Them And Us

I'm spitting tacks.  No, I tell a lie - if I could spit daggers I would.

MP's are to get their own mental health clinic at a cost, to the taxpayer, of £25,000.  I don't think for one minute that £25,000 will be the total sum involved but possibly one consultant's monthly fee.  Then, if treatment is necessary, our 'servants' will be fast tracked to the best there is available.

Regular readers will know that I have a particular interest in mental health and have closely followed the progress - or distinct lack if it - that governments have made throughout my lifetime.  Out of sight, out of mind has been the position of those who could have made a difference to the mental health services offered to those unfortunately enough to suffer from problems.

As a society we seem content with young children receiving very detailed sex education in schools, yet most of us are uncomfortable discussing mental health issues.

"Jimmy has been signed off with depression/anxiety," is met with, "Oh, that's a shame".  Nobody asks how severe Jimmy's symptoms are or if they can help, because many people don't understand - or don't want to understand - the results when physical and mental health become unbalanced.

In this country (and I speak from a UK perspective), mental health facilities and treatment vary from the sublime to the ridiculous.  The sublime of course is what stressed MPs have acquired for themselves.  The ridiculous is indescribable; poor diagnosis, poor treatment and worse still, no treatment at all. Such a pity they couldn't have strived for similar facilities for their own constituents, who possibly wait many months for an initial consultation and the same length of time for any required treatment to begin.

The excuse, stated in the article: 'discrimination over mental health makes it hard for them to talk to doctors in their constituencies' is what maddens me.  That they regard themselves in any way different to their constituents is appalling in itself, but the insult to the doctors shows a pompous misjudgement.  

Most of their constituents have no choice other than to talk to these doctors in the hope that they can help.  Many people, unlike MPs, are invisibly bullied into leaving their jobs if it's discovered they have mental health issues.  I've seen that several times: "We'll have to get rid of x because he/she's having a breakdown", was a comment I heard, directed at a personnel officer some years ago from a head of a large organisation.  Perhaps today these words wouldn't be used, but the actions would be taken.

Kevin Jones, Labour MP for North Durham said:

'This is not about preferential treatment. It’s about giving MPs the opportunity to find solutions here in Westminster and have access to the types of services available to their constituents.’

Does he know what types of services available to his own constituents?

Scotland doesn't fare too well where mental health services are concerned either. I have a friend (a retired PE teacher) who has had serious back problems for nearly two years.  She's finally attended the pain clinic after suffering for a year - after being told surgery wasn't an option - and has been told it will be a lengthy process before they can balance her medication.  She takes 32 pills daily, plus liquid morphine and some days she can't move off the floor.  From being a very active woman to what she calls a 'cripple' she has fought depression since this disability occurred. At times I've been exceptionally concerned and jumped into the car to visit her in the hope that I can elevate the feeling of hopelessness for a few minutes because I'm aware she's not just 'having a bad day', but ill. 

Her depression is caused by poor GP care, although she's changed recently, and constant intense pain.  Of course she's not alone and knows there must be thousands of others in worse situations, but that doesn't help lift her depression for long.  

Mental health can be a vicious circle.  Most people cause their own depression (as in my friend's case), although not many understand why.  Worrying about the hellish emotions depression can produce creates anxiety and the two emotions of despair and desperation to flee from the situation, can result in serious clinical illness. Such symptoms need immediate attention and MPs have now organised their own walk-in clinic.

I wouldn't be irate if the population were offered what MPs feel they themselves deserve, but this does show how detached our politicians are from their electorate and also how, whether consciously or unconsciously, they consider themselves deserving of better than they support for us, the hoi polloi.

Tweet

Proof (If Needed) That An MP's Job Is Only Part-time

Phillip Lee (pictured) is the Conservative MP for Bracknell where his electorate are very content. Why?

As well as being their political representative Mr Lee is also a GP. That may not be an unusual qualification for MPs to hold, but Mr Lee is a practicing GP.  He manages his medical commitments alongside his political ones and also finds time to criticise his Westminster friends.

