Saturday, May 09, 2009

Matthew Parris: ex-scum apologist for scum

Matthew Parris, an ex-MP, desperately tries to defend MPs. What a fucking surprise.
It is wrong to suggest, as some think, that MPs have felt no shame about milking the system in the way they have. Their futile attempts to thwart freedom-of-information requests spoke eloquently of their embarrassment.

I see. So, MPs knew what they were doing was morally wrong, but they went ahead and did it anyway. And you think that's OK, do you?

So, if someone robs an old lady of her life savings then that's perfectly OK, as long as they know that, morally, they did wrong? Is that the position that you're taking, Matthew? Why, yes it is.
Lilies have been gilded and shower cubicles heated, but no fortunes have been made on the back of MPs' expenses.

Bollocks. It might depend, Matthew, on your definition of "fortunes" but, to the average person on the street, the vast property portfolios that MPs have amassed—with our cash—seem to be pretty fucking vast, frankly.

That MPs can then use a scam to avoid paying 40% Capital Gains Tax on the profits of the sale of their second homes also entrenches the idea that it is one rule for these cunts and another for the rest of us. Because that is precisely what it is.

Fortunes are made, Parris: and those fortunes are entirely paid for by us.

I think that it is disgusting that you would try to defend this behaviour: but as long as you know that defending the indefensible is morally wrong, then I guess it's alright, eh?
Call him what else you like, but does anybody really, really think that Gordon Brown is a crook?

Yes, I do.

Now why don't you stop writing crap in The Times and go suck the crook's cock, you mendacious little shit.

25 comments:

North Northwester said...

Matthew Parris ; the mainstream media's favourite non-disgraced ex-Tory, trundled on to pooh-pooh and 'Right-wing' Conservative policies and to make it plain to the readers and viewers that a sense of proportion about our rulers is desperately needed, we're-all-in-this-together, the parties aren't that far apart so that's okay attitude, and represents the anti-competitive streak that stains our politics.

The LibLabCon and it being alright that the parties are the same is largely down to Matthew Parries and the like.

The Tories should have been putting the boot in about taxation, government overspending, unfunded and unrestrained immigration, public financing of the underclass for years, but soaking wet Left-appeasers like Parris have been put forward to smooth over the national polical waters.

We don't need smooth waters.

We need a storm.

Anonymous said...

when mathew parris column went online last night I left that exact comment "yes I do" and they censored it.they are all corrupt snotgoblin fuck pigs.

Kinderling said...

"Their futile attempts to thwart freedom-of-information requests spoke eloquently of their embarrassment".

And I thought eloquence was reserved for those was of high moral fortitude.

He did not become Ex-Gay then - as some have discovered there is real life after inversion where Black becomes Black again.

13eastie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
13eastie said...

Parris writes:

"Can this really be without effect on the kind of women and men we would want to see considering a career of public service in elected office? Is it worth it, only to have your uncleaned sink made the lead story in the Sunday newspapers?"What a condescending prick!

There are people in office who:

a) Set taxes and exempt themselves from paying them

b) Use public money to line their own pockets

Does Parris honestly think that in order to encourage decent, honest people with nothing to hide to go into politics we should keep the deceitful fraud and hypocrisy of these cunts under wraps?

It was faith in the secrecy of the system that let these greedy, self-righteous arseholes think they could get away with it in the first place, you daft twat!

If the likes of the DT disuade further grubby, sleazy fucks from standing for parliament then let's have more of it.

AD627 said...

Parris's apologist effort may be embarrassing, but he is entirely right about one thing. Abolition of expenses and allowances is a necessity.

As long as it is our money they are spending, they will continue to do so inefficiently and to excess. We need their spending to come out of their salary, like every one else's.

We should simply take the whole cost of the current salaries, expense and allowances, together with the associated administration costs (not insubstantial), knock off 10% to reflect the tough times, then divide it among the MPs and make that the new basic salary.

Such change to be effected only after the election, so we don't unduly reward the current corrupt mob.

Anonymous said...

