Monday 1 June 2009

Yes does she support an English Parliament?

Can someone please explain how the "little green book" can be interpreted in a way that justifies the blatant fraud many of our MP's have perpetrated recently with regard to expense claims, the guiding principles of the system are:

- Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.

- Claims must only be made for expenditure that it wasnecessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
- Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties.
- Claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a party political organisation.
- It is not permissible for a Member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is claiming from any other source.
- Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.
- Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
- Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if
- The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services
- Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.
- Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary.
Maybe I'm just expecting too much from MP's with regard to principles but the above is pretty clear to me.............

She's my local MP; and gave me a pretty standard cut and paste reply to an email on expenses - the only apology in it being one for the lateness of her reply.

Please ask her why she planned in Jan 09 to make sure MP's expenses were outside the scope of FOI; why this was planned to be a 3-line whip and how this squares with what she is now saying.

Given her anger at Sir Freds 'reward for failure' does she believe it is wrong for all these shamed and standing down MPs to stay until the next election in order to get a large payoff and a larger pension? It is hard to see a difference except in Sir Freds case no tax or fraud laws were broken.

Is there any way of making recalcitrant MPs resign instead of hanging on until the next election and receiving a very favourable relocation allowance and a very favourable re-employment allowance, in some cases totalling £100K per MP?

With only a few days left until the European elections, Harriet Harman should be asked whether she thinks that, in light of the Populus poll over the weekend which found 77 percent of voters want to be consulted more often in referendums, Labour would be in a better position now if it had not reneged on its promise of a referendum on the EU Treaty? Does she believe that the failure to hold that promised referendum has helped damage the government, especially given the new evidence that even UKIP may beat Labour in Thursday's vote?

Question for Mrs Harriman to-night. How can Gordon Brown have the effrontery to claim that he is the man who knows how to clean up politics when Labour came to power 11 years ago with the promise that 'We are the party to clean up British politics'? Isn't 11 years enough time?

I would like to ask Harriet Harrman does she and the other MP's and leaders really understand the issue of expenses?
They have not got a clue or they are lieing too us already - again. To have the real issues restated as MPs, Brown and Cameron in particular seem to want to forget.
The issue of MPs expenses is not the issue in itself, it is only the catalyst for 3 decades of issue lies about Europe. The public are outraged because of 30 years of duplicitous Government and ignoring public opinion on almost every issue;

Mass Immigrations holding back latest figures until after the next election.

Lisbon treaty promised a vote No vote

Conservative promised a vote now back tracking

Pensions catastrophe - taxed into oblivion and you wonder why no-one saves

Identity cards ???
Terrorism legislation used against ordinary people filling their bins, and driving along the road.
Fuel duty robbery
Crime - through the roof and no punishment
Public debt / borrowing - impoverishing a generation too come for political gain.
Education is ruined
Politicization of Civil service
Using public funds too promote Party issues

Recession - Labour by design, every Labour Government bankrupts the country, but this one is really spectacular.

Housing packs - from the EU
Post offices and the EU
Maastricht - treason
Single European act
Lies in the Referendum to join EU in 1972
Repeal of acts of treason Why?

Total economic, political, moral collapse of the country - this has to be deliberate to have been so complete. The list goes on and on and on - every single thing this Government has touched has turned too sh**.

These are the issues, not Parliamentary reform, or NEW rules or anything else just have some honour and patriotism.

So, NO, the MPs and party leaders dont Totally get it at all.

I want Harman to explain in real terms and answer the question clearly without weasel words and obfuscation.

Trust will not return until we leave the EU and begin too Govern Britain for the British and not for PRO-EU POLITICAL ELITE.

If you want too call me to debate this with her - more than happy too.

Lee Slaughter

My question to Harriet Harman is exactly the same as I would ask any of her Cabinet colleagues who have been involved, even peripherally, in the Expenses and Allowances saga; Why do you not resign now, before being driven from office at the next Election?

Does Mrs Harman think that she is ethical, honest and beyond reproach????

My question is simple - would the deputy leader lead - unlike her predecessor/s. Is it not the case that Parliament shot the messenger not the culprits and whilst i would stop short of insisting on an immediate GENERAL ELECTION i feel this which hunt has gone quite far enough & is out of all proportion.
Do we not need an all party moritorium on constitutional reform led by all party leaders and experts. The speaker should be reinstated and parliament dissolved and the new house as selected/elected in 2010 be able to choose how and who should be chosen from either house.......

Question for Mrs Harman

Should MP's who put in bogus expense claims be treated the same as benefit fraudsters?

Can you ask Harriet Harman why it's only so recently that MPs are expressing their moral angst about the abuse of the expenses' system when Channel 4 "Dispatches" broadcast a programme with Peter Oborn, "Nice work if you can get it" on 28 September 2007 that gave detailed accounts of, amongst others, Ed Balls' and Yvette Cooper's use of the system to enhance their property portfolios? If Ed Balls were to become Chancellor, in the event of Alistair Darling's removal/resignation, how long would Ed Balls last if C4 elected to rebroadcast this programme from 2007?

