Sunday, November 02, 2008

Tom Harris: still not getting it

That smug bastard, Tom Harris MP, tries to defend himself against the deluge of critics and you can feel the contempt that he has for the people of Britain oozing from every weasel word. His defence essentially amounts to confessing that many of the laws that we are protesting about ar actually derived from EU Directives.

I left a couple of comments...
Surely no-one can have any objection to the use of these powers to gather evidence against paedophiles?

Is that the sound of a dog-whistle that I hear? And have you not heard of the disastrous travesty that was Operation Ore?

Actually, yes, I do object to my communications being monitored in this way. And before you trot out the line about “having nothing to fear if you’ve nothing to hide”, I will respond with two points:
  1. Who I talk to is none of your business. It is never any of your business.

  2. Even if this government does not abuse these powers, can you speak for the next one? Or the next? Your government has put in place all of the fenceposts required to turn this country into a police state very, very easily.

I believe that the aim of the terrorists is not to bring about a reduction in our civil liberties, but rather to kill as many people as possible - the more the better.

But to what end, Tom? Terrorists do generally have an objective — yes, even Islamist terrorists. Don’t they like the colour of our skin? Or is it that they believe our lifestyles to be unacceptably decadent, i.e. too liberal, and they wish to change that?

Anyway, thank you very much for pointing out that all of this monitoring is, in fact, initiated and controlled by an EU Directive that our elected Parliament can neither amend nor refuse: it merely confirms to us the fact that Westminster is little more than a rubber stamp for laws made outwith our elected Parliament.

So, remind me again: what do we pay you ludicrous amounts of money for?

DK

... and...
But, like you, I suspect, nothing I’ve read so far causes me to change my mind.

Sure, but most of them won’t affect you, will they?

What do you care about having to ask the permission of police to protest outside Parliament? You are hardly going to protest against your own party.

What do you care if alcohol prices are forced up by the government? Your bars are subsidised by taxpayers.

What do you care if children are fingerprinted and put on a database? Yours are exempt.

What do you care that petrol prices are high — and that for every £1 spent, about 70p goes to the Treasury? You claim travel expenses, paid for by taxpayers.

What do you care that taxes are higher, that money is worth less? You and your cronies simply vote yourselves higher salaries and higher expenses limits (that you don’t stick to anyway).

What do you care that pensions have been destroyed (both by the current prices and Labour’s ACT)? Your pension is final salary and cast-iron guaranteed by the taxpayer.

What do you care about the soldiers — often for want of decent equipment — dying in your illegal foreign adventures? You aren’t on the frontline, and you need only mouth a few weasel words in Parliament when it’s one of your constituents that has died.

What do you care about any of this? If life gets more expensive, you and the rest of your Westminster buddies simply ensure that you are financially insulated.

What do you care for civil liberties? If you vote in more draconian and illiberal measures, you and your mates simply ensure that you are exempt.

So what do we care for you and your Parliamentary, Mr Harris? Not a lot, frankly.

What we see is a bunch of people, blithely acceding to the laws of an unelected EU Commission, and meanwhile shoving their snouts so firmly into the trough that they’ll soon be chewing through the bottom of it.

This is not a party issue, Tom, because the Conservatives will be little better (with all the EU laws on the statute books, they could not be if they wanted to): many of us loathe the lot of you.

There have been many surveys over the last few years, showing in just what little regard you and your corrupt chums are held. I repeat, this is not a party issue: the British public have little but total contempt for the lot of you.

DK

This smug cunt deserves to be beaten like a fucking piñata. Especially since, after amassing a total of 248 comments on this subject so far (almost all of which are disagreeing with his stance in the most virulent terms), his response is sodding pathetic...
I think we’re all going to have to agree to disagree on this one, don’t you think?

Yeah, nice one, Tom. You fucking twat-monkey.

Just for the sake of interest, by the way, here's Tom Harris' voting record for this Parliament...
  • Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament.

  • Voted a mixture of for and against introducing a smoking ban.

  • Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.

  • Voted moderately for introducing foundation hospitals.

  • Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.

  • Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

  • Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.

  • Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

  • Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.

  • Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.

  • Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.

and his expenses too. Last year...
  • Additional Costs Allowance: £22,110 (joint 1st)

  • London Supplement: £0

  • Incidental Expenses Provision: £28,987 (23rd)

  • Staffing Allowance: £78,576 (joint 484th)

  • Members' Travel: £12,282 (123rd)*

  • Members' Staff Travel: £864 (joint 147th)

  • Centrally Purchased Stationery: £354 (joint 587th)

  • Stationery: Associated Postage Costs: £993 (584th)

  • Centrally Provided Computer Equipment: £917 (549th)

  • Other Costs: £8,779 (15th)

  • Total: £153,862 (55th)

*Car: £2,575 (359th). Rail: £2,052 (332nd). Air: £7,655 (62nd).

All of this is on top of a basic £61,820 salary plus, of course, since he was a Minister for a while, he got an extra big, fat cheque for doing—as far as anyone who has ever had to travel in this country can see—precisely fuck all.

It is worth noting, by the way, that if my company paid my expenses for my journey to the office, it would be taxed as a benefit in kind. Can anyone tell me whether MPs' expenses are taxed in the same way, or are they exempt (I seem to remember a blog post showing that they had a special exemption)?

18 comments:

Sneaky Weasel said...

£993 on posting some stationery?!!