Nobody did this to make themselves rich? £22 000 is roughly the average wage and they took this on top of their salary what part of upping your salary by the average does Parris not appreciate?

Dr John Crippen said...

Now hang on a minute, DK, are you not having your cake and eating it? You have rightly taken apart the Harman beast on many occasions, not least for her appalling appeal to go above the law of the land to the "Court of Public Opinion" when she was wriggling around Fred's pension. And you used one of my favourite quotes when you said:

"What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Quite.

Whatever you may feel, the MPs have not broken any laws. Bit like tax avoidance as opposed to evasion. You can sail as close to the wind as you like, and offend the moral majority, as long as you do not break the law

You say:

I see. So, MPs knew what they were doing was morally wrong, but they went ahead and did it anyway. And you think that's OK, do you?

So, if someone robs an old lady of her life savings then that's perfectly OK, as long as they know that, morally, they did wrong? Is that the position that you're taking, Matthew? Why, yes it is.
You are conflating criminal behaviour with immoral behaviour. You are suggesting that MPs have broken the law. They have not.

Lilies have been gilded and shower cubicles heated, but no fortunes have been made on the back of MPs' expenses.

Bollocks. It might depend, Matthew, on your definition of "fortunes" but, to the average person on the street, the vast property portfolios that MPs have amassed—with our cash—seem to be pretty fucking vast, frankly.
I agree. Parris, is talking utter bollocks. The porn videos and the shower cubicles are just the entertaining meretricious trimmings. The real money is being made from property speculation.

That MPs can then use a scam to avoid paying 40% Capital Gains Tax on the profits of the sale of their second homes also entrenches the idea that it is one rule for these cunts and another for the rest of us. Because that is precisely what it is.But it isn't a "scam" in the usual sense of the word. It is legal. It is within the rules of the system. You may not like it, but it's legal.

What has gone on is no more and no less than human behaviour. You become a new MP. You ask what expenses you can legally claim and are given a book of rules. You stick to the rules. It's the rules that are wrong. It is the cowardice of successive governments who have been too frightened of public opinion to pay MPs fairly and to do so openly. Instead they have resorted to a Masonic level of secrecy. Now it's all coming out. Let's take the piss from them. It's easy. It's actually too easy. It is a turkey shoot.

What we should be doing is taking away the trough. We should be deciding what to pay MPs and doing so openly. They do need secretarial and admin support, and this should be provided, but should not be a way for MPs like Peter Hain to pay a salary to their elderly mothers. As for additional accommodation, well, I suggest an MPs Hall of Residence.

So, £100,000 a year, secretary, researcher and a room in the Hall of Residence if they want it.

Or maybe £50,000 a year

Or maybe £12,000 a year.

You decide. I know you will bleed out of the ears at a suggestion of £100,000 a year! But, ultimately, you get what you pay for.



John

Devil's Kitchen said...

John,

"But it isn't a "scam" in the usual sense of the word. It is legal. It is within the rules of the system. You may not like it, but it's legal."Not for the rest of us, it isn't. That is why, so often, within the rules actually means "we are exempt from the laws that you proles have to live under."You are quite right: it is legal. Just. But only because these people do not have to obey the same laws that we do.

This is wrong. Everyone -- everyone -- should be equal under the law. These bastards are not.

Legal or not, the rules must be changed.

Within the rules or not, these bastards knew -- they knew -- that what they were doing was morally suspect: as I said, it is the difference between knowing what you can do, and what you should do.

"It's the rules that are wrong. It is the cowardice of successive governments who have been too frightened of public opinion to pay MPs fairly and to do so openly."Oh, for fuck's sake.

MPs have had above inflation pay increases for as long as I can remember: they are in the top decile for earnings. There are literally hundreds of people vying to be MPs. The conclusion that I come to, actually, is that they are paid far too much.

If I hear one more person whingeing about how MPs aren't paid enough... Grrrrr.

Fuck them, John: they don't do the job that they are supposed to do; in any case, 84% of the laws that they are examine are passed through on the nod anyway -- because they cannot change them.