Truly radical policies and, hence, genuine change are avoided. The goal was to secure votes and attain office, rather than govern boldly with a coherent plan. Instead of fostering a better Britain, a ‘public-opinion’ industry was created, the essential component of the risk-reduction process. 
Detached, professional politicians had cleverly outsourced the gathering of knowledge. The problem was, though, that polls and surveys rarely raised new issues or introduced new information. 


His remarks aren't surprising because most people, with the slightest interest in politics, know that these days MPs have little to do, as so many of our laws are now made in Brussels.

Mr Lee is certainly not naive, yet when he states: 'It is ironic that having had this article published, it feels as if I've taken a risk', he's missed the real irony. Accepting his full MP's salary for a job which is so obviously part time is the real irony.

Tweet

New Intake, New Principles - As If

The snapshot is from a BBC video showing the 200+ new MPs elected to Westminster at the 2010 general election.

We all assumed - at least I did with an excessive dod of optimism - that the 30% of new MPs, having given due consideration to the exposure of dubious and the often blatantly fraudulent dealings of some of their new colleagues, would respect the wishes of the people and act as honorable representatives.

However, along with their more 'established' colleagues they have voted to make themselves exempt from tax avoidance.

Section 554E(8) of the Finance Bill specifically exempts members of the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority from the new legislation in situations where they are actually caught by it.

According to those 'in the know' there are other examples of MPs having special tax breaks which don't apply to ordinary taxpayers.

“The new rules on disguised remuneration are intended to catch complex arrangements designed to avoid income tax through loans made to executives, typically through offshore structures.

“It is difficult to see why MPs need this specific exemption. After the uproar over their expenses, I can’t believe that our elected representatives would dare to indulge in provocative tax avoidance. So why do they need the legislation to protect them?”

That was said by Mike Warburton of Grant Thornton.  He won't be receiving an ermine cloak anytime soon.

So our latest intake of MPs were more concerned for their inflated salaries than the good of the people.  I do wish I could express myself as well as my co-author articulates about our current representatives.

What has this to do with the Holyrood elections?  Check out how your own MP voted here.

One friend in England has allowed me to publish part of an email conversation we had recently.

"Give them [the coalition] a 5 year term and all they will do is allow this form of deceit to continue for an extra year.  I certainly don't like to accuse my English friends of apathy but their lack of concern makes me say so. What can we do to change things?   England (Westminster) is the core of UK government.  Isn't it time you Scots realised just how subservient you are to UK politics yet you could have a future like Switzerland if you had politicians with enough courage to attain it?"

What can I say.

source

Tweet

Eat, Drink and Be Merry

The photograph is of the Terrace in the Palace of Westminster. It's one of many eating/drinking places where our political representatives enjoy the best cuisine and drink that is available in Britain. We, as taxpayers, subsidise it heavily, for both food and drink.

It is a lovely setting, with the Thames flowing past quietly, or it did on the one occasion I had tea there back in the 60s. The service was second to none and I'm sure it's the same today. After all, we can't have our MPs slumming it can we.

Lobbydog has kindly listed the MPs whose catering accounts were outstanding, for more than six months, at 1 September 2009. How did Mahmood Khalid manage to run up a bill of £8,200.60p? That's more than many pensioners live on in a year.

It's time Nick Clegg, in his latest efforts to law reform, decided that the taxpayer should no longer support MPs and their staff with their basic needs of food and drink. We all need food and drink to survive and most of us have to pay for it through our own efforts. Why do we need to support public servants?

Tweet

Now This Is Good News

It is reported today that MPs are set to lose their 'golden goodbyes' as part of a review of the expenses system.

Sir Christopher Kelly will recommend MPs should no longer get resettlement grants when they leave parliament.

The move could force MPs to quit early while the grant is still available or face losing the pay-off which is currently worth between £32,383 and £64,766 depending on length of service.

Around 110 MPs have already said they will stand down at the next general election, but with the Kelly proposals due to come into force in the next 5 years, others planning just one more term could decided to go early to collect the cash.

