Gripes and grumbles
Commenting on the post below, Johnlbell asks if when I talk about MPs grappling with organisational chores, I mean that they're beavering away to neuter ISPA, the parliamentary ethics watchdog. No. I mean they're sorting out mundane details about offices and computers and which committees, if any, they want to serve on.
But that is not to say that MPs have learned to love IPSA. Quite the reverse. You can hardly venture into Westminster without hearing new complaints about its alleged bureaucracy, inflexibility and absurdity from indignant parliamentarians. And the departure of the interim operations manager for IPSA, Nigel Gooding, who said he was quitting what he called "a challenging work environment" for "the sake of my health and sanity" gives some idea of the tsunami of angst washing around the whole issue of Commons expenses.
A particular bone of contention is that the pensions and national insurance costs of staff members now have to be met from within their individual staffing allowances, rather than being paid directly by the Commons authorities - which has the effect of reducing the number of staff MPs can afford to take on. There's talk of MPs being expected to meet sometimes extensive start-up costs from their own pockets and then claim them back, which requires the act of faith that IPSA will ultimately agree to cough up. Some, it is said, have been offered loans by IPSA.
Some of the wilder tales may turn out to be urban myths - but the growing fury of MPs is undeniable. And the key point is that the fury does not result from a frustrated sense of entitlement to duck islands, porn films or moat clearing. The most vehement complaints are about the sheer difficulty of extracting the funding needed to provide the service their constituents expect. (Any politician mad enough to make indefensible claims after the revelations of recent years would deserve their inevitable fate...)
Tomorrow (Wednesday) the Labour backbencher David Winnick has obtained a Westminster Hall debate on "Government Policy on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority". It should be a lorra lorra laffs, unless, that is, you are the minister who will reply...
It could be Nick Clegg, since the Deputy Prime Minister has been awarded responsibility for IPSA, but normally these kinds of debates are answered by less exalted figures. And in any case the default answer to questions on IPSA is that it is an independent body in which they do not interfere.
Even so, I anticipate 90 minutes of rumbustious discussion, with plenty of angry contributions from the legion of the aggrieved, culminating in a minister looking all innocent and disclaiming any responsibility as everyone else snorts in derision. Should be fun...
I'm Mark D'Arcy and I'll be writing about what goes on in the chambers and committee rooms at Westminster.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ah, Mr Darcy, you have a truly literary turn of phrase!
'But that is not to say that MPs have learned to love IPSA.'
Can this be translated as 'They (MPs), are trying to set in motion the successful strategy that saw the work of Ms Eliazabeth Filkin in winkling out the fraudulent claims of MPs in an earlier Fraudsters' Parliament brought to a sudden end?'
I note an article today in a daily newspaper with the headline;-
'MPs' expenses: Older generation 'resisting' new system...'
'An "older" generation of MPs were accused tonight of resisting the expenses system....'
'Older generation..' ........ sounds like 'wise'...... 'experienced'.... 'dependable' ...... 'trustworthy' individuals, doesn't it!
This phrase '"older" generation of MPs were accused tonight of resisting the expenses system....' actually refers to the lying, thieving, cheating members of the old Fraudsters' Parliament back to their old tricks and attempting to get their fingers back into the till when the attention of the taxpaying citizen voters of the UK are distracted elsewhere! Will they never learn?
(Apologies in advance to the BBC moderator!)
http://johnlbell.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
John,
You should be aware that every exclamation mark you use detracts another small piece of credibility from what you write. There was a lot to be angry about in the expenses scandal, I agree, but debating it in a calm and rational manner really would help. Just screaming "They're all at it! Off with their heads!" doesn't really get us anywhere.
The previous situation must never be returned to, I agree again, but if MPs are now finding it impossible to hire staff or set up offices, and therefore do the job they were sent (and we pay them) to do, it seems reasonable they at least raise the matter. Staffing expenses were never really the problem anyway, it was the housing allowances that were the real source of corruption.
I know that calling for calm on the internet is generally pretty futile, but you sound like you're on the verge of using ALL CAPS, if not just flat out having an aneurysm, so please: end the occasional sentence with a full stop, if nothing else.
Complain about this comment
Dear El_Fidge,
Thank you for reading my post and your comments.:-) (An attempt at a Brown smile)
I used to believe that reasoned argument was the way to conduct political matters - but that was before realising that, as far as politicians are concerned, the only real commitment, undertaken with any passion and drive, has become feathering their nests, the nests of their relatives (I call this the 'Conway Syndrome') or the nests of their cronies!
I have yet to hear any reasoned argument why Sections 2-4 of The Fraud Act 2006, which came into force in January 2007,have not been deployed against those in the Fraudsters' Parliament who misappropriated taxpayers' monies ..... and those who survived what was to have been a disinfecting General Election to retain a place in what may well become The Fraudsters' Parliament-Part Deux!
I tell a lie! There was a comment on one of my earlier questions about the apparent 'disapplication' of the terms of the Fraud act in relation to politicians!
The logic used by that person was;-
'I am sure that that the DPP would have used the Fraud Act if he thought it proper to use it!'
I remember smiling a granfatherly smile! This person really believed that we lived in a parliamentary democracy with the interest of the citizen at its heart....... The reality of course is that we apprently live in a parliamentary dictatorship where the rule of law can be warped, ignored or otherwise disposed of, if it is in the interests of those 646 individuals (and their families and/or cronies) who exercise political power!.... And heaven help any public official, citizen or individual who gainsays this group!
http://johnlbell.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS