Germany Proposes Another Nice Wee Earner

For many years I’ve been aware the UK was the only country in the EU which didn’t tax foreign heavy goods vehicles.

However, that has been finally amended and without any blaring trumpets, the legislation came into being on 31 March of this year. The charges in this country depend upon vehicle type, weight and the number of axles and range from £1.70 to £10 a day with a yearly cap of £1000.

Germany has a truck toll which charges per kilometre rather than the day. Obviously more money to be made for their coffers using this system.

Now the Germans want to go one better.  They are proposing a car toll in an attempt to make money from millions of foreigners. The excuse is that ‘it wasn’t fair that foreign drivers do not contribute to maintaining the roads’.

Alexander Dobrindt (above second from the right) plans to introduce toll stickers in 2016 for all cars using any roads in Germany, not just autobahns.  Foreign drivers will be able to get a one year, two month or 10 day sticker online or at filling stations and the cheapest option - the 10 day sticker - will cost €10 (£7.95). The plan is to adjust the car taxes of German drivers so as they will not pay more overall.

Dobrindt suggests the proceeds could produce €2.5 billion euros and he has little doubt that it will be compatible with EU law.

Considering the number of years the UK government has hummed and hawed about a foreign heavy goods vehicle tax not being in line with EU law - when l other EU countries had introduced it years ago - how long will it take Westminster to catch up?  

Tweet

An Avoidable Disaster

The above is a photograph of Burrowbridge in Somerset this week.

From the early 60s to the late 80s my parents could see the village of Burrowbridge from their living room window.  They lived little more than a mile away and my father walked the dog regularly along the River Parrett, which runs through Burrowbridge.  

Dad had done his homework before he built their house and ensured it was built on a hill - not a hill as we mean in Scotland, but more of an incline. Every winter the Parrett would overflow its banks and the road would be flooded but seldom closed.  The local farmers saw to that and, along with the pumping system which had been in place for generations, life continued happily while their friends back in Scotland usually battled snow and ice.

How things have changed. In less than 30 years the influential left-wing of UK government, in cahoots with the EU, decided butterflies and voles are more important than people. 

What has the EU to do with the maintenance of our waterways?  Everything.  How I wish the people of these islands would realise the EU has control over any government, be it Westminster or Edinburgh.  David Cameron and Alex Salmond bend over backwards to ensure every EU directive is implemented.  

I suspect the Somerset Levels qualified as no 11 in the EU Directive 2007/60/EC ‘Flood risks in certain areas within the Community could be considered not to be significant, for example in thinly populated or unpopulated areas’. Until the mid 90s, when many from the south east started to buy up west country homes as holiday homes, the counties of the south west were more or less ignored by London.  A little changed in the 90s (can’t afford to upset those wealthy enough to buy luxury holiday homes can we?) but not much.  The locals kept feet on the ground.

Speaking of ground, the soil on the levels is solid clay.  Even in dry heat of summer, it’s nearly impossible to dig to produce a garden of sorts.  Every alternate year my father had tons of top soil delivered because he was intent upon growing his beloved delphiniums and gladioli, but it was hard work.  The clay was unforgiving and refused to mix and the top soil was usually just spread over the flower beds.

The clay is the main reason why the water on the Levels refuses to be absorbed by the ground and the lack of trees also hinders the process.  

David Cameron, glib with soundbites as ever, insists there will be adequate money available for the flooding problem. although he refuses to acknowledge the problem is the cause of political decisions.  Now that the south east is also involved, I suspect the majority of any finance will be spent there and the people of the Levels will be left, not high and dry, but low and wet.

There is talk about reinstating the pumping stations of old and dredging the rivers, but over 12 months ago heard the same utterings. Nothing was done.

I’ve read some ‘greenies’ think the Levels should be left to revert to their ‘natural state’ before the Romans decided to reclaim the land for agriculture.  Sometimes I despair at the stupidity of these people.  The whole of the Fens was a bog, yet successive governments have ensured the area now is one of the UK’s most productive in terms of produce.

The flooding in the west country could have been easily avoided if politicians had listened to those ‘in the know’.  By that I don’t mean the Environment Agency, but the local people who, for generations, have dealt with the land.  Party leaders, welly-claded and murmuring platitudes, could be viewed as amusing, but the matter is far too serious.  