Would you ask her whether she read Rod Liddle's article in the 2 May Spectator that was titled, 'It is child-rearing, not sexism, that explains the pay gap between men and women', and what she thought of it. She will presumably deny having had time to read because...because...but as you have almost certainly read it, or could get a copy to read, you could ask her how it affects her views of the subject of salary-sexism.

I would ask Ms Harman whether given the uncharted nature of parliamentary change now required if it wouldn't be best for the nation if we had a government of all parties, at least in the short term, non party political and answering to MPs not the whips, not the government but the people's elected representatives acting as independants for once.

1. Are we to assume from the shock/horror attitude of senior politicians that none of them had any awareness of their friends/colleagues expenses claiming behaviour? It never cropped up in conversation when they moved house, for example?
If they did know, they were complicit in the behaviour; if not, keeping such things that quiet suggests the individuals knew it was suspect.

2. Will tightening rules be necessary if we can have a more principled House of Commons, who know instinctively what's fair?

Questions to be asked directly to Ms Harmon:

1. Why no by-elections?

2. Why should any member of either house make any profit out of property for which any claims have been made for allowances under claims of for the purpose of parliamentary duties?

3. Should all purchases - oriental carpets, flat screen TVs, pink laptops et al - be sold on on-line auction sites at the end of an MPs tenure and funds returned to the Treasury?

4. Will she answer any questions - at all - directly and honestly during the course of the entire interview?

To attempt to prove that I have psychic powers I will offer my predictions as to how she will answer .....


1. Blah, blah, blah!

2. Blah, blah, blah!

3. Blah, blah, blah!

4. Blah, blah, blah!

Now the answers we ought to hear:

1. Yes, immediately.

2. They should not. Period.

3. Brilliant idea! Ill get Gordon on to it immediately.

4. Of course, absolutely. Every single one as honestly as possible without any waffle!

Now - if in doubt - replace the name Harmon above with almost any MP's name you care to think of.

Oh! I'm so cynical ..... not.

As a French resident in the UK for 15 years I have always admired the British democratic model based on unwritten principles of mutual accountability and responsability. This model has been an inspiration for many countries undergoing a democratic process. Labour has very badly harmed these principles since 1997.
While there is a need to review the British constitutional frame is it really possible to 'fix' it in the space of a few months as Mr Brown seems to be intimating in all hi spublic declarations? won't this 'fixing' approach create new issues in the long term? Hence my question to Mrs Harman: what is in her view the optimal process for revising the constitution?

Why should I go to work to pay her and rest of the clowns a good wage and pension?

I can do what mp's cant, govern Myself Thankyou

I would like Harriet Harman to explain why, in the current economic climate, tax payers should be expected to subsidise cheap alcohol for MP's in the House of Commons bars.

Question(s) for Harriet Harman:
Now that New Labour's flirtation with both greed and fear - as levers of economic and political change - has proved so disasterous for the country (as well as for the party itself) - what does the Labour Party now stand for? What will set it apart from the other social democratic parties vying for the centre ground?

doesn't the current crisis result from a 19th century parliament, & a pre-war understanding of democracy, which has resulted in a polity where politicians are loathed & people feel disconnected from politics to a far greater extent than in any other modern western country [people feel that policy is concocted bahind the scenes with powerful lobbyists then spun to the electorate]? This can only be remedied with a thorough overhaul of our democratic apparatus, not simply with personal regulation of MPs financial arrangements. To me this reform needs to move in 2 directions:

1) within parliament - the strengthening of parliament through the non whipping of the election of members & chairs of select committees,
the select committes becoming an alternative career path for an MP with a salary to match,
selectcommittees having access to all relevant documents, the right to subpoena witnesses & cross examine them under oath;a register of lobbyists;state funding for political parties;an elected upper chamber.

2) However the above will be utterly meaningless if there is not reform of the voting system to something more proportionate. We have a system which makes most of the electorates votes redundant. Many people with mainstream political views currently feel excluded & unrepresented - eg. one nation christian democrat tories, european social democrats, greens.

Following the broad sweep of these comments the question I would like put to Harriet Harman is will the government honour its maifesto pledge to put the Jenkins Report to a referendum. It leads to a much fairer system of voting, whilst retaining the constituancy link, & in most cases since the war would actually have returned governments with a majority, hence negating the weak government argument.

Gordon Brown said the public expects him to clean up politics and end the recession before leaving office.
What evidence does he have for this?
Harriet Harman said she believes in the court of public opinion. If the results on Thursday are a disaster for Labour, what possible evidence can Gordon Brown have that the public want him to continue. Until the Telegraph disclosures he had done nothing in the past 12 years to clean up politics and was instrumental in causing the recession.

MORE ON PSEUDO CREDIT ASSIGNMENT

Today, BBC NEWS had a banner when Gordon Brown was interviewed on a train, which read something like 'BROWN: MPs guilty of fraud should resign'.

