What next?

[santa claus]

The Libdem story so far...

Chris Huhne, Libdem cabinet minister - detectives are expected to interview the Energy Secretary and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce amid allegations she was asked to accept penalty points on his behalf in 2003.

David Laws, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury - resigned following an investigation into his claiming of false expenses, for which he was suspended from parliament.

Vince Cable - said that widespread industrial action could ratchet up pressure on the Government to strengthen strike laws.

Nick Clegg - reneged on a flagship Libdem policy despite signing the Vote for Students pledge to oppose any increase in student tuition fees and was pounded by the AV result.

I suppose that when you're unexpectedly propelled into power, it comes as something of a shock but to be falling apart at the seams after just a few months of sharing the hotseat shows you can fool some of the people all of the time.

A real Government will return soon. In the meantime, can we just leave it to the Cons to govern please ?

[Rave]

The Libdem story so far...

Chris Huhne, Libdem cabinet minister - detectives are expected to interview the Energy Secretary and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce amid allegations she was asked to accept penalty points on his behalf in 2003.

I've always thought he was a bit of a knob. But then again, the laws about forcing the owner of a car to identify who was driving it at the time a camera snapped them are stupid and unenforceable. There was an article in a paper the other day that illustrated the point- the writer and his wife had spent an evening driving their people carrier about ferrying people from an event to a reception, or some such. Both had done two or three trips in the course of the evening, and not made a precise record of timings (why would you?). A camera ticket arrived in the post. How can they possibly say, honestly, who was driving at the time the camera snapped them?

David Laws, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury - resigned following an investigation into his claiming of false expenses, for which he was suspended from parliament.

I think this was stupid, but he argued at the time that if he'd been honest about the fact that the chap he was paying rent to actually was his partner, then he'd have been entitled to considerably more in the way of expenses (which is why I guess he was allowed to get away with merely a suspension from parliament and paying it all back, rather than prison time). I can't see why in this day and age he would want to keep his sexuality a secret, and he's clearly rich enough not to need to claim expenses anyway, but meh.

Vince Cable - said that widespread industrial action could ratchet up pressure on the Government to strengthen strike laws.

Yes- this is undoubtedly true, though where that pressure would come from is a pertinent question. But anyway- do you have some sort of objection to politicians speaking the truth?

If my union calls for strike action I'll leave the union, simple as that. I see deficit reduction as crucial to my future standard of living in this country.

Nick Clegg - reneged on a flagship Libdem policy despite signing the Vote for Students pledge to oppose any increase in student tuition fees

Yes, this nearly as big of a betrayal as NuLab claiming on their infamous "5 Pledges" card in 1997 that they would never introduce tuition fees- and then introducing them a year later.

But as I understand it, tuition fees have gone up, but the terms of the student loan have now eased to the extent that the majority of students will never pay back the full amount. So the cost to the government has increased, not decreased. Now that's pretty stupid....

and was pounded by the AV result.

He argued for a system that he'd previously written off as a 'miserable little compromise' and duly lost. And rightly so. Hardly a great stain on his character however, or am I missing something?

A real Government will return soon.

Who's that gonna be then? Labour under Mr Millibean and Ed Balls-Up? ROFL!

[Saracen]

....

I think this was stupid, but he argued at the time that if he'd been honest about the fact that the chap he was paying rent to actually was his partner, then he'd have been entitled to considerably more in the way of expenses (which is why I guess he was allowed to get away with merely a suspension from parliament and paying it all back, rather than prison time). I can't see why in this day and age he would want to keep his sexuality a secret, and he's clearly rich enough not to need to claim expenses anyway, but meh.

....

The argument over David Laws expenses was far more complicated that that, though. And for a start, the Committee on Standards and Privileges utterly rejected that argument.

Mr Laws contends that the payments were lower than they would have been had he made claimed on his Somerset home, or made other possible arrangements. In our view, it is inappropriate to judge whether the claims on property A are appropriate by reference to potential payments on another property, which was in fact not claimed for.