Will the present flood situation be the catalyst for a nationwide protest against our membership of the EU?  All I can do is hope.

Tweet

He Who Shouts Loudest...

It's two and a half years ago since the MPs expenses scandal, in the wake of which a ban was placed on MPs claiming back mortgage interest in their second homes.  The move was part of a number of changes introduced to restore 'public confidence'.

However, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which regulates MPs' expenses, has been visiting MPs in their offices and is now considering overturning the ban because:

 ' ... there remains a number of MPs who believe that there should be a return to lump sum allowances which would, amongst other things, allow MPs to continue to fund their mortgage interest.'

IPSA is considering giving MPs allowances to spend at their discretion and is asking the public's opinion in their consultation document which also covers a proposal to increase staffing costs and a suggestion that resettlement pay-offs should be reinstated for MPs who leave parliament after an election defeat.

MPs' staff budgets could be increased by more than 25% by IPSA's proposal to increase the maximum spend by up to £19.6m from the current level of £74m. The reason given for this massive hike is MPs complained they were unable to retain their best aides.

A 50% increase in the cost of taxi fares claimable after a late Commons sitting, from £80 to £120, is also suggested. According to the document this would save the taxpayer hotel bills.  Really?

While the rest of the country tightens belts the MPs have been quietly ensuring their own nests are well feathered. It's not always those who shout the loudest who are heard.

Tweet

No, No, No

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is in charge of party political reform.  When he unexpectedly found himself in a position of power within the Coalition government, he was anxious to facilitate reform and asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, to re-examine the subject.

A draft report was presented last month but the parties are drafting proposed amendments this weekend.

Amendments to what?  A cap of £50,000 on individual donations is proposed along with £3 per vote which would, based on the last election results, see the Tories receiving £32m, Labour £25.8m and the LibDems £20.4m and this could be higher if tax relief is added.

Of course the Libdems are cock-a-hoop about the proposal because they achieved many more votes than expected by promising there would be no students fees. Some promise.  Not only will Nick Clegg be happy with this report, he's finally managed to acquire seven new advisors at a cost of £500,000, because he considers the Libdems are under-represented in Whitehall.

Like this fellow blogger I'm completely against this proposal. I would go further though and do away with the party system.  As she says we need representatives not parties. Last week's whipping in the EU referendum vote let the people see how party leaders control their members who, once many they enter Westminster, forget their allegiance is to their electorate.  If parties are necessary they should be on a basis of left, right or centre, so those of similar opinions can group for specific reasons. Candidates should fund themselves and publish their accounts online on a weekly basis.  I have no problem with a candidate managing to raise over £10,000 if there is a £50 donation cap.

Postal votes, which have proved over and over again to be wide open to corruption, should be radically reduced and only provided for those who provide written medical evidence of the inability to attend a poling station.

The three party system has been detrimental to minor party and independent candidates who are unable to raise the massive sums accumulated by the party machines.  There have been only 10 elected since 1950.  Surely this shows the disproportionate influence of party machines.

I've placed a small Poll on the right hand side should anyone wish to record their opinion on this latest recommendation. My response is in the title.

Tweet

Hypocrisy

The Sun broke the story of Fraser Brown's cystic fibrosis shortly after he was born in 2006.

This week in parliament, the soap opera continued when Gordon Brown vented his much-delayed fury on News International for publishing the story, 'reducing the family to tears' and intruding on their private grief. Rupert Murdoch's organisation was part of a 'criminal media nexus' Brown ranted in a performance which confirmed he should never have held the post of Prime Minister.

Back in 2006 the Browns were good friends with Rupert Murdoch and his family. Any normal person would have contacted their friend and let them know how unhappy they were about having a private matter exposed, but not Gordon Brown.  He said nothing.  His distress was so great he continued to invite the Murdochs to his private parties and neither Gordon or Sarah looked unhappy being photographed with Wendi and Rupert Murdoch at Mr Murdoch's annual summer party in London in 2007 (picture).

Rupert Murdoch has refuted Brown's allegations and intends to use his appearance before MPs next week to address the 'total lies' told in parliament.  He will appear alongside his son James and News International CEO Rebekah Brooks.

It's been interesting to watch the game play between senior Westminster politicians and News International the past few days. Every politician cosied up to Murdoch and his senior employees yet it's now clear they've known for years what was going on at NI - an organisation which had become part of the government. Who was responsible for NI gaining so much power?  Our politicians.  They're to blame for this mess, much more than Murdoch.