Given that fraud is a criminal offence, that MPs are required to inform the Speaker if they're charged with a criminal offence, and that The Representation of the People Act 1981 bars those convicted and sent to prison for a year or more from being an MP, Brown was hardly saying much at all was he?

Still, it made him look good to some I suppose. Or did he even say this? The BBC is a bit prone to translating rather than reporting verbatim these days. It is rather important to know exactly what politicians say given the law and the intensional nature of Natural Language.

Will she look to camera and confirm that she and her cabinet colleagues, by words and deeds, past, present and intended, have for the last decade served above all the best interests of the country they claim and were tasked to represent to bring us to the current state, and yet intend to continue in like manner into the foreseeable future?

With a straight face. And then offer some notion as to how she, and they, can even hope to get away with the idea that they have not made a complete Horlicks of it, still issuing breathtakingly daft noises from the bunker in support of a clearly deranged... 'leader'.

As money is now the only object, on tap no matter what (even getting caught and booted), and with dignity and honour nothing but a claim-slip signing away, I rather think we know the answer.

I would just like to offer her my thoughts at the ballot box by reply, sooner rather than later; before any more damage is done.

Does Harriet Harmen regret introducing us to the phrase "will be judged by the Court of Public Opinion?". Obviously now very appropriate for MPs!!

She used it on on the Andrew Marr AM Prog with reference to Fred 'the Shred' and his multi-million pension and pay-off.

Was That Porn Video Worth the Money WE Paid out for, And er can I have A Copy Please


(nudge nudge wink wink)

Will Yvette Cooper be our first female Chancellor?

So Gordon Brown says "I think the cleaning up of the political system is best done by someone who has got a clear idea of what needs to be done - and I have." Oh really? If he's got such a clear idea of what needs to be done then why has it taken him so long to get round to doing it?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What is the real reason for not calling a General Election? Is it the one the PM gave at a recent PMQ session; that the Tories would win - or is it that HMG truly believe the political class who voted for and used these lax systems of expenses and allowances,who fought tooth and nail to retain secrecy over their claims, should be the best people to reform it?

With all this dodgy dealing isnt it time for the Govt to come clean, and open for debate in the public sphere, what Peter Mandelson has committed us to in irreversible international trade agreements, especially as they all contain a commitment to open to cheap labour from outside of the EU -a big secret??

I would like to know why in addition to the expenses perks which MP's awarded themselves they and other certain public body workers have a privileged state pension totally different to the tax payers pension?

How does it feel to have a leader who, I believe, is considered by the majority to be more of an egomaniac than David Van Day?

THERE ARE LOTS MORE SMART MEN THAN WOMEN

Can you ask Ms Harman if she knows this, and how it affects equality and pay? Whilst she's answering, please give her a copy of this and point out that sex difference in distributions shows up in all the Key Stage SATs too, and do so every year even after the QCA/NAA try to design them out. Then point out that men are taller than women too, and tell her it's a Natural Selection thing. Please do a close up of her face.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#28 Possibly, Its a man's world, but she's got Balls!

When Ms Harman goes on holiday would she be happy that her pilot had been chosen soley on the basis of his/her popularity - or would she rather that they had been selected because of demonstrated aptitude for the role, had been trained extensively, and were subject to regular checks in order to demonstrate competence in the role? So what is she going to do to professionalise the selection of politicians so that the electorate can then chose people they know will have the skills and experience necessary to run the governement of this country?

If Alistair Darling had said "I apologise, but I'm not resigning", that would be an apology with reservations. But he made an unreserved apology. So that must mean that he's resigning. Except that he's not. As usual, he says something, but he doesn't mean it.

Have we got a situation like the last days of the Thatcher Government, where the Cabinet were too frightened to say anything to The Boss...?

Doesn't there come a point where the Deputy Leader's responsibility, or duty, is to say I am very sorry Boss but it really is time to step down graciously, for the longer-term good of the country...?

I'm already laughing in anticipation of tonight's programme !

I suspect that any answers will reflect the culture of everything in politics sponsored by the stock market parasites via university boffins, they all think like Professor Marcos in the Ealing comedy The Lady-killers. " Its OK to steal ten thousand quid in an armed robbery because its only a farthing on all the policies "

Given that the appropriate authorisation body has not uncovered the expenses problems over the past 5 years, should we assume that this is the tip of the iceburg and that similar circumstances exist with the allocation and control of the billions of pounds connected with government contracts?

Do the Government get it yet?

The expenses incidents are the catalyst that has woken-up the general public and made them realise that all the bad laws, half-truths and broken promises that they have had to endure for the past 11 years can now be attacked.

That is why Labour is suffering most in the poles.

They have treated the voters (60% of whom didn't vote them) as insignificant and a necessary nuisance that should be ignored, milked and controlled at all times.

Gordon ("I know best" and "it's in the small print") Brown is about to get his come-upance.