They go on to point out that the level of claims were above that that an independent property expert assessed as market rate, and that the Assured Shorthold Tenancy basis used by David Laws does not reflect the actual nature of the arrangement, that being a far less advantageous lodging agreement, and that elements claimed included building repairs and maintenance that would not have been appropriate in a lodging environment.

The report also makes criticism that the nature of the misleading documents Laws submitted make it impossible to be certain now about claims for relative value, but they do say

The evidence suggests that Mr Laws' rental claims were excessive in comparison to market rent, but it is not possible to determine the exact discrepancy.

....

Nonetheless, whatever his motives and subsequent behaviour, Mr Laws was guilty of a series of serious breaches over a considerable time. ....

and

It is clear that Mr Laws recognised that there was a potential conflict between the public interest and his private interest. By omitting to seek advice he made himself the sole judge of whether that conflict was properly resolved. It was inappropriate fo5r him to be judge and jury in his own cause. As the Commissioner comments, it can never be acceptable to submit misleading documents to those charged with overseeing public finances. As this case shows, Mr Laws desire for secrecy led him to act in a way that was not compatible with the standards expected of an MP.

The way the report reads certainly suggests that his intention was not about ripping off public money, though the argument that he would have been entitled to more if he'd claimed another way is subject to some dispute, and using that as an argument is clearly rejected by the committee, and some of the claims were clearly unacceptable.

Moreover, Laws stated that he read the rules and interpreted them one way (which has now been held to be wrong) and the report points out that the rules state very clearly that if there is any doubt, seek advice, and they also state that actions of an MP must not merely comply with the rules, but be clearly seen to do so. That last bit, in slightly different words, has been in the introduction of the Green Book rules for, at the least, quite a number of years.

Among other things, ALL expenses claimed by MPs are required to meet a series of basic prnciples that have been in effect since at least 1995. These include

• Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resource being claimed
  
  
• Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
  
  
• Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.

and one of the questions MPs should ask themselves (according to the 2009 Green Book, but IIRC, the same principle has applied at least since the '95 Code of Conduct) ....

- Could the claim in any way damage the reputation of Parliament or it's members?

That 1995 Code stipulates ....

Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.

That's the very first actual rule, and comes above the one about not being paid for any advocacy in the house, and not accepting bribes! It would, therefore, appear to be fairly important.

And that is what irritates me so much about the actions of so many of the MPs, and not just Laws, that have been caught up in the expenses scandal, to one extent of another, which is that even if they can weasel a way of claiming that they really didn't mean anything untoward, so many of them played very fast and loose indeed with the fundamental principles of what's expected of them, instead appearing to be believers in the 11th Commandment, and that they were above such petty-fogging inconveniences such as actual rules or standards of behaviour.

And most of them skated away free and clear, and even if they left Parliament, it's all too often for lucrative jobs elsewhere. Many (though not all) of them were, and are in my opinion, utter disgraces.

[Saracen]

.... But anyway- do you have some sort of objection to politicians speaking the truth?....

Yes .....

.
.
.
.
.
.
..... the shock isn't good for my blood pressure.

[santa claus]

Great posts gentlemen. A little disconcerting though that only a few of us seem interested in the people who are governing us.

I've always thought he was a bit of a knob.

Fair comment.

If my union calls for strike action I'll leave the union, simple as that. I see deficit reduction as crucial to my future standard of living in this country.

If you are not prepared to abide by the decision of the majority, you shouldn't be in a Union anyway. The concept is described in its title y'know.

Deficit reduction is more crucial to some than it is to others; when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose. I would suggest that those who have got something to lose, think more altruistically about their fellow citizens or they will be joining the little people on the bottom rung pronto.

..and duly lost. And rightly so. Hardly a great stain on his character however, or am I missing something?

No, you got the point, he lost. He is, consistently, a loser. And rightly so.

Who's that gonna be then?.... Labour?