MPs will be banned from travelling first-class and those who live within commuting distance of Westminster will see their second home allowance scrapped. A communications allowance of £10,000 will be axed - only a year after being phased in.

This is all good news for the taxpayer and it will certainly be interesting to see how many jump ship this time round, just in case they miss out on their 'resettlement' pay. As for first class travel being banned, that is long overdue.

Source

Tweet

Wife Swap - Westminster Style

Mrs Sandra Howard

The wives of MPs who work for their husband's as parliamentary secretaries and office managers, are hatching plans to defy what they see as an unfair ban by swapping jobs with one another.

If Sir Christopher Kelly goes ahead next month with plans to ban MPs from employing relatives, the wives are preparing to apply for employment with each other's spouses. Sir Christopher's ban would affect about 200 MPs who employ wives, husbands, children and more distant relations on the parliamentary payroll.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry), a junior Treasury minister, employs her daughter, Victoria Davies, as office manager. Last night Ms Davies said, "This is a job I love doing and I have a passion for it. I work hard for her {my mother} and she appreciates it."

Now I'm sure many of you will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main reasons MPs say they employ their wives/family members that MPs' hours are so long they would never see each other unless working together? If the women intend to work for other MPs, surely they won't see their husbands much at all. Now we know it's nothing to do with working hours and much more to do with family income.

Then again, it's possibly already planned that couples meet for these quintessential English habits of morning coffee, lunch, afternoon tea - all heavily subsidised by us, but which few of us can afford these days.

Some wives are so upset that they have complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination while another has written to the head of the employment relations body ACAS.

Oh, nearly forgot to mention a little detail. The row over spouses' jobs comes as new figures obtained by the Sunday Times show that the total spent by MPs on their staff in 2008-09 went up more than 8% to £59.96m.

Tweet

MPs' Extras

The latest transparency on MPs' 'outside interests', ie second jobs, again reveals that the honourable members are getting paid for doing absolutely nothing.

Jimmy Hood, labour MP for Lanark and Hamilton East, has listed in the MPs' register of financial interests how, for the last three months, he has been paid as a parliamentary consultant to Scottish Coal. However, when it comes to time worked for his monthly £625, Mr Hood lists for July, August and September 'hours worked nil'. His annual fee is £7500.

But, when it comes to being paid for nothing ex-environmental secretary John Gummer, apeears to take the rich chocolate biscuit. Last month it was reported how the Suffolk MP was paid £1,666.66 gross for a 20-minute board meeting, which he attended 'by phone'. However in the latest edition of the register he is reported as having received £3,562.50 gross, stating 'hours worked nil'.

The Kelly report is due out early in November, as is the Legg report, although the Legg report may not appear until the New Year owing to the widespread disgruntlement among honourable members miffed at Sir Thomas's decisions.

Once the Kelly report is out and possibly recommends MPs not employing spouses and says they should only rent second homes in London or even have to live in communal accommodation, then some old hacks may bail out ahead of the next election. This means that the next parliament will look unrecognisable with virtually no old faces.

Will that be good or bad for the mother of parliaments? Time will tell.

Source

Tweet

The Exclusive Ex-MPs Club for just a £25 Joining Fee

Tucked away in today's Independent is a story which should cause fury throughout the country. 

Disgraced MPs forced to step down at the next election as a result of their abuse of expenses, will still be offered the chance to hold on to some of their parliamentary perks after they leave Westminster.

All MPs leaving parliament at the next election will be given the option of keeping hold of a Commons pass, allowing them to mix freely with MPs and use Westminster's publicly subsidised facilities.  The perks are being offered by the Association of Former MPs, a group set up to help MPs cope with life after leaving the Commons.  Any MP who has served a term can pay £25 to join the group and receive a Commons pass.  More than 340 MPs have joined the association, which was set up in 2001 in an attempt to keep "old soldiers of the regiment together".

If that is their aim then shame on them to associate themselves with old soldiers.  The military have a code of ethics and most MPs certainly do not.

The former Speaker Michael Martin, seen above at the state opening of Parliament in December, was instrumental in securing the exclusive passes for former MPs.  Taxpayers are also paying another £6,000 a year for the part-time use of a secretary.