Is Harriet Harman going to fully support him - and go down with him?

Government says that they are tough on crimes but report on following link shows that the government and banks will not be a ble to stop a fraud boom which will be far worse than credit crunch.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fraudsters-face-uks-extremely-thin-blue-line-1689922.html>

Can you please ask Harriet Harman why the government is ignoring to solve this BIG problem? I hope you can make the government do something before it is too late.

would Harriet Harman like to explain why every time she is placed under pressure she reverts to a classic Liberal response of stating that is is up to whoever to decide? the electorate have had enough of listening to the rhetoric spewed by the lying and cheating politicians. Taxpayers money has been misappropriated by so many in Westminster from all political backgrounds. Each party seems to skim over their own culpability, by citing other party's stealing. When will the govt accept and admit that cheating the electorate is dishonest and those that do it should face a court of law? the time is long gone when the representatives in parliament can say no illegal behaviour when clearly they are morally reprehensible.

Feel free to dissect and alter appropriately

A question from M/s Harman

If the result of the election is as bad as it seems that it might be after Thursday, does the Government still have a mandate from the people to govern in our names?

ODDITIES

Given #35, why are 80% of psychologists female these days, and is the media a family business - rationally, like teh demographics of NYC, and the House of Lords, it's a matter of representation and statistical deviation from expected population base-rates.

"I want you to know that what you're doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation - a sacrifice you may not have chose (sic) to make, but a sacrifice that you are nevertheless called to make so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things." President Obama

It would be far better if all our children could grow up in a world that no longer worships the motor car, which has been responsible for massive ecological damage to our planet, invasion of our streets and avenues, and more death and injury than any other non-warfare invention.

When it became apparent that the auto industry was becoming the next victim of excess consumerism after banking, I had hoped for an epiphany in which the domination of our lives by the continual increase in cars on our overcrowded roads would now give way to the more pedestrian-friendly life that I once knew. But it was not to be. Short-sighted governments threw more public money at the car industry and brought in measures to tempt the public into another buying spree on new cars, most of which will benefit foreign industrials.

My residential avenue that once had two single-decker buses per hour, now has 12 huge double-deckers per hour, often mounting the pavements to pass each other, and taking bends on the wrong side of the road in order to pass a continual line of parked cars, themselves a hazard and an eyesore. All attempts to replace private car ownership by increased public transport have simply resulted in more non-essential travel (aided by free bus travel to all over-60s). The golden opportunity to create a better world for all our children has been thrown away.

A question with regard to MP's offering to volunteer a capital gains tax payment to HMR&C as Ms Harman's cabinet colleague Hazel Blears recently did. Does Ms Harman believe that MP's doing this should be owning up to the Revenue that that they have deliberately evaded tax and pay resultant penalties like any other individual in the same situation? If not then surely any cheque sent as a payment on account to HMR&C will only be refunded at the end of the current tax year as their will be no tax liability to clear. Isn't the truth that this is yet another con being pulled on the long suffering public?

Is it true that we are all going to receive a standard letter from our labour party MP saying how sorry they are about the expenses scandal? I believe we are expected to believe it was written from the 'heart' and not labour party HQ. They really should get out more

What I tink is a simple question is why if an empolyee is dismissed for miss conduct they do not get Redundancy pay, does this not apply to MP's who are found to have broken the rules.
Such an admission from all the main political parties would go some way to clam the public.

Thank you

Dear Mrs Harman,

Q1 - We keep hearing the same line of defense from ministers and back benchers a like ' it was within the rules at the time'. How can politicians justify using the defence ' it was within the rules' when they made the rules? If I unilaterally made the rule it is ok to steal from my neighbour would that be an acceptable defense in a court of law also?

Q2 - Repeat Q1 ad nauseum until she actually answers it.

Jericoa

sicorsacar (#50) It has a catchy little paragraph which goes:

"Labour will stand by you and your family - not walk on by as the Conservatives did in the 1990s."

[My emphasis added for the benefit of the hard of grasping amongst the NN blog readership]

# 53 JadedJean

All very well but with the latest Welfare Reform Bill going through parliament is going to destroy the essential income to many families, particularly those worn out through true hard work and theoretically retired early. Not that much better if you become unemployed, after a year faced with the prospect of doing a hard physical job as a " dole slave " when your health is not good to start with.

The tax credit bribe wont be as effective this time, many still talk about having to pay a fortune back when they could least afford it. The men allegedly in charge have been proven to be as bent as a nine bob note.

The green book is a guideline to expenses and allowances of MP's. The prologue to the guidelines contains five principles. Before the MP even puts pen to paper, he/she is expected to follow these principles for all claims and allowances claimed.
CLEAR AND SIMPLE.
Are MP's therefore unprincipled or are the guidelines contained in the green book totally ignored.