When Rupert Murdoch entered the British media scene in the 60s, he was welcomed as a force for good. He alone took on the print unions, which were crippling the industry, and won. He introduced a choice of broadcasters for us and the BBC wasn't happy when Sky appeared on our screens. By courting Murdoch our politicians bestowed more and more power upon him.

Let's look at the behaviour of our leaders in the past few days.  Cameron and Clegg weren't prepared to move from their position on the fence until Ed Miliband, who had nothing to lose since Murdoch withdrew his support for the Labour party at the last general election, decided to condemn the actions of NI employees. Suddenly Cameron and Clegg, noting the approval of the public, jumped on the bandwagon. It was only this solidarity which gave Brown the platform to vent his spleen against Murdoch for what he saw as his betrayal at the general election.

We now have political coherence against News International's dubious professional practices but will our leaders be so unrestrained in their criticism of Murdoch after he challenges the 'total lies'?

I have little doubt grubby - and probably illegal - practices occur in other parts of the MSM and I wasn't in the least surprised to learn about the police corruption. The old adage 'everyone has their price' is as true today as it was a hundred years ago. We can only hope that the inquiry instigated by David Cameron will look very closely at other media organisations.

Next Tuesday will be interesting.  Murdoch is a clever man and he knows where the bodies are buried. Thanks to the stupidity of our feeble, inadequate and spineless leaders stuck in their Westminster bubble.

Update 10.20am:  Rebekah Brooks has resigned. Will that make any difference?  Only to David Cameron's house party guest list.

Tweet

The Great Give-Away

Quietly last night, smothered by the Murdoch fiasco, the Westminster parliament voted 274 to 246 in favour of increasing the UK's contribution to the IMF by £9.3 billion.

According to John Redwood the result implies that more than 80 tories were unavailable, abstained or voted against the government.  Many Labour MPs behaved in the same manner even though Labour recommended voting against.

Mr Redwood states he will be checking the voting lists later today.  I do hope he names the 80 complete with voting intentions.  That 274 MPs voted to give the IMP nearly £10 billion to support its euro fantasy shows they have little regard for the average working person who is being taxed into oblivion.

Tweet

David Cairns RIP

David Cairns, the Labour MP for Inverclyde, has died from acute pancreatitis in a London hospital.  He was 44 and had been hospitalised since March.

He had a rather different background to most MPs having trained and practised in the priesthood until he decided politics was his first love.

It was his role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office in 2005 which gained him public recognition in Scotland.  He always impressed with his calm demeanor and articulate argument even when he must have been aware the topic was nonsense.  He became the Scotland Office's face until he resigned his ministerial position in 2008 and returned to the backbenches and in the 2010 General Election he received a majority of 14,416 over his main challenger from the SNP.

RIP.

Tweet

Why Are Scots So Submissive?

The Scottish Parliamentary elections are every four years - as stated in the Scotland Act - but to suit Westminster the 2015 election has been postponed until 2016.  London can't have these irritating Scots electing their own political representatives while they, as the Mother of All Parliaments, have decided they will have their own  ballot on that day.  That's due to the Libdems who insisted, as part of the coalition agreement, the next general election should be held on 7 May 2015.

I have no particular grievance with this one-off change but the Scottish Secretary's proposal that Holyrood elections should be permanent five year occasions concerns me.  The cynic in me ponders the benefits to unionist Westminster; there must be some or the idea would never have been mooted, although there is evidence from Germany that when Bundestag and state elections (which are conducted by Länder rules) are the same year, the state elections were completely overshadowed. Yet what are the benefits to Westminster?

The Herald reports:

Winners of all future Holyrood elections could be given a five-year term instead of just four, he said in an interview... (my emphasis)


He added: “The point that we have made is that when we established the four-year term of the original Scotland Act it was the result of a fair degree of public consultation and discussion.

Regularly I read about Westminster telling us how it will be; no public consultation, no debate, just instruction and we accept it.  Why do we acquiesce without even a murmur of discontent? Changing the timing of our country's election can't be seen as a priority and it could be damaging - not least to democracy.  The argument appears to be that 5-year Scottish elections would create more stability and give our government longer to legislate for change.

