shuggy's blog
I don't really disagree with any of that. I'm sure that there isn't an immediate threat of the equivalent of Putin or Berlusconi here. But the quality of governance is in sharp decline in this country - regardless of the party in power - and it does lead to more illiberal governments.
You know what Shuggy? One day - perish the thought - we may have a slightly populist government in this country with faintly illiberal tendencies! I know, I'm being a cassandra again, aren't I?
And if I have to reach for a shorthand explanation for it, an array of arguments that I've bored you with often enough - weak centralised parliaments, strong pressure groups, responsibility-free hacks, reflexive nervous politicians, etc).
I'm sure we can both come up with examples of such eye-wateringly bad decisions that have gone unchallenged in recent years - but for me, here's the most telling one:
Whatever you think about this expenses row, Parliament introduced the FOI legislation without doing the groundwork. It could have introduced it in a way that expressly honoured 'Parliamentary privilege' or something like that - it could have avoided this even being an issue.
It then walked into a fairly carelessly laid trap earlier this year, and it hasn't been able to recover before the papers got hold of the skinny. Parliament got itself into this mess. It's so fucking inept now, it's not even capable of defending the material interests of it's own members - never mind anyone elses.
I don't really disagree with any of that.
Including the bit about your annoying use of the word 'politics'? Ah, heaven rejoiceth...
Me and Bernard Crick against little old you on that one Shuggy.
All of that said, I've got a too-tedious-to-read post nearly finished saying that you could have all of the components of politics working better if you could find a way of getting all of the people in politics out of the way - that 'politics' doesn't have to be a small-c conservative thing to defend.
I bet you're holding your breath for that one...
"I find that people who bitch about teachers' pay, holidays, and pensions fundamentally don't like teachers and would probably only approve of them if they were employed by the private sector ..."
Don't get me started on the private sector. My son's school breaks up two weeks before everyone else - the weeks when the jeunesse doree head for Cornwall to throw up on the beach.
And it's now 'revision weeks' for the Lower Sixth - he'll only be back at school for exams and cricket matches. At £3K a term I'm not at all sure I'm getting my money's worth here.
(But the kids do work hard when they're there ...)
"This completely omits risk: the MPs' job is very insecure - that of a social worker is not."
Yes, but what about the risk of being decked or even murdered by a client ? I'd say social workers are likely to face more casual violence than MPs are.
A couple of thoughts Shuggy, in no particular order.
Corporate greed and corruption only matters where either the corruption is essentially monopoly practices between companies or it's public money being grafted.
If it's monopoly practices, the government needs to do its utmost to avoid erecting barriers to entry (or usually leastmost to erect them): allow nimble competitors in, and cartels fall apart.
If it's public money, there's a politician on the other end who needs strung up.
If it's neither of these, then who cares? The company in question will be less competitive than it could be and will suffer because of it.
I disagree that Libertarian blogs ignore this topic - it's just that it simply does not matter if it is the last category. It really doesn't matter how much the CEO is paid: all you care about as a consumer is whether the products and services his company provides are fairly priced. If the CEO's pay is such that the products are priced too high, that's not a situation which is going to persist for any length of time.
It only matters if you are FORCED to buy his products - then the problem is the force and that almost always has to have government behind it.
As for MPs' expenses, I am entirely relaxed about Jacqui Smith's bathplug - that really is faux outrage: de minimis non curat lex and all that.
What concerns me more is the blurring of expenses and CapEx. If the MP gets paid back for his plasma TV, he SHOULD cease to own it - it should then belong to the taxpayers. At what point does it get returned to the taxpayer? If it doesn't, why did we pay for it?
This applies to housing et al in spades: why should I pay for an MP's mortgage life assurance c.f. last yeasr's expenses scandal? If the MP dies, he doesn't need the house anymore - it is not a burden for the spouse to take on. In any event, see above: if we are paying the premiums, WE should be the beneficiaries of the policy.
What is more revealing and more worrying is the behaviour of the Commons in going tooth and nail to prevent publication of this data. The idea that those revealing this troughery are the ones bringing Parliament into disrepute is what angers me most. This is messenger shooting of the first water.
Well if you enter politics you are aware of your job insecurity are you not? Ripping off the system is not going to endear you to the voters if you are hoping for a second term. It is the internet that has made it more difficult to hide these indiscretions.
Corporate greed and corruption only matters where either the corruption is essentially monopoly practices between companies or it's public money being grafted.
An odd line to be taking post-credit crunch I would have thought.
If it doesn't, why did we pay for it?
My understanding was that Thatcher wanted to increase MPs salaries but understood that the public wouldn't wear it so they were encouraged to take advantage of the expenses system instead?
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.co...er-day-gramsci/
Fuck off...
(No - you fuck off.)
Edited By Siteowner
As far as properties go, clearly some MPs are spivs, some are crooks and some are neither. The crooks surely include the two guys who were claiming for mortgages they didn't have, and Jack Straw, claiming for the Council Tax he didn't pay.
There's some fun - I like Broon claiming for his "second home", which is second in the sense that it comes after (1) Number 10, (2) Chequers and (3) the London flat he transferred to his wife. He must have studied Higher Maths in vain.
Most revealing of all, surely, is that little Blair's expenses documentation was all shredded in some sort of accident. Aye, right enough.
Boy, you can tell you work for the public sector!
(Yeah because I'm a teacher Einstein - but I don't have tenure so you can fuck off with your bullshit about the private sector and job insecurity)
Edited By Siteowner
Commenting by HaloScan