You know what? I would happily pay peanuts, and I would far rather see a troupe of monkeys in the House of Commons: they could never pass a law and we'd all be a lot freer.

DK

Gareth said...

These extraordinary catalogue of claims were likely not 'within the rules'. What has happened is the rules have not been enforced.

The Fees Office does refuse some claims - eg Milipede's attempt to get us to pay for a pram and some nappies. But seemingly, for the vast majority of claims the Fees Office had no inclination to check what MPs were claiming for.

The Fees Office should do it's job and HMRC should investigate each MP for potential tax evasion.

Jack said...

Where did you get that quote about cutting down the forest of laws to get after the Devil? I know it was in a play originally but did you happen across it in GMF's "Light's on at Signpost?"

I think that's where I saw it. Or maybe in something by Peter Hitchens.

Love the anger!

jonathan said...

Jack:
I'm pretty sure it's from "Anne of the Thousand Days " by Robert Bolt. It was made into a film with Robert Shaw as Henry VIII, Paul Schofield as Thomas Moore ( who makes the speech DK quoted from) and some French bint( anyone remember who it was?) as Anne Boleyn.

Anonymous said...

We are back to the argument of it's in the rules, but they write the rules and they write them so that they can abuse them, so there is nothing we can do. Unless the world is turned upside down, which is getting closer.
Back to the economic collapse, sorry if it bores you.
On Friday the BoE printed 50 billion pounds to buy gilts. The problem is foreign banks are refusing to roll over loans to British companies and are demanding repayment.
Who are these companies? RBS is one of them, they borrowed over 1 trillion.
So we are full steam ahead for the Zimbabwe option. Usually when an economy collapses a tell tale sign that it is imminent is when foreign bankers withdraw their money, just like now in fact.
I don't think people will be respecting the letter of the law when it occurs.
Our MP's are relying on us following the letter of the laws that they crafted, so that they could rob us. Sometimes the laws are all flat and the devil may turn on you, so you just have to bob and weave, duck and dive, until such time as the new laws are written.
Jim Bob

Old Holborn said...

Anybody know a pig farmer in the South East?

I'm planning something

BenSix said...

There's a delicious irony to this picture...

http://www.margaretmoran.org.uk/wp-content/gallery/margaret/img_2816.jpg

Rob said...

The quote is from "A man for all seasons".

Also, isn't CGT now 18%?

Antipholus Papps said...

I don't really believe that Gordon Brown is a crook. I believe he is a paramount war criminal and a traitor to his country.

(wv: pariess)

Morag said...

Well, Barack Obama's difficulty in finding staff members who have not been corrupted is in itself quite telling. The thing is, anyone who WANTS to govern should probably not be allowed to, because they'll only abuse it.

Mole said...

Im all the way over in Oz and Im still loving this story.

We are probably about 10 years behind you in the corruption stakes, we have all the tell tale signs. Ex-politicans running (what were) respected charities, unionists and hangers on parachuted into safe seats where the locals dont know them (But they'll still vote Lab/Lib, because their parents did).

There should be no proffesional political class, pay should be set at 2 times the normal wage, and a set allowance per head of population in your district for ALL your expenses.

The thing that cracks me up is Gordon Brown was a lecturer in Economics, just how good would that look on your resume now to say he was your teacher..

Dr John Crippen said...

If I hear one more person whingeing about how MPs aren't paid enough... Grrrrr.

Fuck them, John: they don't do the job that they are supposed to do; in any case, 84% of the laws that they are examine are passed through on the nod anyway -- because they cannot change them.

++++++

Hee Hee

Even more delicious revelations today; take a look at this morning's "News" (sic) of the World. Cameron must have an ice pack on his head.

For all that, and good sport though it is, this still only demonstrates that MPs are just people, and play the expenses game as do most who have an expense account. Look at all the people who travel 1st class on a plane. After the odd rock star, it is all bankers and bishops with a sprinkling of civil servants.

