Terror in Westminster

A sufficient amount of time has passed since the terror attack in Westminster for me to feel confident about sharing my thoughts.

The facts are that a fifty-two year old Muslim man with a known history of violence drove a car onto the pavement while crossing Westminster bridge, deliberately ploughing into numerous pedestrians.  He then got out of his car in the precincts of the Houses of Parliament, and stabbed a policeman before being shot by another policeman.

The attacker – identified as Khalid Masood - died of his injuries, but by this point had killed four people and injured around forty others.

Unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister has publicly stated that Islam is not to blame.  It is also not surprising that she did not blame her own failings.  Prior to becoming Prime Minister last year, she served for six years as Home Secretary, and I have no problem in describing her as the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.  Masood might not have perpetrated this attack had he been imprisoned for some of his previous acts of violence, yet we live in a society in which far too many violent criminals escape with non-custodial sentences - assuming that they are even prosecuted in the first place.

It is also not surprising that Mrs May has not blamed the belligerent policies of successive British governments.  She happily served in the government of the warmonger David Cameron.

The Mayor of London has received a lot of criticism for saying that terror attacks are part and parcel of living in a large city.  There are in fact around twenty cities in the world with a larger population than London, plus another fifteen or so of similar size.  How many of those cities experience anything like what happened in Westminster?

It appears that Londoners are now living their lives very much as before, and proudly so.  This is important, because terrorism normally affects us in two ways.  First, the incident itself causes death and injury and destruction; second, the aftermath is that everyday life is to some extent disrupted as a consequence.  In fact sometimes the disruption is the only consequence.  The Provisional IRA used to explode bombs in central London, but then they experimented with planting bombs at railway stations and then informing the police by telephone.  The station would then be closed, and the bomb would be located and made safe.  No one would be killed or injured, but the disruption to the rail services served as the triumph of the terrorists.

It is reported that a leading media figure has spoken sneeringly of the dead attacker, and has referred to London as the city that stood up to the Luftwaffe, but the comparison is naive.  The Luftwaffe sent aeroplanes which could be identified and shot down, and which were not easily replaced.  Masood’s deadly rampage may not have been as devastating as a Luftwaffe bombing raid, but it was achieved with very little in the way of resources.  Quite simply, almost any car in Britain could be used tomorrow as a murder weapon.

There is of course a link to immigration, and I cannot resist quoting Richard Littlejohn on this subject:

The politicians have opened the floodgates to mass immigration without insisting on integration.

They pretend every culture, no matter how medieval and barbaric, is worthy of equal respect.

This is the same Richard Littlejohn who to my knowledge has never once made a positive comment about any political party which seeks to end immigration, or about any political party which seeks to put pressure on immigrants to integrate with the wider community.  (If I am wrong about this, please leave a comment.)

The United Kingdom continues to wage war against Islamic countries, and is currently doing so under the pretence of fighting ISIS.  The downside is that ISIS has a fifth column operating in this country, and the next ISIS-inspired terror attack could happen tomorrow.  A Muslim man (or woman) driving a car could easily mount the kerb, and where will you be when that happens?

I find it astonishing that so many police officers in this country are happy to persecute anti-establishment politicians.  I have long since lost count of the number of incidents I have come across where members of anti-establishment political parties have been arrested or mistreated by the police without good reason - including the instance of a parliamentary candidate who was removed from a hustings by police because a Labour councillor did not want him there.

I do not blame anti-establishment politicians for the murder of PC Keith Palmer.  Does anyone?

Update: it is now being claimed that Masood was not linked to ISIS.  Even if no formal link can be established, then this does not eliminate the possibility that Masood saw himself as striking a blow for ISIS.

The future of the House of Lords

Like many countries, the United Kingdom has a bicameral parliament, meaning that is has two chambers.  The lower chamber is the wholly elected House of Commons, while the upper chamber - the House of Lords or House of Peers - has a membership which is either unelected or else elected only by a clique.

Historically, the House of Lords was entirely unelected, and included hereditary peers as well as some but not all of the Bishops of the Church of England.  It enjoyed equal status with the House of Commons.

