Bless this claim

 

Former pal and MP Gordon Prentice reports from Canada: 

"Michael Thompson, an inventive councillor in Toronto, has claimed $300 expenses to cover the cost of a pastor  “blessing his workplace” at City Hall. His office is blessed at the start of every new Council term. Even Westminster’s most ingenious and resourceful MPs failed to come up with such a cunning claim. No reaction yet from Fat Rob Ford, Toronto’s populist Mayor who doesn’t claim expenses himself. He doesn’t need small change. The right wing union basher is independently wealthy.Senator Lavigne resigns The Canadian Senator who was caught fiddling his expenses has resigned, allegedly to “protect his $80,000 a year pension”.The story has been running for ages in the Canadian press with roars of outrage accompanying every twist and turn. The unelected and unloved Senate has even fewer friends now."

 

Who will be the first British MP to try that on our flint-hearted IPSA?

 

Blood lust

The Welsh Assembly Government will debate tomorrow (Wednesday March 23) whether to carry out its plan to kill badgers as new figures show big reductions in cattle TB.

The area designated for the killing is in Dyfed, where the cattle toll has fallen by 45 percent over the last two years without any culling policy. This is since Health Check Wales was introduced which ensured that all animals were tested, some of which would not otherwise have been checked for another four years.

In Great Britain as a whole the fall in cattle deaths last year was 10 percent and 18 percent over the last two years, but the demands for badgers to be killed continue.

The figures for herds found to contain infected cattle show, over the two years, a net reduction in breakdowns of 309, or six percent. In the same period the number of herds tested went up from 53,822 in 2008 to 60,523 last year. This increase of 12 percent revealed 101 more cases.

Hysteria flops 

The BBC World Service is trying to build up world hysteria (their word) about the Royal wedding. Things are inert in the circles in which I move. A poll commissioned by campaign group Republic has today blown apart the hype around the royal wedding, showing that almost 80% of people simply don't care about the event.

 

The ICM poll showed that 79% were either "largely indifferent" or "couldn't care less" about the wedding, in contrast with the hype being generated by certain sections of the media and by the palace press office.

The poll also revealed that 1 in 3 people believe the BBC's coverage is biased in favour of the royals.

Republic spokesperson Graham Smith said today:

 

"There is widespread apathy about the wedding, we're seeing that right

across the country.  Of course there are some people who are excited, there

are many who are utterly opposed to the monarchy, and there are many who

simply don't care."

 

"The British public are simply not excited about the royals anymore.  This

marks a significant shift from 30 years ago.  These days people will make

up their own minds about these sorts of events and are much more likely to

take an interest in sport, celebrity and popular entertainment."

 

Sun dimmed

Huw Irranca Davies MP has attacked the Coalition's insane policy of weakening one of the few good renewable ideas. Huw writes:

 

"The shambolic handling of the solar power review by government has sadly demonstrated a shocking level of ministerial incompetence. Caught red-handed in the act of sabotaging the fledgling feed-in-tariffs that pay people for producing solar energy, climate minister Greg Barker has thrashed around wildly for someone to blame it on. "It was them, guv'nor!" he says, pointing a shaking finger at the previous government, or poor economic modelling (ie the civil servants), or the nasty capitalist solar park developers.

The minister justifies his shock treatment of the sector by "put[ting] a stop to the threat of larger scale solar soaking up the cash". Yet he hasn't only stopped what he initially fingered as the villains in the piece (the very large solar parks on greenfield sites). He hasn't just stopped larger industrial installations on supermarkets or huge industrial buildings. He has also jeopardised medium-sized installations above 50 kw – including many schools, hospitals, churches and community facilities – which would have dramatically scaled up the jobs in manufacturing and installation and servicing, and helped reduce carbon emissions.