Given that Brown and Blair's first efforts at devolution were highly flawed with a Scottish bias, why should we trust Brown with another attempt at constitutional reform?
In particular what would be done about.....
The number of MPs at Westminster?
The West Lothian question?
The Barnett formula?
PR?
Fixed term parliaments?
The House of Lords?
Accepting the views of the Parliamentary Ombudsman? Recent reports into Occupational Pensioners and Equitable Life have all but been ignored by the Government - although the former is now moving after a JR forced a change of heart?
A new Federal Parliament dealing with UK matters?
What are her views or doesn't she have any thoughts of her own? - and please none of the usual nonsense that we are conferring, etc.
Roland

ECONOMICS FOR BEGINNERS:
My Dear Harriot,
Please explain why you have bunged the Banks all our money and still allow the top Bankers to pocket a sizable tranche of it in bonuses;such activity as would justify the imprisonment of lesser employees in a private or public enterprise?
Be assured that my proposal is intended to give maximum offence to all who subscribe sheeplike to the present neo-liberal orthodoxy aka Thatcherism.
Take every working 50+ taxpayer and give them £1M so they can buy a new car pay off their mortgage fund a state pension. QED : dont try and solve the problem with the thinking that created it. The banks would then be liquid and under Post Office ownership.We would then be in a far happier Cloud Cuckoo Land than we have been living in for the last 25 years.
Do not forget our economy was the envy of the free world so now as then they would follow our example.If this were to happen where would all these talented people Bankers Captains of Industry go: perhaps back to school.
Is it not the case that the public disgust at your expense claims and indifference to those of the financial service sector employees are a media plot to distract us from the fundamental reasons for the financial collapse? When Banks forclose on firms or individuals should they not be obliged to share the cost that their decision places on the taxpayer?
Is it not time that Gordon, like Capt Scott, tried to look after his
people?

Harriot, I would prefer you to make a few bob on your expenses than some of these other functionally literate and numerate bufoons who have emergerged from our public schools.
I am sorry that I have now lost patience with the party and will not cow tow to establishment in Ramsey Mac Donald style, please tell why I should not carry the torch and vote Socialist Labour? Bet ya cant answer!

Weepingly yours
Fred

In my professional career I had contact with bank business clients and accountants. An expense was proportioned in the annual accounts or tax return.

Entertainment, travel, phone etc was claimed on the basis of business cost only. Property taxes were allocated on the basis of business/private proportion or the number of months owned, such as nine twelths of the full year cost.

So what was this so called accountant which the taxpayer apparently correctly paid for doing when he got Darlings property services bill incorrect? How many more ministers tax returns did he get wrong? Does the so called accountant have liability insurance to cover professional mistakes?

What does HH think of the quality of the accountancy service given to Ministers by the accountant in question bearing in mind Alistair Darlings expenses error?

How many of these whingers about MPs expenses have never made false claims when they thought they could get away with it,either on the firm or on the state. Lets get real see how many nomarks draw more on Social than MPs do on expenses.

I would just like to know why ms harman tried to prevent us from knowing about the expenses fiddle...please

Please ask....[ By what mandate, dictionary meaning - A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.]
By what mandate do the government intend to remain in power despite the loss of confidence in them.

Isn't this yet

Is it possible for the following to refrain from condemnation of MPs, (always supposing anyone reads it):
Illegal downloaders of music who cause businesses and jobs to go, leading to all manner of taxpayers costs.
People with a lot of debt not related to need
Those who object to their own personal incomes and expenses being made public
Bankers and footballers who have been paid obscene sums
Parents who dont pay maintenance for their own children
Unfaithful partners who break up families and cost unhappiness, desperation and poverty.
Shoplifters and frauds
Binge drinkers who cost police and Health Service time and money
People who vandalise public property and cause expense
The list could go on and covers most if not all of us including the person who sold illegally obtained (how?) information to the press. That person himself appears to have had a chequered career. The Telegraph hasnt done badly for increased sales, either.
Is it all turning into a universal Big Brother House which itself says much about the current culture? Who grumbled before it all crashed? Weve been better than this all of us and can be again.

KILLING THEM WITH NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT

got2write (#62) There's a pattern, and it's self-selected dysgenesis. There's g and conscientiousness have high heritability and we have appear to have high differential and dysgenic fertility meaning it's positively skewed (a deceptive term).

Can I please make a comment about the news relating to Alistair Darlings today.

He claimed for a bill he had the right to claim for at the time. It was a bill for a year in advance and he moved into No.11 a few months later how is this news! Im no supporter of either Brown or Mr Darling but how is this important at a time when there are really important things for these people to work on.

Im happy that the Telegraph has released this information because it will create an opportunity to make a change I think its wrong that it distracts from the important stuff this is about the system at the commons. Thats all!

M
Bristol

Harriet Harman still doesn't get it. To think I've struggled for the last twenty years to make donations to the Labour Party while Labour MPs have been struggling to think about how they can claim on expenses and defraud the taxpayer - it's unbelievable. The anger among voters is huge and party loyalists are in despair.

