Out of touch ? Us ?

It'd be nice to be able to say we've had a lovely week off, but we didn't.

The clicks, pops, whines and echoes on the phones alongside furtive questions from the new guy delivering pizzas got the better of us. We figured it was best to move offices. Ministry Towers have now officially gone dark, of no fixed abode etc.

What's also become abundantly clear is that a week in politics is one fuck of a long time and that's all it takes to feel very out of touch. Now we know how it feels like to be in politics/the civil service. Don't believe me ? Check out the latest Labour and Conservative party political broadcasts... shear out-of-touch comedy genius.





And don't think it's just political parties that're insanely out of touch. We found ourselves in one of Westminster Councils "One-stop-shops" last week in an absurdist attempt to see if they knew how to hold an elected representative to account when they've lied. We should've known better - the signs of a hopelessly out-of-touch bureaucracy were staring us in the face...

I give you Westminster Council's intrepid attempt at entrepreneurial endeavor...

"GREAT TREES OF WESTMINSTER"



Yes, for a mere 50p, you can buy any one of a number of postcards from the imaginatively titled series, "Great Trees of Westminster". There's "the Turkey Oak at Park Lane Central Reservation" or "the Maidenhair Tree of St Johns Gardens, Horseferry Road".

May we suggest purchasing one and posting it to Simon Milton, Leader of Westminster Council with a brief note asking him not to add insult to injury by pissing the money they extort from us via their traffic wardens down the drain .

Out of touch ? Us ?

Easter

The Ministry is closed for Easter

We shall return with the House, after recess, on Tues 17th.

...And God bless New Zealand

A tenuous connection we'll grant you, but this video (and a bunch of Aussie barstaff last night) reminded us that things are more straightforward down under. The Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act was originally inspired by an Australasian statute (the southern state of Australia to be precise). Simple and to the point, it makes it a criminal offence punishable by fine to lie, mislead or mis-represent in a general election campaign.

No doubt the Minister for Broadcasting and Education, Steve Mahary's behaviour in New Zealand's Parliament will serve as an inspiration to our own honourable elected representatives. You can hear it here (beautifully picked up by the mics), or watch the inevitable piss-take video...

God bless America

Can anyone compete with the US ?

Unhappy with our UK-centric site, we’ve been advised we’re missing out on a whole raft of glorious bad boy behaviour in government from our friends across the pond.

It’d be interesting to do some kind of similar analysis on our MPs, but until one of us gets the time, you’ll have to make do with this set of stats from the land of Dubya where there's an organisation, not unlike our Parliament, which has 535 members, of these ;

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
7 have been arrested for fraud
3 have done time for assault

It's called the House of Congress.

We wonder how they'd fare if the Misrepresentation of the People Act got onto the statute books over there.

Here come da truth...

Yesterday the Treasury keeled over, foamed at the mouth and went into full-tilt Vicky Pollard Defcom 4 rhetoric over this Gobshite Brown pensions business.

Their but yeah, but no, but yeah re-buffs went something like this ;

1) The CBI were lobbying for it. ("But no 'cos I can prove it 'cos anyway she told me to do it round the bike sheds ages ago")

2) Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton "If they (the Tories) think it's such a bad policy, maybe we'll hear a pledge from them to reverse these tax changes - and so far there's been a deafening silence." ("But yeah you can't listen to them 'cos they never say nuffin good anyway")

3) Ed Balls (junior minister at the Treasury) pointed out that Conservative Chancellor Norman Lamont had cut the dividend tax credit from 25% to 20% in 1993. ("But no 'cos they did that before anyway when they wuz teachers pet so we can't be wrong")

4) A Treasury spokesman blamed pension schemes' recent funding problems on the dotcom crash, pension holidays in the 1980s and 1990s and a rise in life expectancy. ( "but no, see, it was raining and everything, and I tried to get some sherbert, but ... don't blame me")

Except...let's take a look at those one by one ;

1) Lord Turner (director general of the CBI at the time) has emphatically denied the CBI made or would make any such recommendation.

2) Whether the Opposition has an alternative is not an answer to the allegation that Gordon Brown ignored Civil Service advice and ruined our pensions.

3) Lamont's successor Ken Clarke considered but rejected scrapping the dividend because he thought the "downside far outweighed the upside because of the damage it would do to pension funds"

4) A stock market crash (post dot.com) is exactly the reason you need a pensions surplus. Both pensions holidays and rising life expectancy were known and quantified facts well before Brown's 1997 budget.

But yeah, but no, but yeah because m'nan says...

It'd be funny if these weren't grown fucking men running our country.

the Brown smelly stuff

One of the many counter-arguments thrown at us by MPs in our attempt to get support for the Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act is that we’re better off not being able to hold an elected representative to account on a daily basis. They should be judged on their performance over a decent period of time. There’s some validity to this – however, for us to be able to judge their performance we must know the facts. Strange then, that a government committed to the Freedom of Information Act should fight so hard against the release of such facts…

For the last two years the Treasury has been fighting a court battle with the Times to prevent their official advice to Gordon Brown being released under the Freedom of Information Act.

On Friday we learned why it was a two year battle. We also learned why it was released on a day when Parliament was in recess and Gordon Brown was abroad.