Then life peerages were created, and these were normally awarded either to senior judges or else to former government ministers.  Another change was that the House of Lords was given a reduced role in the process of passing legislation.  Generally speaking it can delay legislation but not obstruct it.

Further reforms at the end of the twentieth century removed most of the hereditary peers, but a minority remain, elected from among their fellow hereditaries.

As I write, the national press is reporting an apparent clamour to abolish the House of Lords.  Basically there are two options here.

The first is to have just a unicameral parliament with just one elected debating chamber, in which case a new use would need to be found for the chamber currently occupied by the House of Lords.  The second option is to replace the House of Lords with a second chamber which is either wholly or partly elected.

So far as I am aware, there is not and never has been a clamour for the former option.  The House of Lords serves as a revisionist chamber in which legislation which has already been debated in the House of Commons can be subjected to further scrutiny, and that is generally considered to be a good thing.

However the problem arises that there is a substantial lack of consensus on exactly how to replace the House of Lords.  Consider the wholly elected option.  To many people that might seem the only sensible option, but it is problematic.  If I were a member of the elected second chamber, then I would demand without hesitation the same rights as an MP in the lower chamber, and I think every other member of the upper chamber would do the same.

I wonder how many MPs would want the second chamber to have the power not merely to delay but also to obstruct legislation.  (I am not suggesting that the answer is none of them, but I certainly don't think it would be all of them.)

Now consider the option of a second chamber in which some members are elected and some members are appointed.  If I were an elected member of such a chamber, then I would still demand the same rights as an MP.  Granting me such rights would then require the government either to accord the same rights to the appointed members - in which case we might as well have a wholly elected chamber - or to try to engineer a truly mind-boggling situation in which different members of the upper chamber have differing powers.

I am not trying to lead the reader towards any conclusion other than that this matter is far from simple.

Why this guff about Green?

As I write, the House of Commons has recently voted unanimously that the businessman Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood.  It is reported that this is the first time that MPs have ever held such a debate.  It is not however for MPs to determine whether or not someone should be deprived of an honour.  That decision rests with a  committee known as the Honours Forfeiture Committee.

The cause of this furore is that Green allegedly enriched himself and his family at the expense of just about everyone else connected with his company.

My first comment is that at a time when the lives of millions of people in this country are blighted by crime and poverty, our MPs have apparently got nothing better to do than denigrate an old man with lots of money.

If Green has broken any law, then let him be prosecuted.  If he has not broken any law, then maybe the House of Commons should debate whether or not the law on running limited companies should be revised.

For as long as I can remember, Britain has had a spiv economy, in which far too many company directors have been allowed to get rich without sufficient justification. Will that ever change?

Another comment is that the honours system in this country has over the years rewarded many people who make Green look saintly by comparison.  For example the evil warmonger George Bush holds an honorary knighthood, and the evil warmonger John Major is a Knight of the Garter.  Actually, these people were not really rewarded, because a knighthood is of course worthless.

Related previous posts include:
Who cares about the honours system?

Who cares about the honours system?

A comment writer in a national newspaper has written about the impending elevation of lawyer Shami Chakrabarti to the House of Lords.

First of all, I fail to see how anyone can take the honours system seriously.  I realised many years ago that it was basically one big nonsense, but even so I still feel like a lone voice in the wilderness saying so.

Most honours are utterly pointless and worthless.  Peerages are different in that they confer membership of the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament complete with a daily attendace allowance.

I accept that someone who has run the village post office for thirty years might feel proud to be awarded the MBE, but this is a very humble honour in comparison with a peerage, and peerages tend to go to political donors and cronies.

David Cameron's final act as Prime Minister was to draw up his resignation honours list, which included sixteen new peerages, most of which have gone to people seen to be politically close to David Cameron.  Nevertheless one of the new peerages has been awarded to recent Labour convert Shami Chakrabarti.

This appointment has been particularly contentious, given that Chakrabarti produced a report on anti-semitism in the Labour Party which has been widely represented - or perhaps misrepresented - as a whitewash.

I have not read her report, and neither do I plan to.  It may be a whitewash, but I somehow doubt it.  Either way, I refuse to regard the elevation of Chakrabarti to the House of Lords as any more of an affront than any of the other peerages handed out in the resignation honours list.

