Lembit Opik on QT last night was the only politician honest enough to explain the utter bogusness of the MPs’ exes scandal. As I blogged when the story broke, www.peterburden.net/archives/140 , these expenses weren’t expenses, they were merely a way of topping up MPs’ salaries up to a level that came somewhere near the rate for the job. Naturally the Cheeky Chappy had to score a political point by blaming Margaret Thatcher (who was taken away by the men in white coats over 18 years ago).
    If the MPs had had the bollocks (ovaries in the case of the female members) to explain that unless a proper rate for the job is paid, we will carry on getting a high proportion of frankly second-rate brains and operators sitting on the Green benches. Very few people are self-sacrificing enough to take a step down in income (especially if they have a family) to take on a job which, when done properly, is arduous and personally demanding.
    Perhaps the biggest culprit in all this is Mr Joe Public, who has largely been too myopic and small-minded to understand what to expect from an MP in return for the salary of a head teacher.
    Of course, there are a few dishonest, self-serving shits in the House of Commons (they know who they are) and at least this crisis is weeding them out.

Popularity: 1% [?]

The most significant aspect of Carter Ruck’s attempt to impose a super-injunction on the reporting of a Parliamentary exchange is that it DIDN’T WORK. Politicans are getting their self-righteous underwear in a twist for nothing. They want lawyers to be prevented from seeking gagging orders, but it would be far more dangerous to attempt to stop them  trying to do what they can for their clients. In the end these things rely on laws passed by Parliament, and their intepretation by an independent judiciary. Although the Guardian reported Trafigura’s activities last May 14th, until two weeks ago, hardly anyone had heard of Trafigura or its dirty habits. Now the world does; that’s good and, with a pleasing irony, that wouldn’t have happened if C.Ruck hadn’t tried to gag Parliament.

Popularity: 1% [?]

The Times reports that other pupils at Nick Griffin’s Essex IVth Form School used to call him “Nick the P****”, which is an odd sort of moniker. Or did they mean “Nick the Plant”, “Nick the Pratt”, “Nick the Pansy”, “Nick the Penis” or what? Does the Times style code really preclude “Prick”?

Wha’ever, as my daughter sometimes says, on yesterday’s QT showing, they were right. The little squirt seems nothing more than the kind of ill-informed, inarticulate bigoted bore you might meet in the bar of a mock-tudor pub in inner Pinner, and politely ignore after the first minute or two. His influence over the British voting public has almost certainly peaked; but it was right of the BBC to let him show his weasely visage, make an arse of himself and wack a nail in the coffin of his pathetic political aspirations.

.

Popularity: 1% [?]

MediaGuardian wonders if the tabloid hoaxers featured in London Film Festival entry, Chris Atkins’ Starsuckers have done us a favour.

One view is that stories about celebrities are so unimportant (yes, they are) that it doesn’t matter if journalists lie about them and make stuff up.

It matters.

Every lie and piece of fictional ‘news’ published by the Shag Rags does further damage to the credibility of the press as a whole, and thus its value as a purveyor of news and truth. That’s serious at a time when conditions are so harsh for the printed media. It has become more important than ever that those papers who wish to be seen as ongoing providers of reliable, in-depth investigative journalism maintain the highest standards. Only that way can they maintain their worth in comparison with online news services.

Of course it’s only one section of the press who regularly abuse the truth and their readers’ trust, but as long as the whole industry insists on identifying itself as one type of medium, the less reckless press will suffer.

Most tellingly, the Redtops are seen to consider the PCC as a very minor irritant, who don’t even have the power to penalise miscreants. A reporter from the People - an ambitious, pushy little woman – dismissed the sanctions that can be imposed by the PCC as utterly trivial and not worth worrying about. “All it means is a little apology somewhere in the paper. You get a slap on the wrist; you get recorded on the PCC, but there’s no money [fine to pay].” Self-regulation is starkly revealed as the sick joke most observers consider it. The new chairman, Baroness Buscombe has barely uttered a squeak in the aftermath of The Screws admission of guilt over grossly illegal hacking of Gordon Taylor’s phone. The PCC is a toothless, gutless busted flush – a sham to which editors like Paul Dacre pretend to offer obeisance in a bid to keep a proper, independent regulator off their backs. [See my earlier blog on PCC]

There is also a strong case now, in the public interest, for newspaper employees to be officially qualified and rated as reliable purveyors of news – in the same way that only qualified nursing homes, or law firms or accountants can go about their business. No one would seriously challenge the concept that only qualified professionals should be allowed to dispense law, medicine or tax advice.