My mind is well and truly boggled.

I declare this man to be a flaming cunt.

Furry Conservative said...

What is the difference between "Additional Costs Allowance" and "Incidental Expenses Provision"?

Oh, and as for MPs having a special exemption or not, take a wild guess.

Old Holborn said...

£7.5K on flights, the cunt.

At £100 each that's 75 flights a year between the flea pit he represents and the flea pit in London where he works. Plus his train fares, plus his car.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the son of the train driver prefers to travel business/first class.

What a cunt.

On a seperate note, we could all be fucking busy on Thursday if this one MP's reaction to a book is anything to go by.

I'm the the pub from 11.15 on Wednesday if anyone fancies buying me a pint/punching me.

Chalcedon said...

Absolutely right. It is none of their fucking business who I telephone or e-mail. I have nothing to hide of course, but it's my privacy and the government can take a hike regarding this. They always trot out the paedophile argument in desperation. You could ask the smug bastard why he and the rest are necessary since all this legislation comes from the EC. If it was down to me all EU directives would be scrapped and we would hasve a referendum on remaining or withdrawing from the EU, now the old con of the EEC has been exposed for well over a decade. I would also have the current government facing charges of high treason.

Chalcedon said...

Me again. The bastards are all regarded as being self employed. Funny that really, because they don't have to set up their own private pension do they? I actually have a bit more respect for parking warden fascistas than MPs.

roman said...

I believe MPs are taxed on their allowances.

By the way, the rules on their disclosures are changing in the near future - if they have paid out for something (goods, services) which they can claim for, they will simply have to lodge the amount but NOT who received the money. Could be handy for hiding a few things, eh?

And re the disclosure of a member of the family working for you? Well, apparently some of them already do what you might call a 'wife-swap' - so Mrs Smith is listed as a worker in Mr White's office, and Mrs White in Mr Smith's. Only, and here's the clever bit, they then are not named, since ordinary staff aren't. Thus Mr Smith and Mr White look squeaky clean.

Aeneas said...

I am not surprised by Mr Harris' lack of a proper response. New Labour are deniers of reality. When you put incontrovertible evidence in front of them they do not believe it because it conflicts with the way they want the world to be. They just hope that more brainwashing of the public via the education system and the biased media will teach people how to pretend to see the world as they do. In the end, if their nefarious plans to create tyranny are realised, it will not matter what the public think.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

I think our next campaign should be to find 646 people who want to send Tom Harris another copy of 1984! :o)

Nick said...

http://blog.ted.com/2005/12/an_evening_with.php

Jared Diamond on why societies collapse.

Included in the list is when leaders are isolated from the consequences of their actions.

Sound familiar.

On a side issue, I've had confirmation from Redwood that all public sector liabilities will be included on the books, including the state pension.

I think a campaign to get other politicians, and in particular potential chancellors on record that they will do likewise.

Check out David Owen here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fp3wl/Straight_Talk_01112008/

Anonymous said...

Typical Labour wonk. With any luck, the Depression will make the mutants who voted for him rise up and rend him limb from limb.

I hope to see this on YouTube.

John Pickworth said...

Thanks for the heads-up Nick.

I watched David Owen (former leader of the SDP) on the BBC's 'Straight Talk' programme over the weekend and was mightily impressed with his direct, no nonsence views of the state we're in (even if I might not agree with everything he usually says). But yes, he pretty much hammered Brown, the economy and Afganistan.

Straight Talk / BBC iPlayer

Roger Thornhill said...

Dr David Owen joins a number of retired sorts who suddenly experience an epiphany. Why they do not do that on gaining office, I could not possibly comment...


word verification: mestly*


* that could almost be a new word. "This seems very mestly..."

Anonymous said...

I don't mean this in an aggressive way, but can someone explain to me how those voting record reports measure "strength" of vote?

I'm slightly suspicious because the report is of voting on highly emotive issues and so I have a slight concern that the output is being coloured by use of words like "strongly" and "very strongly". Surely a vote is yes or no not "I really really think yes"?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

The way in which the voting record is determined is outlined here.

Essentially, however, each of these issues will have several votes, on the original, on amendments, etc. and how the MPs voted in each of these instances determines the "strength" of their voting record.

DK

Anonymous said...

Thank you DK, that was exactly the information I was looking for.

I'm glad to see my suspicions (cynic that I am) were unfounded.

Shaun said...

http://tomcharris.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/poking-that-sleeping-dog-with-a-stick/#comments

I left a few comments over there which, as they didn't match the straw man he was attempting to beat down, he ignored. At least he allowed so many negative comments but that may just be another sign of his obvious disdain for those who disagree with his ill-thought-out views.

The best bit is the way its been portrayed as a 'Libertarian Party campaign'. Yeah, the 1984s were those guys, but I am not a member of any political party, clique or organisation. I speak only for myself and I suspect most of the other commenters do the same. He's a truly appalling individual.

Dodgy Geezer said...

"I believe that the aim of the terrorists is not to bring about a reduction in our civil liberties, but rather to kill as many people as possible - the more the better...But to what end, Tom?"

Didn't you know, DK? It's because they 'don't like our freedom'. So Tom is actually helping us by taking all our freedoms away. Then we won't be terrorist targets any more. Isn't that nice of him?

FATANDBALDANDMADASHELL said...

I simply cannot stand these fucking cunts.