Related previous posts include:
Are you anti-semitic?
Jeremy Corbyn is close to the truth

The murder of Jeremy Corbyn

As I write, Jeremy Corbyn has recently been announced as the new leader of the Labour Party.  His victory was decisive.

Many people have argued that he is unfit to lead Britain, but consider some facts.  Many MPs on both sides of the house have lined their pockets at the public expense to a quite shameful extent, whereas Jeremy Corbyn has practised more restraint than most.

Also, Prime Minister David Cameron - like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him - is obsessed with Britain taking part in illegal foreign wars, regardless of the cost in human life and in taxpayers' money.  By contrast, Jeremy Corbyn has for many years been fairly steadfast in his opposition to foreign wars.  If Britain were to stay out of illegal wars, then it could save us many billions of pounds, and yet I don't see the Conservative front bench urging restraint in this particular area.

Criticism of Jeremy Corbyn often revolves around his welcoming attitude to asylum seekers, but it is fair to point out that the Conservative Party also supports open door immigration.  Also, the huge levels of migration currently being experienced in Europe have a lot to do with the illegal wars which Jeremy Corbyn professes to oppose, and also to the free movement rules of the European Union.  It is worth noting that Jeremy Corbyn claims that he voted no to Britain's membership of what has become the European Union in the referendum of 1975.

And so to the question of murder.  Recent opinion polls show the Conservatives ahead of Labour by a margin which is not huge, but nevertheless impressive for a party in government.  At the moment therefore it does not appear likely that Jeremy Corbyn will be our next Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, public opinion can shift, and support for Labour may increase in the next few years.  However I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, as I feel confident that he would be murdered if he ever looked set to lead his party to victory in a general election.

Not content with being opposed to war, he has also hinted at the possibility of Tony Blair being prosecuted as a war criminal.  Tony Blair has many rich friends, and I can easily envisage one of them hiring an assassin to dispose of Jeremy Corbyn rather than let him become Prime Minister.  Also, David Cameron must be worried that he too might be prosecuted as a war criminal under a government led by Jeremy Corbyn, and it would be very easy for him to arrange for the security services to have him murdered.

To make matters clear, I do not support the Labour Party.  Nevertheless I do not condone the murder of politicians by people who want their evil friends to avoid justice for their crimes.

Update: at least two former leaders of the Labour Party have died while serving as Leader of the Opposition.  Hugh Gaitskell died in January 1963 aged 56, and John Smith died in May 1994 aged aged 55.

It has often been suggested that Gaitskell was murdered, possibly by agents of the Soviet Union who wanted someone else to lead the Labour Party.  I am not aware that anyone has ever claimed that John Smith was murdered.

MPs don't make the Z list

You might think that as a keen political blogger I would know the names of lots of MPs.  I recently looked through a list of the 652 current MPs in this country, and I can safely say that I know something about at least ten percent of them – maybe fifteen percent at most.  In other words, I know nothing whatever about nearly all of the current MPs.

I studied this list in reponse to reading a comment by Dominic Lawson about the wives of Simon Danczuk MP and Commons Speaker John Bercow.  (For those who do not know, Dominic Lawson is the son of the evil former government minister Nigel Lawson, and the brother of the television celebrity and former dopehead Nigella Lawson.)

I then looked down the home page of the Daily Mail website, and made a list of every current MP whose name or photograph appeared in a headline.  The answer was just seven, which included three members of the government and three Labour leadership contenders.  I did not count the number of headlines which mentioned celebrities I know nothing about.

The first I ever knew of Karen Danczuk was a press report about the selfie-loving younger wife of a Labour MP I knew nothing about.  As it happens, Simon Danczuk is one of the seven MPs mentioned in today’s Daily Mail headlines, but he is mentioned only in the context of his estranged wife.

Lawson accuses Karen Danczuk of feeding off her husband’s name, but this is grossly misleading.  On the one hand, we would never have heard of her if she had not married an MP, but equally most of us would never have heard of her husband were it not for his glamorous wife.

Lawson also claims that:

... the full-length pictures supplied by Mrs Danczuk of herself wearing only a bikini, I am obliged to report that if they had been sent in to a glamour modelling agency, they would have ended up in the bin without so much as a second glance.