At present, any compulsive liar can enter the realms of journalism and be welcomed with open arms if an editor thinks their stories – however they are acquired – will sell newspapers. Take for example, the News of the World management, who have allowed Mazher Mahmood, their Investigations Editor not only to make up stories but to set them up and cast them,in such a way, time and place that the police can be called to make arrests (which have frequently led to costly, abortive prosecutions ) after the critical moment on a Saturday evening when it’s too late for their ‘scoop’ to be discovered and spoiled by their rivals.

Perhaps only those papers consistently meeting the required standards should be allowed the luxury of self-regulation. While the feral beasts of the tabloid press should be subjected to all the restraint, regulation and chastisement they deserve.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Mr Brown & Mr Cameron have no choice but to urge their MPs to cough up any amounts they are asked for by Sir Thomas Legg – because the Press will pounce on them and chew them into bite size chunks if they aren’t seen to express suitable disapproval of their misdeeds, despite the grand bogusness that flavours the whole affair.

          The print media are especially reluctant to turn their gaze on one as yet unspoken aspect of the great MPs expenses farrago. You can’t be surprised that what the Today Programme still calls Fleet Street has studiedly ignored the obvious truth that if anyone is to blame for the paying of those expenses, it is the functionaries in the Parliamentary Fees Office.

          But the members of the press – of all castes – aren’t going to ignore the few months of glory they’re enjoying, one up from the bottom rung in public popularity, where they’ve been replaced by the politicians.

          Naturally, even the dirtiest-mackintoshed little gutter hack on the Screws or the Sun well knows that the only chitties that get paid are those approved by the accounts office in accordance with whatever arcane criteria pertain. In the MPs’ case all their claims were subject to a full, professional scrutiny by staff in the fees office. By no means everything that was claimed was paid; but once it had been agreed and accepted by the fees office, it became an entirely legitimate due. Only in cases where MPs had deliberately lied or been downright fraudulent would there be justification for refusing payment. Any retrospective alteration to the terms in any comparable commercial situation, and possibly in this one, would be contestable under law.

          It’s deplorable that MPs have been so pusillanimous they couldn’t sell the electorate the idea that members of our national legislature should be paid at least as much as any competent professional. It could be, too, in the interest of good-housekeeping for us to opt for a far smaller number – like half the current crop, and less for the largely devolved parts of the Union who have their own laws to deal with  – which would allow us to pay them at least twice as much. And this would inevitably attract candidates of a considerably higher average calibre than are currently in play.

          As to blame….

This time last year, a lot of people (including me) were demanding that the criminal negligence of the bankers who had spawned the worst financial crisis in decades would not go unpunished.

It felt like a vain cry at the time, and so it turned out. Their crimes have gone almost completely unpunished – in one or two cases just slightly less lavishly rewarded – like Sir Fred Goodwin, as guilty as any banker in refusing to identify the risks his bank was taking in readily absorbing so much sub-prime debt. In every other casino in the world, the player who puts his money on red loses when black comes up. Not Sir Fred. He’s sitting on a pension fund that would support a dozen or more healthy families.

          If there is anyone to blame in the MPs’ expenses fiasco, could it be the professionals employed in the Parliamentary Fees Office, for agreeing to make the payments?

          That wouldn’t be fair. The truth is that the public is to blame for allowing themselves to be so easily whipped into a frenzy of disgust by the Daily Telegraph, the rest of Fleet Street and every political journalist in the land, not one of whom, so far as I have seen, has been prepared to acknowledge the obvious – that good legislators require good salaries, especially if we expect them to grin and bare it every time Fleet Street turns round to give their arse a good, unmerited kicking.

Popularity: 1% [?]