I dispute that.  If an elected Scottish government cannot push through legislation within four years, they've little chance of doing so with the addition of 365 days.

As for Mr Moore, he's forgotten his party's policy, not so long ago, was for 4-year fixed term parliaments. [11]  To assist him with his memory:

The Liberal Democrat policy in favour of four year fixed terms was set out in the policy papers Real Democracy for Britain(2007)[14] and For the People, By the People (2007)[15].


Who would have believed that was libdem policy only four years ago?  Me.


All these constitutional changes we're hearing about at present favour the libdems. No matter how badly they do in future voting, if the AV result is a yes, then they will be the king-makers. 


Time we stood up to this style of dictatorship from London and did become the government who 'picked fights with Westminster'.  Much rather that than submitting to Westminster to keep the peace.  The only party who can do this is the SNP and I'd like to see them stand up to Mr Moore and suggest his idea isn't in the interests of the Scottish people (which it won't be in 2020 because the elections will once more coincide).


Time we woke up, stopped being submissive and noticed how much Westminster 'rules'.  If we're ever to be a country which makes our own decisions and has has total fiscal control we need to continually challenge Westminster decisions which are not in our interests.

Tweet

Westminster Vote Down Overnight Counts for Scotland

On Monday Westminster MPs voted, by 298 to 206, against overnight Scottish election counts.  Labour had put forward an amendment to the Scotland Bill to protect traditional overnight counts, which always start as soon as possible after polling stations close, at Holyrood elections. The amendment would not have applied to this year's Scottish elections.

This paves the way in the future for returning officers to refuse to start the count until the following day.  Election officers have been highly vocal on this subject and their excuse concerning this year's count is that staff would be too tired on 5 May to count the AV Referendum votes after the Parliament ballot papers.  That doesn't hold water, because returning officers know full well all they have to do is employ two teams of staff; one for the Holyrood elections and one for the referendum.  There would be no extra costs and certainly there would be no lack of applicants.

Last month it was reported the UK government were willing to put an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to ensure that counting takes place as soon as voting closes on 5 May.  I've scanned the Bill and find nothing of relevance.

Scotland ought to be able to make its own legislation covering the timing of our election counts, not Westminster and the Scotland Office should be facilitating the correction of this inconsistency.  It would appear our tradition of overnight counting will continue this May, but to ensure it is so in future years, our politicians need to address the matter now.  We're adult enough to make our own decisions with regard to our own elections, aren't we?

All is not lost though as far as our masters are concerned.  They're sure we'll be delighted with the ballot papers' tasteful colours; lilac for the constituency vote and peach for the regional list vote, while the AV paper will be light grey. For non-Scots readers our constituency vote is cast on the FPTP system while the regional list is the AV system, so Scots (possibly) have a slightly better understanding of AV than most.

The first results are expected much later this year at around 5am because papers for all three elections have to be verified before the counting can begin and the calculations for the regional lists can't start until all the constituency winners in a particular region are known.

Not much fun to be had for political pundits unless they enjoy watching highly paid television presenters mumble and stumble their way through the night making nonsensical small talk with hopefuls.  For me it will be bed at the usual time.

source

Tweet

It's the Pantomime Season

A few days after I wrote this post, it's reported McDonald's and PepsiCo are to help write UK health policy.  To be fair Kelloggs, Unilever, Mars and Diago are also at the heart of writing the government's policy on obesity.  Health secretary Andrew Lansley has set up five 'responsibility deal' networks with business, co-chaired by ministers, to come up with policies.  Of course these businesses will be completely altruistic.

Then the Daily Mail, (ok, ok), say MPs have employed a food adviser to the Commons administration committee because they are furious about Commons food. They regard it as 'overpriced' and 'literally uneatable'.  Bob Ainsworth is asking for Commons catering to be privatised as 'it could not be worse'. A bacon roll in Portcullis House used to cost £1.30 and is now £1.90 and the MPs aren't impressed - to put it mildly - with the new ' all or as little as you eat' £15 flat fee for up to three courses which was introduced in the MPs' dining room recently.

A spokesman for the Commons administration committee insisted it was normal for Commons select committees to draft in expert outside advice.  The new MPs' food tzar is expected to be paid around £500 a day, but then surely he's worth it.  After all Jon Hewitt is an expert with considerable experience in the industrial catering trade. He must have thought it was Christmas when he was invited to undertake this investigation. It will be interesting to read his evaluation but I doubt if it will ever be published.