Perhaps Lawson does not know that supermodels often do not look like supermodels on their days off work.  If you don’t believe me, then feel free to watch this video.  (If no video is visible below, then try searching on YT for Cameron Russell TED).

Also, with the exception of supermodels, most of the women who are paraded in the press as beautiful are famous for being actresses or singers or athletes - in other words whose fame is not necessarily dependant on their looks.
 

Where celebrity is concerned, most MPs do not make the Z list, and very few MP’s spouses attain any degree of celebrity, and so Karen Danczuk certainly punches above her weight where celebrity status is concerned.

  
Many people think that she is self-obsessed, but I wonder how many of those people were repeatedly raped as a child.  Karen has alleged that she was sexually abused hundreds of times between the ages of six and twelve, and subsequently suffered body confidence issues.  Her obsession with selfies is merely a reaction to her earlier insecurities.

Like her husband, she is a member of the Labour Party, and her husband is known for his campaigning work on paedophilia, which may seem a curious pastime for a member of the paedophile-supporting Labour Party.  He is also known to be dismissive of the British National Party, presumably because he objects to its relentless campaigning against paedophilia.

Related previous posts include:
The archbishop speaks out

Do we really want what we vote for?

The great paedo cover up continues

Who is the Liberal Democrat paedophile?

Nats annoy other MPs

Since the general election there has been a lot of negative coverage in the press of the new Scottish National Party MPs.

The 2015 general election saw fifty-six MPs returned for the SNP, and possibly as many as forty-nine of those had never previously served as MPs.  The SNP is now the third largest party by representation in the House of Commons, and as such enjoys certain privileges.  For example they are entitled to three opposition days each year - days on which they choose the topic for debate.

The allegations against them include that some of them have been breaking parliamentary rules by taking photographs in the House of Commons chamber, and that they have defied protocol by clapping.  Clapping is apparently something MPs have traditionally agreed not to do, although it is fair to point out that MPs of most if not all allegiances have a long history being very noisy when other people are addressing the chamber.  (I remember a teacher at school remarking to us once that he felt frightened to think that Britain's legislators were given to rowdy behaviour.)

Another allegation is that they have robbed veteran MP Dennis Skinner of what is widely perceived as his rightful seat in the chamber.  Skinner is one of just four MPs who were first elected to parliament in 1970, and has tended to sit on the front bench for many years now.  There are however no rules as to who sits where in the Commons chamber, other than that the government sits on one side and the opposition on the other.

Over the years, many members of the House of Commons have either been paedophiles, or else have covered up acts of paedophilia by other members of the establishment (or by Muslim grooming gangs).  To suggest that taking selfies in the Commons chamber is somehow more worthy of our disapproval is a gross insult to the victims of child abuse.

Update: since writing this post, I have become aware of the allegation that a woman called Esther Baker was routinely abused by a VIP paedophile gang in the 1980s and 1990s, and that officers from Staffordshire Police supervised the abuse.

We don't need the likes of Rifkind

Veteran MPs Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw have both been caught out offering cash for access, and Rifkind has since announced his intention to quit parliament.

Rifkind has tried to justify his behavour by saying that he wants to have the standard of living that his professional background would normally entitle him to have.  Rifkind was originally a lawyer, and I quote from a previous post about Godfrey Bloom MEP:

The salary of an MEP is I believe £66,396, and I will take Bloom's word for it that lawyers tend to earn more.  Nevertheless  £66,396 is more than the salary of a university professor, and also more than the typical earnings of road maintenance workers - but of course they do an important job and do it well.

I want this country to be governed by politicians who are driven by principle and not by personal greed.  If you can earn more as a lawyer than as a politician, then you are free to stay away from politics.  If you choose to enter the world of politics, then please do not use a professional background as an excuse for selfish behaviour.

Related previous posts include:
Nigel Farage is still a coward

Independence versus devolution

The outcome of yesterday's referendum on Scottish independence is bad news.

I had previously argued that Scotland should seek independence so that its soldiers are no longer used as cannon fodder in illegal wars.  That opportunity has now been lost.  Nevertheless I still believe that independence is now inevitable.  It is just a matter of when the next referendum will take place.