And another thing, as we say when rowing, European elections are imminent and we have a proliferation of broadcast and print news but has it enlightened us about it and what it means? There are cries for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but where were all the other refendums except for the one the labour Party provided but only after the previous government had taken us in. Who knows all about those other ones? The vote only means something if the issues are thoroughly aired.

"But we also want to know what questions you think Mrs Harman should answer. Leave your suggestions below."

Please let us know which of our questions were used ... thanks.

All polititions are culpable. They led us to belive they were leading from the front with zero % payrises. I would have accepted my own below inflation rises with much more grace, had I realised I could go out and roger the expenses

Who will employ this lot of MPs - many whom are tainted with the expenses debacle - when they are finally ousted from parliment at the next general election? Any MP who was a little bit cavalier with his expense claims and the subsequent Daily Telegraph 'outing' may find it hard to secure any future employment that will keep them in the lifestyle they are accustomed..hence the manner in which some are trying to cling-on with their pathetic excuses. What employer would want to introduce a former corrupt MP to his company/co workers/the board?

Harriet Harwoman: "nobody becomes an MP to enrich themselves"...really! But they soon did when they entered parliment. Full coaching no doubt was given to newbie MPs in filling out their expenses.

Save it harriet!...you lot are finished, you just don't know it yet. See you at Tescos...i'll let you swipe my club card...bleep bleep.

WHICH ASPECT (OF WESTMINSTER) IS MOST OFFENSIVE?

I repeat: It is the blatant 'political non-answer' delivered as if it IS an answer, routinely given in response to legitimate questions by all MPs.

THIS ONE FACTOR, common to all MPs of every gender, damns them as without honour and unsuited to hold any office of trust or representation.

Absolutely outstanding Jeremy with Harriet Harperson! Was she convincing - not at all. How many red herrings did she try to raise?
I'm not surprised at Michael's report that the government are so low in the opinion polls. What a mess :p

Pathetic interview by Paxman. Same old questions - same old answers.
What did we learn? - nothing.
Time for JP to retrain or retire!
Roland

STRATEGY

barrie (#70) Being realistic, the NN FOCUS group didn't like Independents for the same reasons I have often given. So, the answer to many of our problems (which I suggest is consistent with many of your proposals and mine) is.........a Democratic-Centralist (Leninist-Stalinist) One Party system as in the PRC, where Party Members are regularly purged (see Sidney and Beatrice Webb's book 'Soviet Communism: A New Civilization' (1944)) ?

Given recent events and the trends, which do you think is more likely to spread across the world, the Chinese-Stalinist system, or the EU's/USA's neo-liberalism?

"Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."

From Wikipedia on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World

Orwell was an anti-statist/anti-Stalinist Trotskyite - Aldus Huxley was Sir Julian Huxley's brother. Julian Huxley was a eugenicist.

FOCUS ON THE FOCUS GROUP (#73)

Oh JJ! "the NN FOCUS group didn't like Independents "

I DIDN'T LIKE THE NN FOCUS GROUP. (:o) They were far too real. Did you spot any philosophical thought or depth of self understanding?

Immature individuals (children) make poor voters. Poor voters elect poor leaders for poor reasons. We cannot know the potential a population of multiple billions might have for world sanity, because we have only just arrived at the starting point. But I think you and I agree we are currently electing the least capable of achieving such, AND THE 'NN PANEL' HAD NO IDEA OF THE WHY OR HOW OF IT.

74 I

Well Patricia Hewitt's off.....who's next????

barrie (#74) Well, you avoided the real question did you not? ;-)

In Democratic Centralism, the people elect their party members. They in turn elect their leaders, and so on. The Means of Production are in state hands, and the job of the party and 'civil service' is to ensure that it runs for the benefit of the people. Once decsions are made at the top, the rest of the system has to comply given that the decisions are made by their democratically elected representatives. It isn't all that different from what Old Labour envisaged in 1945 which is of course, no coincidence. The PRC constitution, which is essentially Stalinist, forbids sedition (or secession, something which the USSR systemn permitted), which would mean that conservatives/anarchists/Trots would not be allowed to infiltrate (as entryists) and subvert the system. After decades of propaganda it is difficult to look at such systems fairly, but it can be done, and I think should be done, if only for heuristic reasons. The alternative, surely, is to settle for a one-party system all of our own, just without knowing it.

TOO MANY 'REAL' QUESTIONS NOT ENOUGH REAL MATURITY (#77)

If, as I assert, the fault lies in our individual selves (Jaded Brutus) the juvenile, 'driven' psycho/narcissists, et al, will always arrive in positions of power, there to wreak havoc engendered by their own warped desiring, and magnified by their unmet (unmeetable) need. (Tony is such a perfect example.) Is not the specific organisation of governance very secondary to this?