Then we have the pantomime Happiness Patrol which aims to measure our happiness levels. I'm speechless.

'They're behind you.'  'No they're not.'  'Yes they are.'  You'd better believe it.

Tweet

Today's Non-Story

I know the majority of you will readily recognise the smiling face above, but for the few like me who don't have a clue who owns this delighted face, may I inform you that it is Europe minister David Lidington.

The Government will announce plans for a 'referendum lock' on any future surrendering of British powers to the EU the Telegraph is keen to point out.

The amendment, which could be law by next year, will allow for a vote if there is 'any transfer of powers away from the UK and towards the centre', according to a Whitehall source.

Interesting choice of words there. 'Centre'. So our politicians acknowledge Westminster is nothing more than a branch office of the EU and as for a 'referendum lock', what a waste of money. There little of value left to surrender to the 'Centre' and Westminster will ensure there's even less by the time this comes onto the statute books. Yet millions will be spent on this useless piece of legislation, while gas and electricity charges continue to rise and the militant union leaders call for protestors to sit in the middle of motorways.

Who said the 80s were bad?

Tweet

Feckless Reckless

The title may be amusing but the behaviour of the recently elected Conservative MP for Rochester and Strood, Mark Reckless, certainly is not.

Due to a bout of insomnia, I listened to TalkSport during the night and the subject of Mr Reckless's antics was part of the night's listening. Mr Reckless, a former and trained barrister, decided to partake in the heavily subsidised alcoholic beverage available in a number of bars within the Commons during the Finance Bill a couple of Tuesday nights ago. He admits he was too drunk to vote. I have to admit he was very fortunate not to suffer the same fate as George Foulkes but of course Mr Foulkes was not protected by the Westminster club and the Westminster pavements didn't offer him much protected either.

Hazel Blears told Adam Boulton:

"On Tuesday night, it was a hot night, and we all knew we were going to be there until 2am so I went out for a drink on the terrace," she said.

"I was there until about half past 10. Then I thought this is getting a bit lively so I went back in the library and did a bit more correspondence and then I popped out and had a drink somewhere else with my friends."

Each and every one of the callers to TalkSport said any MP caught drinking alcohol when working out to be sacked immediately. I concur. Hazel Blears was as guilty as Mr Reckless and the others who imbibed that night as she admits to 'popping out for a drink somewhere else with her friends'.

How many of us has ever thought about 'popping out' for a drink with friends during our working day or night? Why do these people, who make our laws, think they're above the law? The answer to that is simple because they are 99% of the time.

If the powers that be in Westminster aren't prepared to sack employees who are under the influence of alcohol during working hours, then the bars should stop serving anything other than beverages and soft drinks. The taxpayers shouldn't be supporting the bar bills of anyone, least of all people who earn over three times the national wage. Oh! Let's not forget the taxi bills that night which will have drained the coffers by a few hundred pounds and it's also alleged MPs prolonged the debate in order to claim up to £130 each for staying in hotels. The abuses continue.

Tweet

David Cameron's First EU Trial

David Cameron and George Osborne are under pressure from the EU to allow the vetting of the budget. George Osborne was warned privately of this a few weeks ago.

Late on Monday, after chairing a meeting in Luxembourg of finance officials from the 27 countries, Van Rompuy (pictured above) announced a "strong convergence of views" on the need for vetting of budgets and phased penalties for countries breaching deficit and debt ceilings. "Rapid progress can be made. That was clear from the large consensus on all the main points," he said.

The Cameron-Clegg government promptly contradicted him. British officials insisted that the government would have nothing to do with the peer review.

If the budget vetting went ahead, Cameron would be vulnerable to charges that he had allowed crucial sovereign powers to be transferred to the WU, something that he opposed.

Mark Hoban, financial secretary to the Treasury, attended the Luxembourg meeting on behalf of the chancellor, George Osborne. He said:"The budget will be presented to parliament first. There is no question of anyone other than MPs seeing it first. Once the chancellor has presented it to parliament, it is of course publicly available."