The situation now is that the government is expected to deliver on promises for more devolution to Scotland.  This is problematic, however, and it appears that many English MPs will either oppose it or else demand devolved powers for England - maybe even for English regions.

Devolution has little to commend it.  Whatever arguments can be made for it in principle, the fact remains that in practice it tends to be disastrous.  Consider the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh.  Completed in 2007, it cost over £414million.  By contrast, the Shropshire Women and Children's Centre at the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford was completed in 2014 at a cost of £28million.  In other words, the money spent on the Holyrood Parliament could possibly have funded as many as fifteen specialist centres at hospitals around Scotland.

If Scotland were independent, then the Holyrood Parliament would be its only parliament, and it would no longer have to contribute to the costs of the Westminster parliament.  If its legislators were smart, it would also no longer contribute to the costs of the European Parliament, and neither would it fund illegal wars.

Independence is definitely the way forward.

Related previous posts include:
Independence: Scotland must vote yes.

Read the full article at: http://www.shropshirelive.com/2014/09/04/shropshire-women-and-childrens-centre-set-for-open-weekend/

A government minister quits

Mark Simmonds has resigned as a government minister, and intends to leave parliament at the next general election.  Officially it seems that he was an under-secretary of state (the most junior rank of government minister) at the Foreign Office.  Nevertheless it is reported that he held the office of Minister for Africa, although I'm not entirely sure that such a government office is actually needed.

Mr Simmonds has complained about the cost of living in London, and says he does not earn enough to rent a family-sized property anywhere within central London.  As a result he rarely gets to see his family.  This quote is from The Telegraph website:

A spokesman for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said: “Ipsa is awake to the impact on family life for MPs who have to live in two locations – in London and the constituency. That is why we provide more support to MPs with family or caring responsibilities.” 

An MP with three children like Mr Simmonds would be able to claim £27,875 a year “allowing them to rent a flat big enough to accommodate their children”, he said.

In other words it appears that Mr Simmonds is eligible for assistance with his rent of £2322 per calendar month.  I have just checked the Rightmove website, and have found four three-bedroom apartments within walking distance of the House of Commons which have a rent of lower than £2322, and I have found two more at a monthly rent of £2383.

It is also worth noting that many people who work in central London live a long way outside of Greater London, and commute long distances every day.  How many of these people can afford to rent a family-sized apartment in London?  How many of them can even afford to stay overnight in a hotel?

It is also worth noting that Mr Simmonds does not expect his family to live with him in London.  Instead he wants them to continue to live in his Lincolnshire constituency, but have the option of staying with him in London during school holidays.  In other words he wants taxpayers to provide him with a three-bedroom apartment in central London which for most of the year would be either standing empty or occupied by just one person.

Update: Mr Simmonds has now drawn criticism from two Labour MPs, as quoted here.

Related previous posts include:
An MP's fall from grace
A tale of two scumbags

An MP's fall from grace

The former MP Denis MacShane has written in a national newspaper about the prison term he served after being convicted of false accounting.  Recalling a visit from a solicitor, he states that:

He says I made a big mistake in not fighting my case politically.

I trusted the system, but failed to read it. Small print often catches you out, but unspoken small print is fatal.

I have no idea what the solicitor meant by trusting the system, or reading the system, or unspoken small print.  If I've got it right, MacShane submitted dishonest claims to cover the cost of travel in Europe - costs which would have been either not reimbursed or not fully reimbursed if he had sought to claim the money honestly.  The Daily Mail appears to accept the ludicrous assertion that MacShane did not profit from his misdeeds.

It is not clear what the solicitor meant by fighting the case politically, but he may be referring to the ongoing abuse of the expenses system at the time.  I quote MacShane in full on this matter:

Using the mortgage interest payment to speculate in the London property market really took off after 2001.

You could see the new boys and girls at the Tory end of the tea room getting tutorials. They were told to designate a modest flat in their constituency as their main family home, and then they could take out an interest-only loan on their existing London house. MPs could claim up to £2,000 a month in mortgage interest payments, which meant a loan of up to £800,000 to spend as you liked providing you showed a statement from a bank that you were paying £2,000 a month in interest.