Addendum clearly, the USSR had its problems/divisionswithin its one-party system ;-)

The mor eone looks into it in the late 1930s, the similarities between 'Socialism in One Country' Stalinist USSR and National Socialist Germany were much greater than their differences. The USSR had the same enemy within as Germany it would seem - the COMINTERN. In terms of expansion, if one looks at the outcome of WWII, it was Soviet/German National Socialism which won, and ironically, Britain embraced National Socialism in 1945 and the USA 'neo-liberals' (Trots) have been subverting it ever since.

barrie (#78) I agree with your analysis and concerns, but I have seen it work within our Civil Service when senior people were carefully selected for the qualities you and I admire. Sadly, I've also seen it subverted from above in pursuit of deregulation and the alleged merits of privatisation/individualism. There were of course, no merits at all, it was all just predatory asset-stripping, opportunism and subversion. It purged good people and promoted the bad.

barrie - Do you remember this exchange from last year? It's part of the problem.

Sadly, there's an awful lot of this about.

One doesn't hear much from the good guys these days. They're too boring.

Barrie #78

NAIL - HEAD - HIT

A view I have long held. The Beeblebrox factor. So what are we to do? See you at Milliways I think. Just for now I'll take the dog for a walk.

On Brown if, or when, McBride is found - and it is a scandal that he has not gone before the House of Commons committee - that could lead to Brown resigning on the spot if he did know about the smear campaign.

Brown has run out of road and though replacing him may not achieve much it may halt the decline, but won't reverse it.

But if he has the worst Labour results for a zillion years and the prospects for the general election are worse even he may see the light.

It would be very sad if one of the architects of the financial disaster - and it was a "global phenomenon" in 1929 - should get credit for fixing it, though respect for doing his duty would apply.

Therefore with the Iraq War inquiry to come and a need to rebalance the economy the public will be looking elsewhere in large numbers.

I applaud the Telegraph expenses stories but it may be wise for them to suspend them for a couple of days during the elections.

They have not been partisan and it does a great deal for their reputation that they have revealed the need for serious constitutional change.

They get respect for that.

Don't spoil it Telegraph.

#74 barriesingleton

"I DIDN'T LIKE THE NN FOCUS GROUP. (:o) They were far too real. Did you spot any philosophical thought or depth of self understanding?"

For first time visitors to the page there are numerous far right posters - not the BNP or Nazis - who seek to promote their ideology.

Basically they like:

race "realism" ;
planned economies Hitler style (see Jaded_Jean above) - Hitler was "peace loving";
eugenics ;
and they are Holocaust "Agnostics" who provide statistics and arguments against the historical facts that there was a holocaust - they won't be expert witnesses for Djemjanjuk in Germany though will they.

I saw democratic and representative voters on the Newsnight panel and those that associate themselves with those characters will hopefully read your comments and be swayed away from any misguided notion of voting BNP as a protest.

#78 barriesingleton

"If, as I assert, the fault lies in our individual selves (Jaded Brutus) the juvenile, 'driven' psycho/narcissists, et al, will always arrive in positions of power, there to wreak havoc.."

These are the kinds of posters who promote the ideas of Hitler.

You remember the chap, moustache, liked a healthy drink with his niece, occupied most of Europe, tens of millions dead, Germany is only now fully recover, Jew hater who murdered millions and might have been related to Salomons.

#69 the cookieducker

I am no Harman fan and certainly not a Labour fan but I would Labour if it kept out the BNP. That said they are not as great a threat as some portray.

So do the non-BNP activists get a script sent to them?

SONS OF BEELZEBUB (#81 link)

So Draper went to 'Berkeley' just as Archer went to 'Wellington'? I suppose the common factor is being 'made in the likeness of Beelzebub'.
interesting link JJ - too much of it about indeed! And probably increasing exponentially, if modern 'apprentices' are apprenticed to the Devil - as it would seem.

NEW FAZER: The 'Beeblebrox Factor' - how he would love that! The Dignitas debate is a bit Beeblebrox; we get no say in conception, then get refused a say in self extinction by a bunch of deluded guardians of morality, who never gave the former act a thought.

Keep banging the rocks together.

#73 Jaded_Jean

"Orwell was an anti-statist/anti-Stalinist Trotskyite - Aldus Huxley was Sir Julian Huxley's brother. Julian Huxley was a eugenicist."

So were the Nazis!

Do you see a clamour for their return! No. Of course not.

Meanwhile the BNP are a "modern and progressive" party who are not Nazis according to one spokesman.

But then you have said you are not a Nazi.

Strange people on the far right. You are "agnostic" on the Holocaust but like to provide "statistics" that show Jewish survival rates for some obscure reason.

I listed all the criminals, courtesy of the Guardian, yesterday in the BNP ranks.

I did not include those who are far right sympathisers jailed in the last year like the Baby P batterer and child rapist, the wannabe nail bomber and paedophile, the Lowestoft wannabe train station bomber caught with an SS Manual, the Twickenham Green murderer who was suspected of the Millie Dowler disappearance.