Van Rompuy and other European leaders want budget drafts to go before EU finance ministers and be examined by commission experts. "Not to be checked in detail or to be decided upon by the European institutions - that is the prerogative of the national parliaments," he said. "However, the main assumptions underlying the plans, like levels of growth or inflation, would be examined... A government presenting a budgetary plan with a high deficit will have to justify itself."

The council president, who heads a 'task force' of officials from the 27 states on how to boos Europe's 'economic governance', will report on the plan next week at an EU summit.

The article adds 'Cameron could be in for a bruising debut in Brussels'. Not necessarily so. All the prime minister has to do is stand firm. He needs to do this to show the EU sceptics in his party that he means what he says. Will he?

source

Tweet

Edward Leigh, former chair of the Public Accounts Committee

Tory MP Edward Leigh, former chair of the Public Accounts Committee, writes in today's Express of 'The Idiots Who Waste Our Cash'. Mr Leigh is standing down as the post must be held by a member of the opposition.

He takes great pride in detailing patterns of waste within government.

I felt frustrated that for all the money pumped into administration our services appeared to be in the hands of people you wouldn’t trust to organise a village cake sale.

Military logistics spring to mind here. While our brave men were dying in ­Afghanistan eight SAS Chinooks were kept in a hangar at public expense because a bunch of second-rate bureaucrats were too incompetent to supply the techno­logical back-up they needed to fly on a cloudy day. The decrepitude of our military campaigns, social security system, NHS and education system defies belief.

Why didn't he make these details so public previously? He was in a position of power and could have had the support of the public.

I read about what good works Westminster committees undertake. From an academic view that may be quite correct, but if there findings do not result in immediate change, what good are they? Every one of us could sit down and analyse situations but if the information we produce is not used to benefit the end-user, then it is purely a paper exercise.

If this committee passed their findings onto the highest echelons of power who refused to enact any improvements, then government ministers are responsible.

For Mr Leigh to say ' Management in Britain must be improved' is fine. Most of us know that. What did he do about it during his 8 years in his post?

He concludes 'The greater the diligence of the PAC, the greater value you receive'. I don't think so. For us to receive greater value, the PAC needs to have some clout to take immediate action upon government departments who fail to use our money carefully. Otherwise this committee, along with others no doubt, is just a talking shop and a nice financial perk for a group of MPs.

Tweet

Are Scotland and England at Breaking Point?

A YouGov survey has exposed 'mounting English resentment over the level of Treasury funding Scotland receives - currently 20% higher than that south of the border.' The findings also noted growing concern in England about benefits, including free personal care for the elderly and free higher education, which are available in Scotland but not in England.

But this isn't all about money. This argument highlights one of the differences between the English and Scots. We prioritise differently here. We understand our country is nothing without free education and good health care for all age groups. Our politicians understand that and know well that they would be given the bum's rush if they didn't meet the expectation of the people.

Of course the Scottish government doesn't have the fiscal responsibility of Westminster but, with the reinstatement of the Scottish Parliament, MSPs are much closer to the people. They are under closer scrutiny than a Westminster MP and therefore must be more accountable for their actions. The people appear to have more power here than in England.

Perhaps us Scots expect more from our politicians. Politicians will always whine about not having money, because that's their function, but we mustn't forget it's not their money, it's ours. If we insisted Douglas Alexander stopped behaving like the world's benefactor then there could be money available. Also, if we insisted troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, money would be available. We all know our armed forces aren't in Afghanistan to protect us; they are there for purely political reasons.

For too long Westminster has ignored the people. When Blair ignored the millions who took to the streets of London against the Iraq war he got away with it. He stole power from the people and the Westminster government has been slowly stealing more and more, aided and abetted by the tories. It's up to the people of England to recover their power and ensure their elected representatives carry out their wishes and not those of their political party.

Are Scotland and England at breaking point?

If I lived in England I'd be writing to my local Valuation Office Agency to check if my home has been given the code CL26. 543,373 homes have been listed in the wrong council tax band without their owners being told.

Tweet

Salmond Will Accept £60,000 Golden Handshake

The title is the headline in today's Times Scottish section, yet there is little mention that he's served in the Commons for 23 years. The author goes on to say, 'The news that Mr Salmond is to take the money, despite continuing his political career at Holyrood, sparked a row which overshadowed his final speech to the House of Commons'. Did it now? Methinks there's a little spinning going on by Ms Davidson.