My neighbouring Rotherham MP Kevin Barron talked  openly about buying a ritzy flat using this system and, when he sold it, the Daily Telegraph and The Guardian reported he  made nearly £500,000 in profit.  All this was perfectly within  the rules, and he should know.  He is the chairman of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee.

Then there’s buying a large house in your constituency using  a substantial mortgage interest payment from the taxpayer and then enjoying the accrued value. David Cameron bought his home in the wealthy Cotswolds town  of Witney. With an estimated  family wealth running to £20 million or £30 million, he had no need to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

But month by month  he claimed a steady £1,081 in mortgage payments as his investment increased in value. This was all perfectly within the rules as they existed. 

Then there was the petty cash diddle. MPs could claim £250 a month under a heading ‘Petty Cash’ without producing a single receipt. George Osborne pocketed his monthly £250 with gusto. 

He also claimed back for interest rate payments for a mortgage worth more than the value of  his house. He probably wishes  getting money into the Treasury coffers was as easy...

I had never heard of the  John Lewis list – some guide to furniture that could be bought that would be accepted by the House  of Commons finance officials. 

State-of-the-art TVs, sofas or paintings for walls were all paid for by taxpayers. There are stories about mileage claims and MPs sharing a car home to Scotland or the far North of England and each claiming the mileage as his own. 

One of the biggest sources of extra income for MPs was to employ wives and children. In most modern democracies this practice is simply banned as corrupt and illegal. Not so here, where even today MPs employ family members.

The Tory MP Peter Bone gets the taxpayer to pay his wife £45,000 a year. Kevin Barron has had both his wives salaried by the taxpayer as well  as other family members...

Chris Grayling certainly has form on expenses, claiming  £5,000 to tart up a flat near Westminster as well as thousands in mortgage payments from taxpayers even though he had a big house in his Surrey constituency in London’s commuter belt. He also claimed mortgage help from the taxpayer on two properties. 

Dear, oh dear, why didn’t I  claim my expenses like other profiteering MPs?

In short, maybe the solicitor meant that MacShane should have pointed out in court that it was commonplace for MPs at the time to line their pockets with as much public money as possible. Nevertheless there is a difference to claiming money within the rules and breaking the rules.

I find it remarkable how little judgement almost all (or maybe all) of our MPs displayed at the time.  Did they really believe that they could boost their salaries with massive expenses claims without incurring the anger of the electorate?  I can only conclude that the answer is yes.

The simple solution is to stop voting for politicians with no judgement, and to experiment instead with voting for people who actually deserve our votes.

Related previous posts include:
A tale of two scumbags

Harman pays above minimum wage

An interesting news item today concerns the Labour MP Harriet Harman.  Apparently she has advertised for a trainee caseworker in her south London office on a salary of £17,000, which is a breach of parliamentary rules.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has fairly clear guidelines about how much MPs should pay their staff, and while these rules are open to revision, they do not currently permit lower payments to trainee staff.

However the purpose of this post is not to wag my finger at one particular MP.  Instead I want to consider the regulations themselves.

The minimum salary any MP may pay to any employee is currently £15,000, and that is outside Greater London.  The lowest permissible salary within Greater London is £17,000.  These figures are of course annual salaries, and not hourly rates, but I will assume that the rules envisage a thirty-seven hour working week.

The recommended hourly rates are therefore in the region of £8.84 within Greater London and £7.80 outside Greater London.  At the time of writing, the national minimum wage is £6.31 for someone aged 21 or older, whereas the IPSA guidelines make no mention of age.

Therefore the IPSA guidelines appear to envisage a minimum salary of 140 percent of the minimum wage within Greater London or 124 percent of the minimum wage elsewhere in the country - and that for someone in the 21 or over age bracket.  The percentages nearly double in respect of employees aged 16 or 17.

I have previously argued that employers should be banned from paying large salaries to senior staff unless not one of their employees earn less than ... 140 percent of the minimum wage.  (This would currently equate to £8.83 per hour – roughly £13,800 per annum for someone working thirty hours each week.)

I am pleased that MPs, who currently earn a minimum of £66,396, are expected to pay their employees more than the minimum wage.  However I would appreciate it also if the government would require other employers to be as considerate.

Related previous posts include:
Should we increase the minimum wage?
The minimum wage and prices