The BNP campaign advert said that the BNP did not spy on peoples rubbish and that they had organised a day trip for children.

fees office-

...I have a narrow boat and every three years or so the underneath needs painting can I claim this? asked one MP. Yes, responded the fees office. ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5339989/MPs-expenses-The-fees-office-guidelines.html

Andrew Walker, the Commons director of resources [125k pa] who has overseen the liberal expenses regime since 1997 should be interviewed? why did he not resign when he said the expenses system should be tightened and the speaker told him 'not to meddle'?

https://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Scapegoat_MP_expenses_official_bullied_to_comply&in_article_id=655133&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=


why did he say "Transparency will damage democracy."?

https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/15/mps-expenses-heather-brooke-foi

the process by which it all came out would make a good drama? who will be first? bbc or c4?

"I applaud the Telegraph expenses stories but it may be wise for them to suspend them for a couple of days during the elections."

Of course you applaud them. They are anarchists. Come the elections people will be getting rid of MPs - see BBC poll on the news.

It's a formula for anarchism as the Lib-Dems and Torries (and New Labour) want. It will have free-enterprise and market forces preying upon an ever more free, gullible and powerless people with power going to the EU to ensure nobody can do anything about it through local or national government.

Business hates regulation. Especially Big Business.

BRAIN - GEAR - MOUTH

thegangonfone "These are the kinds of posters who promote the ideas of Hitler."

J.M Keynes

Eugenics...........

TEHGANGOFONE (#89) "Do you see a clamour for their return! No. Of course not."

Note 1) - National Socialism. Wrong, I would like to see its return. We had a viable, manageable system where electing MPs made sense as they had something public to oversee on behalf of those who owned it. It requires a one-party system.

Note 2) - Eugenics, a term coined by Francis Galton the father of differential psychology means good breeding. If it prevents and reverses dysgenics, yes, it's a good idea. You don't seem to understand that it basically means sound family planning. It is usually people who are intent on subverting/destroying cultures who preach that eugenics is bad, and they do so via black propaganda.

Note 3) - Are you enjoying watching this culture nose-diving?

Go1 #86

Oh dear, there you go again. Having a go at poor old Barrie. I cannot think of anything he has ever posted which would give you just cause to lump him in with the goose stepping Nazis of your nightmares. I know a little of the man (no more than you could if you took the time) and can safely say that he is an intelligent and honourable man. Which is probably why he was not elected when he stood, the face didn't fit. So it must be something else, possibly the fact that he behaves in a civilised way towards JJ, so by association he must be a bad lot. It has been suggested that that would show you to have a problem with discrimination - you don't know how to do it. Discrimination is basic to all intelligent behaviour. Think IQ tests.

Jacqui (Jackboots)Smith QUITS!!!!!!! I see a VERY interesting Newsnight tonight :o)

From the reactions above I am glad I fell asleep and missed NN last night.

Seems like the wrong questions were asked (again) and the politicians left to slither off riding their rhetoric like a slugs mucus into the night.

GO1: you just can't help yourself!
Jackie Smith going...good!..hope bent Hoon goes soon..many jumping ship as predicted with any damage limitation from labour having no effect. Harriet womanman cannot deflect anything..she has no big guns.
Today i will mostly be door knocking for the BNP.

Shuffleboard on the Titanic. Bless.

I presume we elect, and pay a 'government of all the talents' to... er... lead?

Much as this farrago is providing ratings all round, it is hard to see it serving this country's best interests much.

In light of the military analogies abounding as the D-Day planning has gone about as well as any other of late, as a poor grunt in the trenches, it is hardly encouraging that our political classes, and especially those 'in charge', seem unable to do much other than juggling pulling their own pins, fragging the one next to them or sniping their own side.

So my morale is... suffering a tad. Especially to find myself an unwilling passenger on a Kamikaze mission, and especially when finding the flight crew have ransacked the rest of the cabin for all the golden parachutes and are bailing out as we head for oblivion.

ps: and it is a tad galling to note the Observer corps in their barrage balloons gleefully happy to see which way the wind blows so they can gently land in the warm, privileged access embrace of the 'victors' (or, at least, lesser losers) to give it a few months settling in together until the whole sorry cosy circus kicks off again in another guise.

You know, I feel disinclined to go along this time. Out, and for a lot more than a blooming duck. The whole sorry publicly, and too often uniquely-funded shebang.

ANYTHING GOES IN THE LAND OF THE GREAT DECEIVERS?

barrie (#88) Exactly. This really is bad. I suspect many don't know how bad.

The problem, like elsewhere, is deregulation. In a regulated culture such behaviour would be classed as fraud, but in our neo-liberal 'free to choose' times, private business clients are just regulated by caveat emptor one presumes? Newsnight, and the BBC in general alas, turns to such people as experts, i.e it reinforces it.

Read between the lines:

I have excellent qualifications as a psychotherapist including an MA in psychology and another MA which I am about to receive from a very distinguished UK institution. I have never sought NHS patients, my work as a psychotherapist is wholly with private patients, and my practice is always full"