Yes .

Many (though not all) of them were, and are in my opinion, utter disgraces.

And what makes me puke is the way we're being 'prepared' for the return to government of the 'great' men who fiddled and diddled and whom we apparently can't manage without.
This 'in it for myself' attitude that seems to have pervaded public office is doing more damage than the so-called financial crisis ever could.

[roachcoach]

Great posts gentlemen. A little disconcerting though that only a few of us seem interested in the people who are governing us.

Would you be happier if I added "I hate all politicians with the fire of a thousand suns" in my sig?

Because I do, you understand, but shouting it all the time is a bit mean spirited and I'm sure perhaps two of them might have a feeling left I can hurt. Maybe.

[santa claus]

Would you be happier if I added "I hate all politicians with the fire of a thousand suns" in my sig?

Because I do, you understand, but shouting it all the time is a bit mean spirited and I'm sure perhaps two of them might have a feeling left I can hurt. Maybe.

Point taken.

At least you still hold a glimmer of hope that any of them have feelings (apart from those for their bank balance that is).

[Saracen]

....

If you are not prepared to abide by the decision of the majority, you shouldn't be in a Union anyway. The concept is described in its title y'know. ....

That may be true, but it does raise the age-old issue of a majority of what, exactly? Whether the union is run by the hard-liners, or by the majority of members. There is, after all, a distinct difference between a strike call being decided by a majority of members, and a majority of members that vote.

And when we're talking about public sector unions providing what may well be regarded as essential services to the public, the argument could be made that if some can't be bothered to vote, then that apparent apathy shouldn't be taken as the tacit approval to strike action implicit in using a majority of votes as opposed to a majority of members.

And also, there is the question of whether union leadership are pursuing the interests of their members or, at least in some cases, a political agenda against a government that they, first, don't like, and second, are currently negotiating with (in many cases) over issues like pensions.

I can't help but feel that both sides are indulging in a bit of game theory here. The unions are (I hope) blustering a bit with strike threats to strengthen their position, and the government counter with threats to amend union laws. And both sides are playing political football with services we, the public, rely on.

[Blitzen]

Great posts gentlemen. A little disconcerting though that only a few of us seem interested in the people who are governing us.

I'm very interested.
Unfortunately though, Hexus is a pointless place to discuss these political isssues as it is a 'Tory Theatre', from top to bottom.

[oolon]

If you are not prepared to abide by the decision of the majority, you shouldn't be in a Union anyway. The concept is described in its title y'know.

Why someone be bound to take strike action is only 1 in 3 people vote and there is a narrow majority that means that 5/6th of the people don't really care about striking.

Deficit reduction is more crucial to some than it is to others; when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose. I would suggest that those who have got something to lose, think more altruistically about their fellow citizens or they will be joining the little people on the bottom rung pronto.

Well if you have a job you have someone to lose, If you strike and inflict more pain on your employer they will need to make MORE cuts not less, as they have a set budget. Personally I would sack all the London tube drivers who striked and hire new people, I am fed up with businesses in London being held to ransom by these people.

[Blitzen]

Well if you have a job you have someone to lose, If you strike and inflict more pain on your employer they will need to make MORE cuts not less, as they have a set budget. Personally I would sack all the London tube drivers who striked and hire new people, I am fed up with businesses in London being held to ransom by these people.

I cannot believe the statement above came from a presumably intelligent person.

You actually think that the tube drivers are holding businesses to ransom

What about employers holding their employees to ransom.........that's ok in your eyes is it? This happens WAYYYYY more than people striking for their rights as an employee.

[TheAnimus]

I cannot believe the statement above came from a presumably intelligent person.

You actually think that the tube drivers are holding businesses to ransom

What about employers holding their employees to ransom.........that's ok in your eyes is it? This happens WAYYYYY more than people striking for their rights as an employee.

You don't live in London do you?

