Perspective, people

I’m not quite Vernon Bogdanor when it comes to UK-constitution-ology.

Nonetheless, I’m not convinced that seeking to compel the monarch to reassert non-ceremonial power, purely because of a scandal that really doesn’t matter very much, is a wise plan likely to lead to better governance and general Good Things.

…and on the expenses thing, while it provides light entertainment and an amusing stick with which to beat appalling people like Jacqui Smith, you really are a massive twat if you view it as much more than that.

The people who run the country get paid more than a milkman, and take the piss on expenses about as much as the average investment banker or management consultant. Well, bugger me sideways, how awful.

Tagged

8 thoughts on “Perspective, people

  1. punkscience says:

    Its not just the expenses thing though, is it. Its the whole tranche of undemocratic goings on in Westminster to which no-one can see any solution within the current scheme of things. Its an important time in history. Massive social and economic change is not only needed but inevitable in the coming decade. We really want a government that can cope with shit like that in a sane and progressive manner. Not the current array of cunts who are going to fuck the system every which way for personal gain.

  2. BS says:

    Of course it’s fucking awful. Investment bankers and management consultants are the absolute scum of the earth. That’s no benchmark against which to measure our elected representatives. ‘Christ, they’re no worse than investment bankers’! So what? You can’t get any worse than investment bankers! Besides which it’s my fucking money they’re stealing.

    Lots of love,
    The Great British Fucking Taxpayer.

    Oh any by the way, how the hell did “get paid more than a milkman” advance your argument?

  3. craig murray says:

    there are still milkmen?

  4. Larry Teabag says:

    Yes, I get milk delivered. I’ll ask him how much he gets paid, the next time I happen to be awake at 4:30am on a thursday.

  5. PDF says:

    @BS, yeah, but it’s… oh cocks, I’ve typed this comment thrice, and WordPress has sapped my will to argue.

  6. PDF says:

    OK, so it works fine on my Mac but not my PC, what, does WordPress love Robert Webb and hate David Mitchell or summat?

    Point is, if someone’s making laws concerning pretty much every aspect of my life, then that’s quite important, to the extent that if they both get paid a fucking shed of money for it and nick a bit extra I don’t really care, compared to *the consequences of what they do*.

    If we could’ve paid an extra billion quid all-in for a bunch of MPs who’d not gone to war in Iraq, that would have been cheap at 10x the price.

  7. punkscience says:

    Dude. I think you just shot your own argument down. If someone’s making laws concerning pretty much every aspect of my life, then its quite important that they do it rationally, openly and for my benefit. I don’t care how much they get paid as long as they do that. The problem is that the current shower of fucktards aren’t and they’re STILL coining it rotten.

    Accountability? What’s that?

  8. Charlie Whitaker says:

    Assume two possible compensation scenarios:

    (1) MPs get paid ‘a shed of money’ every year, in part on the grounds that this will place them above the temptations of bribery etc. but are not allowed to claim expenses for anything;

    (2) MPs get paid less than ‘a shed of money’ every year, but still quite a lot, in part on the grounds that this will place them above bribery, etc. etc., and are allowed to claim expenses for many things. These expenses payments result in MPs taking home at least as much per year as the MPs in scenario (1).

    Given scenario (2), if MPs are seen to manipulate their expenses so as to get as much money out of the system as they can, then, I’d argue that both of the following are true:

    – Taxpayers aren’t losing out financially compared with scenario (1);
    – Taxpayers are aware that their MPs have poor intentions.

    And the conclusion, I think, is this: the problem with the expenses scandal isn’t the money that we’re losing. It’s that MPs have been revealed as having intentions we’d rather they didn’t have. Perhaps the expenses system has done us a favour in making the problem explicit; nonetheless, we’d likely still prefer to have MPs with good intentions. The corollary is that expenses reform isn’t very important. Instead, we need to elect different MPs, or at least MPs who have come to think differently than they did before.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>