But, having enjoyed the sport, there IS (or should be) a serious underlying point to your post. Namely, should we not overhaul the whole system?

For starters, why do we need 646 MPs?

Secondly, yes, sure, as you say, the H of C has been emasculated by the power of the parties. Blair virtually ignored MPs. If you think that that is a bad thing, how would you strengthen the legislature? Do you belief in the merits of the separation of powers is it merely the stuff of student essays on politics?

Supposing we paid MPs nothing at all. Would we still get people who were willing to do it? I'm sure we would, but you have to ask if they are the sort of people we would want. If you were to put up as a Libertarian MP, how would you survive without a salary. I assume you don't have independent wealth, so how would you manage? Do you not think there is merit in a system that means that ANY citizen can put up for Parliament? If you want such a system, you have to pay them.

I think it is incumbent on you, having demolished the statue quo, to suggest what system you would put in place.

Perhaps you would abolish the legisture altogether. If so, what would you do instead? But if you keep any sort of representative system, there are a lot of decisions to be made:

I looked at the Libertarian position statement on this and, as you know, it includes:

"The Libertarian Party condemn the actions of those MP's and Ministers who have flouted the trust vested in them, and will take action to restore faith in those who the voters return to Parliament to act in their name. We will be looking to create a new Reform Act and seek a new Constitutional settlement, which will include the conduct, finances and expenses of all public figures and will for the first time lay down penalties in law for MP's and public officials who breach the rules.Can't fault that. To summarise, it says the system needs to be openly, independently, and efficiently policed. So far so good. But that does not answer any of the questions that flow from your post, which reads more like a call to abolish the legislature. Assuming, however, you are going to keep it, if you accept the Libertarian position (perhaps you don't) it seems you ARE going to continue to pay MPs and you ARE going to continue to let them have expenses. So now you must answer some questions:

1. How many MPs?

2. What, if anything, would you pay them?

3. What system would you have to decide if and when MPs got pay rises?

4. Would you give them ANY expenses at all? If not, fine, but explain how the representative for Berwick on Tweed would meet the needs of constituency as well as fulfilling his Parliamentary duties.


John

The Nameless Libertarian said...

If Parris thinks no fortunes have been made here then he seriously needs to try to reconnect with the real world. Take the MP who spent £37k redoing his second home; some people don't earn £37k in a year; this fucker gets to spend £37k of someone else's money doing up his second flat. It is safe to say he ain't exactly poor...

And I would call Brown a crook too. And a lot fucking worse as well.

TNL

Rob said...

Classic quote from Blears today, who avoided CGT when she sold her second home:

"I understand entirely why the public hates this. The system is wrong, it needs to be changed."

She makes it sound like she was unwillingly swept along by an irresistable force! She knew exactly what she was doing, exploit the non-existent 'rules' for her own personal, financial benefit at the expense of honest taxpayers.

ed thomas said...

MP's are instructed in the rules to make sure that all expenses claimed are necessary to the fulfilment of their jobs. Jobs, right. Not lifestyles, pleasures, esteem, image. Jobs. And many claims go wildly outside that description. They are certainly in breach of good faith (ie. fiduciary duty) but whoever heard of that anyway? Personally, I'd have messrs Hollobone and Skinner head a little committee to investigate the good faith of MPs, and give them sacking authority if both were in agreement over the dismissals. Or something like that.

North Northwester said...

Just because something is legal does not mean that it's right to do it.

It's legal for me to buy and consume enough crisps, sweets and pizza to feed a family of eight. But if I did so every day, who would say that what I was doing was right?

MPs are supposed to do what's right - not to take every possible pleasure and perk they can get away with.

So, I think, they are not doing right.

Scarecrow Medical Student said...

On the topic of pay for MPs here's a suggestion (and feel free to rip it apart) - why not just match their previous salary, however low or high?

If you did that, surely no-one would be taking a pay rise or a pay cut to enter politics, and we'd stop anyone doing it for the money?

Oh, and give them a tax-payer funded room in a hall of residence - the Swedes do that and it seems to work OK...