The tube is not really an option for a lot of commuters, they are forced on to it, you can't drive there and I don't mean because of congestion charging & other costs, I mean because there is no parking remotely near. The buses when a tube strike happens are full to the point they don't let anyone on from zone3 inwards.

A strike on the tube creates havock often hitting small businesses the hardest, they don't afterall get a refund on the rent/mortgage for those days. Big companies often completely fail to operate properly and lots of freelancers simply don't get paid. These people often being the most exploited of all (see london living wage vs contracted cleaners). So the nock on effect is really quite something else. I'd suggest cycling round (because its the only pratical way, and even then you have to avoid the gridlock main roads) London on a tube strike day just to see how truely crippling it is to have such an essential service cut off.

As such a tube driver holds power over many people who have no direct involvement with the pay. Then when you look at what it is they are striking over, plenty of workers on less pay per hour doing frankly less pleasurable jobs aren't getting the perks they are striking over.

I would say that to liken the tube drivers with the movements of the early 20th century is frankly insulting to all those that suffered so badly at the hands of the monopolistic exploiting corporations.

I'm not aware of any employer recently holding their employees to randsome in a way that is unfair to the employees whilst been fair to the company, I am aware of plenty of cases which the firm is in dire straights and frankly those conditions are 'unfair' to all involved, but definately not helped by striking. BA cabin crew is a good example of this, everyone else has taken significant cuts, but they aren't willing to serve as many passengers with as few staff as the likes of Virgin. That simply can not be solved unless the public are willing to pay for that, which they haven't demonstrated they are.

[roachcoach]

Tube drivers...I hate them and I don't even live in London. These aren't people working in sweatshops making trainers earning 40p a decade. Tube drivers starting salary, according to a 2009 source was a little over £40,000. Not being funny, but imo they can shut the hell up about their conditions on that kind of cash.

People holding a city to ransom whilst earning more than double what a newly qualified nurse earns have a special place in hell in my mind. Hell it's about the same wage as a junior doctor.


Now don't get me wrong, I've no time for employers taking liberties either but tube drivers...greedy b'tards.

[santa claus]

.....I can't help but feel that both sides are indulging in a bit of game theory here.

You can't second guess what non-voters want.

And I hope it isn't posturing: price rises for food, power, fuel, an attack on earned pensions and a pay freeze for several years is good enough reason for a public sector strike in my book.

I'm very interested.
Unfortunately though, Hexus is a pointless place to discuss these political isssues as it is a 'Tory Theatre', from top to bottom.

That adds to the fun Blitzen. C'mon, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Ah, I see you returned to the fight. Good man.

[Blitzen]

You don't live in London do you?

The tube is not really an option for a lot of commuters, they are forced on to it, you can't drive there and I don't mean because of congestion charging & other costs, I mean because there is no parking remotely near. The buses when a tube strike happens are full to the point they don't let anyone on from zone3 inwards.

A strike on the tube creates havock often hitting small businesses the hardest, they don't afterall get a refund on the rent/mortgage for those days. Big companies often completely fail to operate properly and lots of freelancers simply don't get paid. These people often being the most exploited of all (see london living wage vs contracted cleaners). So the nock on effect is really quite something else. I'd suggest cycling round (because its the only pratical way, and even then you have to avoid the gridlock main roads) London on a tube strike day just to see how truely crippling it is to have such an essential service cut off.

As such a tube driver holds power over many people who have no direct involvement with the pay. Then when you look at what it is they are striking over, plenty of workers on less pay per hour doing frankly less pleasurable jobs aren't getting the perks they are striking over.

I would say that to liken the tube drivers with the movements of the early 20th century is frankly insulting to all those that suffered so badly at the hands of the monopolistic exploiting corporations.

I'm not aware of any employer recently holding their employees to randsome in a way that is unfair to the employees whilst been fair to the company, I am aware of plenty of cases which the firm is in dire straights and frankly those conditions are 'unfair' to all involved, but definately not helped by striking. BA cabin crew is a good example of this, everyone else has taken significant cuts, but they aren't willing to serve as many passengers with as few staff as the likes of Virgin. That simply can not be solved unless the public are willing to pay for that, which they haven't demonstrated they are.