There is an unedifying arrogance to this so-called "greenest government ever" which is beginning to worry the wider renewables sector. Rather than try and fix a problem by working with and consulting with the solar sector and with the green groups who supported the feed-in tariff, the government has provided a case-study in how not to amend policy:

• First, put uncertainty into the market by signalling an earlier than expected review of a sector that is only just beginning to bloom. Later, justify that uncertainty by background briefing from a former Cameron aide, who explains it was a deliberate ruse to take steam out of the sector, adding insult to injury. This isn't Machiavellian politics … it's Captain Mainwaring.

 

Comments

[D.G.]

"Obviously 'expenses' is still too sensitive an area for discussion."

Sensitive areas can certainly be discussed - in a sensitive manner.

If it's the system that's the issue rather than the principal of producing receipts and having every claim checked, then I'm happy to wax lyrical about the relative benefits of GlobalExpense vs Concur, and the best way of structuring an approvals and classification process.

[Paul Flynn]

The BBC World Service has gone mad on the royal wedding to an extent that would provoke derision on the home channels.

[Paul Flynn]

Obviously 'expenses' is still too sensitive an area for discussion. I'll shut up about IPSA which is a system that wastes £millions, is irrational, clunky and deeply bureaucratic. There is a better way but almost impossible to debate the subject.

[patrick]

Self employed businesses have needed proof of every transaction for years.

Purchases, sales, stock reciepts, till rolls, fuel etc.

All the rules were created by civil servants in the public sector to (fairly) scrutinise the private sector.It such a shame for them because it wasn't ment to include themselves.

It's interesting that the very people that investigate 'dodgy books' have not until very recently needed to account for their own.

When they have accounted for their own we then witness the high level of corruption among their own ranks.

The evidence is that every workplace (public and private) will push the boundaries unless accountability is enforced.

[patrick]

Surely even Elin Jones will be capable of realising that a cull is now inappropriate , will cost a huge amount of taxpayers money and will result in MORE FECKING TB?

We the British public have paid over 90 Million Pounds for the last culls.

The result of the trials and culls was a scientific report by Professor krebs.

‘Killing wildlife does not reduce TB, it does the reverse, it increases it.’

So Elin let’s placate your farming friends and WASTE huge sums of much needed public money on yet another non-scientific FARCE!

http://www.badgersandtb.com/selected_topics.html

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/welsh-assembly-to-vote-on-badger-cull/37866.article

[Junican]

I was just reading PF's post and had much the same thoughts as DG. Damn it! What is the problem with MPs and their silly expenses? The whole thing is so simple.

1. A Housing Allowance for ALL MPs.
Requirement - GENUINE receipts for rent.

2. Entertainment Allowance. For use in
normal MP activities involving meeting
and greeting.

3. Office Costs Allowance. Covering ALL
office costs (these costs do not
necessarily have to originate FROM A
PLACE)

ETC.

Above all, we must understand what 'provision of receipts' means - it is simply a matter of justification. No big deal.

The Welsh Assembly's discussion of a badger cull is really heartening. The more time they spend discussing these issues, the less they can spend discussing climate change as stuff like that which they do not understand. Good show chaps!

As regards the wedding - well, if 80% of the people are not that bothered, that leaves 20% who are, which equals about 8 million people. 8 million who are 'thrilled' by the Royal Wedding. Not a small number. We should be wary of percentages. But it is true that the BBC is notoriously bent. This will always be so as long as the BBC is reliant upon the Gov for its income. A case in point was the Panorama program about tobacco smuggling. That program was out and out propaganda. It was not an objective examination of the situation at all. I suspect that the BBC earned quite a few gold stars for that program. The fact that the BBC was supporting despotism and persecution was irrelevant, I suppose.

[D.G.]

"Who will be the first British MP to try that on our flint-hearted IPSA?"

That's not as funny as you think it is.

I'm up past midnight, unable to sleep, worried sick about my family's future and what the Budget's going to do to us, not to mention how the hell I'm going to pay the mortgage if interest rates go up like they did in the 80s - or whether it's worth paying extortionate arrangement fees to get a fixed rate - and you're still whining about how bloody *inconvenient* it is to have to produce receipts, and use a bureaucratic computer system before someone will pay your living expenses for you?

I have to stop typing now.