A spokesman for Mr Salmond defended his decision to take the pay-off, pointing out that he donates one third of his MSP's salary to charity. I have no problem whatsoever with Alex Salmond accepting his golden handshake. I do have problems with the likes of Stephen Byers receiving his.

Yesterday Alex Salmond gave his valedictory speech in the Commons telling MPs he had never been more convinced of the need for independence.

He told MPs he had enjoyed his 23 years debating in the Commons which was "second only to the Scottish parliamentary chamber".

That statement possibly caused more ire than the matter of his golden handshake!

Tweet

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

More than 20 MPs broke rules on declaring hospitality in questions or debates after visiting locations such as the Maldives, Cyprus and Gibraltar. Between them the MPs, from all the major parties, breached parliamentary regulations on more than 400 occasions. Many MPs had their overseas jaunts paid for by the relevant governments.

Gibraltar's government has funded 31 trips for MPs to attend an annual street party on the territory. Labour's Lindsay Hoyle has been a guest at these National Day Celebrations three times.

"I have never received or sought any financial benefit"

Never received financial benefit?!!

The same MP failed to declare an interest following registered trips to the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

Self-regulation in public offices has to be stopped now.

source

Tweet

Westminster Ignores Scotland Once Again

Video courtesy of Moridura


During the rabble called PMQs yesterday, Angus Robertson the SNP MP, asked a question about Stephen Purcell.

"...Will he confirm that a Downing Street staffer took part in a conference call in 2008 which discussed the suitability of Stephen Purcell?"

Watch the video and see how the BBC commentator over-talks the PM's response which was exceptionally brief but inaudible.

The Speaker allowed this juvenile behaviour yet when the PM was talking he enjoyed the sound of his own voice shouting, "Order, order."

Once again reaffirmation that Westminster cares not a jot for Scotland.

Oh, MekQuarrie and myself think it was the libdems doing the 'Sean Connery' heckling. What's your opinion?

Update 10.30am: Hansard have now published PMQs. Gordon Brown's answer was: "I know nothing of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall look into it."

Updates from Calling England:

John Redwood's reaction to Brown's response to his PMQ "I am none the wiser".

Quentin Letts writes that the shouts of 'Sean Connery' "came from around the House".

Tweet

Leaders' Debates

Televised 'leaders' debates are to go ahead and the 76 rules will be strictly adhered to by the broadcasters.

I am in agreement with Alan Schroeder who states, "Television by committee is never pretty; live television by committee is worse ad that's what this obsessively specific agreement reeks of'.

The Wardman Wire has his opinion 'How the Leaders' debates were quietly replaced'. Do have a read for yourself.

There is little enthusiasm within my group of friends for these televised debates so it would surprise me if many decided to watch any of them. Of course they are not aimed at my generation but floating voters and the young. Will they be of benefit to the electorate? I hae ma doots because they won't be debates but speeches. Pre-planned sound bites wrapped in political spin. Nothing new.

Tweet

More Misuse of Taxpayers' Money

The poster above should read 'on my side'. Nigel Griffiths, the MP for Edinburgh south, you will recall, was the MP who confessed to having sex, with an unknown woman, in his Westminster office on Remembrance Day. He also claimed for a £3.600 plasma television in his expenses.

He has now decided to stand down at the general election because he has another job as a director of the London International College, an independent not-for-profit organisation, founded in 1974 and offering undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses to foreign students on programmes accredited by Sunderland University.

Under Commons rules, MPs losing their seat at elections are entitled to a winding up allowance and a resettlement grant. Mr Griffiths is eligible for both and his resettlement allowance will amount to £60,000 - the first £30,000 being tax-free.

When he decides to close his constituency office - he owns the building - he will receive the winding up allowance to allow him to pay his staff statutory redundancy payments as well as bonus payments of up to 15% of their salary.

There was no comment from other MPs but Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers' Alliance said his organisation was lobbying for the Commons resettlement grant to be scrapped: "It is unacceptable to give MPs who choose to leave the Commons, or are thrown out by the people, these massive sums of money.

"MPs are well rewarded while they are in office and get a generous pension. These payments make it a triple whammy."

Griffiths will be laughing all the way to the bank and there's nothing the electorate can do about it. How can a man with Griffiths' record be rewarded in this way? Will the tories tackle issues such as this? Sadly I doubt it.

Can you believe this?

source

Tweet