include the use of torture.

Phrases like “we are not aware of…” were commonly included in the government’s semi-denials. The memo also recommends that “we should try to avoid getting drawn on detail… and to try to move the debate on, in as front foot a way we can, underlining all the time the strong anti-terrorist rationale for close cooperation with the US, within our legal obligations.” Again, this diversionary tactic was repeatedly deployed by the government.

Further trips down memory lane available from Blairwatch and The Guardian.

Good faith? Its not even funny.

I don’t often write about my own life here but the most extraordinary thing happened to me yesterday afternoon and I want to share it with you. It was a lovely crisp sunny day, the sort of day which reminds you that spring is on the way, so I went for a stroll around town. With the light twinkling off the granite buildings, Aberdeen city centre looks good in the sunlight.

Passing by HMV, I decided to pop in and pick up some Blackadder DVDs. I’d been meaning to get the full set for a while now so I was pleased to see that they were all available. They also had the Planet Earth DVD box set so I got that too. All things considered, it was turning out to be a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon. (It’s the small things in life…)

Unfortunately, my good mood wasn’t to last long. As I attempted to leave HMV, I appeared to trigger their security alarms. As the  beeping and flashing continued, two rather burly security guards hurried over and blocked my path. With forced politeness, one asked whether I’d paid for the DVDs I was carrying. “Yes, of course” I replied, “now if you don’t mind…”

That didn’t satisfy the security guards though; they demanded that I produce a receipt for the DVDs. A receipt? Why on earth would I have a receipt? Are the BBC going to charge us twice for watching their programmes now? First the license fee and then again for the DVD?

When I told the security guards that I didn’t have a receipt but could go home and then return with my TV licence if it was absolutely necessary, they laughed in my face. When I argued that Iain Dale said I shouldn’t have to pay again for something I’d already paid for, they said they didn’t know who Iain Dale was and didn’t care either. They accused me of shoplifting and called the police. I was arrested. Arrested! All because I didn’t want to pay for the same thing twice. I can think of nothing more outrageous!

If there was ever any doubt that the BBC is run by Stalinists, Leninists and Trots, this travesty of justice surely proves the point! These leftists are destroying our way of life and must be resisted at every turn. Next thing you know, there’ll be a tax on totally spurious blog posts. I remember when this country used to be great, you know…

PS, Iain really was caught stealing from the BBC. Maybe if he understood that bandwidth costs money, he’d be on his way to answering the question in his update*. He might even spare himself further embarrassment instead of causing even more.

* A I understand it, there are other reasons why iPlayer programmes are only available for seven days. As well as bandwith costs, there are storage costs to consider. Without the limit, what would soon become an essentially infinite archive would have to be stored in a format which would allow for streaming; the costs would soon mount up.

There is also the issue of licensing and repeat fees (or rather the avoidance of repeat fees). Similar fees are certainly an issue when the BBC sells permanent copies of programmes. When content is made available to download from the interwebs, the introduction of a small charge might help to cover these costs…