One MP told the organisation that "being given a black bin liner to empty my desk then being escorted out of the building with my pass taken away, is the sort of treatment usually reserved for those ex-employees caught with their hand in the till."  Not necessarily so you anonymous MP, this is happening to more and more people who are losing their jobs because of the mess of our economy.

This club should be disbanded right now and if ex-MPs want a place where they can wheel and deal in comfort, let them buy or rent their own premises and pay the costs the same as any other private club has to do.  Please oh please, we have to stop this abuse of public money.

Thanks to BillyGoat for bringing this to my attention

Tweet

Nigel Griffiths and his Claim for Listening to Scottish Radio and TV

Seeing Mr Griffiths once in a photograph is enough for me, but twice?  Mr Griffith isn't have a good time of it recently between his sordid 'incident' in Westminster and the first exposure of his expenses.

Today further information has been published.  Mr Griffiths claimed £3,604.95 for a television, DVD and digital radio and, when the claim was queried, he wrote "As a Scottish MP, I can only keep in touch with events during the day, which might affect my constituents, by tuning into the Scottish radio stations which the digital set provides.  Like wise, I record the Scottish TV news and Scottish current affairs programmes, which feature issues in Scotland and in south Edinburgh.  In a cramped London flat, flat-screen TV is the sensible option."

The Fees Office were not taken in my this and wrote back to him saying they had not changed their mind.

In November 2004 the MP successfully claimed £9,250 to redecorate the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom in his 'cramped' London flat, £220 for a carpet and £230 for pots and kitchen utensils.  Six months later he claimed again for redecoration and was reimbursed for £4,911.  Mr Griffiths redecorated a third time in 2006 and charged the taxpayer £3,310 which was approved.

So all in all Mr Griffiths' costs, in just over 2 years, for decorating his 'cramped' flat were £17,471.

He must have thought the taxpayers were mugs - he'll soon find out they're not.

Tweet

The Quarter Million Pound Protection Racket

The woman in the photograph is Margaret Beckett but I don't have to tell any of you that. What you perhaps don't know is that she costs the taxpayers around £250,000 a year in round-the- clock police protection plus another £50,000 a year for the use of chauffeur driven cars despite being removed as foreign secretary two years ago.

The housing minister has insisted on retaining a full team of security officers and use of two government cars since 2007 when she was moved from the top diplomatic post by Gordon Brown.  Beckett's three police protection officers work in shifts to ensure her safety in London and at her Derby home.

Surely the perks disappear when the job goes but not for the present Westminster government it seems.

How does she manage when she nips away to her caravan for a few days?  I'm sure her caravanning neighbours can't be too pleased at having their every move surveyed.

Tweet

More of the Drinks Are On Us

While many were concentrating on the budget last week the Daily Mail's James Chapman was reporting a 50% rise in the budget for ministers' parties.  Almost £140,000 was spent on an exclusive wine cellar according to a claim made by the Conservatives.

The unit set up to organise wining and dining for ministers and senior civil servants is said to have had it's budget increased by 52% from £525,000 to £800,000 for this financial year. However, a Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman claimed that actual spending has decreased.   "The Government Hospitality budget is not used solely for wine, but for a range of costs around events - last year it catered for around 25,000 to 28,000 guests.  That is around £30 a head for drinks (just to save you doing the sums).

Parliamentary questions have also revealed that last year, £137,460 was spent on new stock for the cellar - a rise of 26% on the previous year. They also show that an 'advisory committee on the purchase of wine', made up of senior officials, meets four times a year at a cost of £10,000 (expensive meetings especially as there's no room hire).

At any one time there are around 39,000 bottles stashed away in the official wine cellar, which is held in the vaults of Lancaster House, just off the Mall in London.  Its exact contents are a closely guarded secret, although it is said to offer 180 individual clarets alone.

So, while you sip your M & S or Tesco Merlot with your Sunday lunch, remember you part- own, along with the rest of the taxpaying public, a splendid wine cellar.  The problem is how do we get our hands on the key.

Tweet