Invalid argument.
In one breath you are saying they earn too much anyway, and the second they bring the capital to a standstill. Which is it? If they earn too much, then surely it is a skilled job (wouldn't know as most wouldnt). If they are bringing London to a halt, maybe you arent giving their job enough credence.
Yes it disrupts the flow of commuting, but there would be little point in disrupting a service if no-one used it would there.
And no.....i don't live in London. I do spend 8-9 days per month there though when working in the UK, as I am only about a 40 minute drive away. Dump the car in Rickmansworth, and use the tube.

[TheAnimus]

Invalid argument.
In one breath you are saying they earn too much anyway, and the second they bring the capital to a standstill. Which is it? If they earn too much, then surely it is a skilled job (wouldn't know as most wouldnt). If they are bringing London to a halt, maybe you arent giving their job enough credence.
Yes it disrupts the flow of commuting, but there would be little point in disrupting a service if no-one used it would there.
And no.....i don't live in London. I do spend 8-9 days per month there though when working in the UK, as I am only about a 40 minute drive away. Dump the car in Rickmansworth, and use the tube.

Its an invalid argument because they can bring the capital to a standstill?

Let me put that in to perspective for you, an A&E Dr, like an ex of mine, who has to work under a pressure which I can barely comprehend (and its not like I don't work under high pressure either!) one simple mistake, one failure to think about a combination of side effects, hesitation, that patient will die. Its quite a demanding job its fair to say, and they make mistakes, some even keep a competitive score of how many people they have killed when in retrospect they could have done something different.

A bus driver, who drinks or texts with both hands, or just falls asleep can easily kill many people, block a section of the M25. By your logic there, the 'risk' effect of their job is higher, which its almost as if you are suggesting makes it more skilled?

Now lets be clear, any muppet can drive a tube train. Heck most of the lines they only open and close the doors. Some lines are piratically able to go driver-less, I know this from a friend of mine who works on the maintenance side, but who would like to be a tube driver, because they earn more than him, despite him having a good engineering degree, working anti-social hours. If the engies strike, who cares, it sets back a 5 year refurbishment program by 3 days! Big whoop. So don't you feel for this poor tunnel rat friend of mine, working worse hours, much worse conditions (nasty hot, stressful etc) but who can't get a job as a driver because they simply get hundreds of suitable applicants for each post..... They are overpaid. Compare that to the A&E Dr who EARNS LESS than a tube driver of the same age. We also have quite a shortage of A&E Dr in the capital.

If the drivers don't turn up, it cripples London. When they make improvements towards going driverless, the little peckers go on strike.

They are paid far too much for the skill level of the job, there are PLENTY of people who would like to do it, but its a nepotistical boys club, if you don't know someone, if you don't join the union they wont let you in. That is not remotely fair, that is not the best person for the job, that is not the person who is willing to work hardest for the job.

As such its an artificially high wage compared to supply and demand. When they strike they are hurting people who have a much lower standard of life. I just can't see any angle that says its justified.

As a hypothetical, in one roll I was working in a previous life, I could cripple about $2BN of pension money with a few keystrokes. No one would be able to understand what I'd done without days of forensic effort by VERY gifted programmers. In that time millions of options would have expired. That would be the average joe's pensions. I could have rightfully said I was underpaid. People who were doing my job who were older were been paid £350k a year inc bonus, I wasn't getting half. Would that have been OK? To make peoples pensions suffer just to extort money from an employer?
Personally I would consider that deeply immoral, because for the hedge fund to actually feel a significant loss of say $1M, I'd probably have to loose $150M hypothetically speaking of clients money. Are you saying that if I'd unionised my union of 1, and gone on strike you would have supported me, if I'd wiped 40% from your diversified pension? (ie all your growth equities?)