Monday, March 30, 2009


Do you think politicians actually understand what they are elected for?

It seems to me that most of them don't - or rather they think it is different to what it actually is. Maybe, I've got it wrong - but my understanding of their job is to enact legislation which is designed to 1) protect the nation and the people from attack by foreign agencies; 2) make decisions and regulation designed to improve our economy and standard of living and 3) enact laws to protect the law-abiding majority from various nefarious criminals and criminal gangs.

It's apparent that they really can't be arsed with number 1, preferring - as they do - to let plenty of foreign bastards intent on doing harm to us into this country. It's increasing clear that rather than bother with number 2 and ensuring our economy is strong and self-sufficient they are determined to leave what remains of our economy to be picked over by the vultures of globalisation until we're a total basket case.

But perhaps worse than either of those is the fact that those we elect to enact legislation our clearly a bunch of degenerate criminals themselves. It's not just the pathetic Home Secretary and her dreadful money-grubbing antics over her "second home" or even her porn-addict husband getting off with the five-fingered widow at taxpayers expense - it's the fact that they are all doing it and seem to consider virtually a "right" to rip whatever cash they can out of the taxpayer pocket.

How can we trust them to protect us from criminals when they behave as criminals themselves? Why should we trust them to be moral guardians when they clearly lack any concept of morality?

Our ruling class is utterly corrupted - morally, emotionally, financially and politically. Not just one or two of them, but the whole damn lot of them. They've got to go.


TheFatBigot said...

To my mind it's the profiteering that exposes so many of them.

Some, I hope many, treat both their expenses and "allowances" the same; namely as recompense for out of pocket expenses incurred in order to do their job and which would otherwise bite into their salaries.

Reversing the "main home" and "second home" in order to grab as much cash as possible might well be permitted by the rules, but it tells us all we need to know about the money-grubbers.

Nick Robinson's blog on the BBC website tried to give them an out by suggesting the "allowances" are a means of compensating for government bullying MPs out of justified salary increases. No, say I. Salary is salary, take it or don't apply for the job. Everything else should be treated like any other expenses account - to avoid loss not to make profit.

dickiebo said...

I'll second your last statement, Stanley boy!

Stan said...

I was all for giving MPs the benefit of the doubt about expenses, but the fact that those at the very top are manipulating them so brazenly suggests to me that this is the rule rather than the exception. Anyone in business knows how important it is for the employer to reimburse employees for out of pocket expenses, but this goes waaaaaay beyond that. It's clear that some - probably most - are using the opportunity to carry out home improvements which we, the taxpayer, are paying for and I do not consider that legitimate usage of public funds.

Letters From A Tory said...

The political class has turned politics into a profession rather than serving their country. It is impossible to undo but that doesn't mean the financial shackles on MPs shouldn't be a lot tighter.

Stan said...

You're right, LFAT - but the worst thing about "professional" politicians is that so many of them these days have no experience of the real world outside of politics. From their early days in university they are drafted into a party, groomed in their chosen doctrine and schooled to behave a certain way according to that ideology. The majority of frontbenchers in all parties are people who have little or no experience beyond politics or even outside of their own party. The result of this is that there are few free or original thinkers in parliament anymore - certainly none with any influence and nobody with any idea of what it is like in the real world for the electorate. Their "experience" of the real world comes from contact with their constituents who, generally, tend to be people with a particular grievance which - sad though it may be - is not real world for most of us. Other than that all their knowledge comes from "advisors" or professional lobbyists who all have a particular agenda which, once again, is not necessarily in sync with the majority of the electorate. The vast majority of us do not ever have anything to do with our MPs because we just get on with whatever it is we have to get on with - and that is something that few MPs have any experience of.

This is why most of what MPs support is geared to doing something for particular "victim" groups and not for the benefit of the majority of the people.

Sal said...

We have the same situation here in the states. Professional politicians end up getting too comfortable in Washington and focus only on reelection and serving their own interests rather than serving the interests of others.

I think the only solution is term limits. Here in the states that would require a constitutional amendment, which would be very difficult to achieve. I am not sure if such a situation would be workable in the UK, not being as familiar with your political intricacies.

Stan said...

Currently, there are no term limits for elected MPs or Cabinet Ministers - including the PM. I'm not really sure what that would achieve anyway - they'd just stuff their pockets more quickly than they currently do. I wouldn't even mind the idea of "career politicians" myself if it wasn't for the fact that they tend to enter the Commons younger and retire from it earlier. Our previous PM used the position as a stepping stone to the global stage where most - if not all - previous PM's, retired to the back benches. I think it's true that those who enter politics today do so with the intention of serving a brief period of time in office before taking up various, very well paid directorships or appointed positions.

It used to be the case that politicians entered politics only after forging a very successful career in some other field - now they just climb the party ladder. Fit in and toe the line and your future is assured and your place in Parliament reserved. Two terms of that and then it's off to a quango, £200,000 a year and a 24 carat gold plated pension courtesy of the mugs - I mean, taxpayers.