Turns out back in 1997 the Treasury and the Inland Revenue warned the Right Honourable Gordon that his first budget could lead to a hole in Britain’s pension funds.

Brown doesn’t deny he ignored the advice, nor does he deny the hole in Britain’s pensions and the crisis they face. In fact, he has yet to comment – he’s in Afghanistan.

What Ed Balls, his junior minister denies is responsibility, “The Times analysis is abject nonsense and a complete travesty of the information they have received.” Amusing in the face of the Treasury’s fight to keep the information from us. Less amusing if you’re an impoverished pensioner trying to figure out which way to vote.

The Times summarised it like this ;

The warnings Brown ignored

Warning There will be a “big hole” in pension finances. Result The pensions black hole of Britain’s top 100 companies now stands at £32 billion.

Warning Employers may have to “fork out” additional contributions. Result Leading companies are now paying at least £5 billion a year extra to cut pension deficits.

Warning The shift away from final salary pensions “might accelerate”. Result In 1997, 90% of company pension schemes were final salary. Two-thirds of such schemes are now closed to new members.

Warning The local government pensions scheme, with 1.3m members, will require extra contributions. Result More than a quarter of council tax bills now go towards pension payments.

Warning The change will lead to “a reduction in pension benefits for the lower paid”. Result The government has been forced to increase the pension credit for those on low incomes.

It’d be nice to find out how much of our money the Treasury spent to keep the information buried. I can smell an FOI request coming on…

The Miliband Cometh ?

Miliband occupies a special place at Ministry towers. The office being heavily split into predatory female admiration with a deep need to see him prostrate himself and a distinct male ambivalence.

In the quest for an MP to support our bill we've already been turned down for an interview once, but hormonal levels in the office and the article he wrote for yesterday’s Telegraph has prompted us to make another request to find out if he intends to back up his rhetoric and see the light that shines in the Misrepresentation of the People Act. Here are a couple of key paragraphs ;

I'm in tune with the 'I can' generation

By David Miliband, Daily Telegraph 29^th March 07

"Politics requires many virtues - organisation, ideas, resolution, luck. But chief among them is the hardest to define: that elusive sense of being in tune with the times. Political parties succeed when they join their values to deep economic, social and cultural trends. I am convinced that a fourth election victory, and fundamental changes to the landscape of Britain, are possible precisely because a more demanding, educated, savvy population want the power and control that modern progressive politics can offer.

Since 1997, Britain has changed in some ways more fundamentally than new Labour promised. It is a different country - richer, fairer, more confident. I also think it is being driven forward by a new spirit. I call it the politics of "I can". The era of "I can" is the culmination of the long decline of deference and automatic authority. It is the late flowering of individual autonomy and control. It is, in other words, one of the founding ideas of left-of-centre politics: to put power in the hands of the people. In the "I can" era, people want to be players, not just spectators. They want to be contributors, not just consumers.”

Should he agree to the interview, it’ll be interesting to see what the female contingent will be wearing for the big day. They are a rum bunch, deviant and predatory in nature. We await his response.

Hat tip to Beau Bo D’or for the image

The Price of Information

The government want to be able to refuse requests under the Freedom of Information Act if they cost more than £600 to process.

FOI requests total £35m to process each year.

Of this £35m, government figures show requests from journalists cost £4m.

Last night, the government put through a communications allowance for MPs. The annual cost ? £6m - which Jack Straw described as a "reasonable and relatively modest sum" to improve the quality of information given to constituents.

So the £6m for MPs to communicate to us is an acceptable cost, but the £4m it costs government to give journalists and news organisations is un-acceptable.

Where would you rather spend your money ?

Straight from the "Yes Minister" manual.

In our quest to find an MP who’ll support the Misrepresentation of the People Act we keep hearing the same old thing… “give us some examples”, “where are the examples ?”

They’re almost daily for Chrissakes !!! Here's one from the weekend's Sunday Times ...

"Gerry Sutcliffe, the prisons minister ordered his civil servants to draw up a secret list of “negative” officials suspected of being opposed to legislation. Sutcliffe also wanted a list of officials who could be trusted to act as “positive champions” for the plans to privatise the probation service and be used to persuade rebellious Labour MPs to change their minds and avert a Commons defeat.

The e-mail was sent by Rachel Howell, Sutcliffe’s private secretary, on February 1 to senior Home Office officials as he faced a backbench rebellion against the government’s Offender Management (OM) Bill. If it was defeated, it could have threatened Sutcliffe’s ministerial career.

Last week Sir Alistair Graham, the watchdog responsible for overseeing standards in public life, identified Tony Blair’s politicisation of the service as one of the seven “mortal sins” that had undermined public trust in government. Tomorrow, the Commons’ public administration committee will call on the government to introduce new laws to protect the impartiality of the civil service.

Critics say that the e-mail breaches the ministerial code of conduct which sets out that ministers “have a duty to uphold the political impartiality of the civil service”.

It states: “Civil servants should not be asked to engage in activities likely to call in question their political impartiality, or to give rise to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes.”

When first asked if Sutcliffe had instructed his private office to draw up a list of chief probation officers who supported and opposed the bill, the Home Office said: “It is utterly untrue that he instructed his office to do this.”

However, when confronted with the text of the leaked e-mail, Sutcliffe altered his position. A spokeswoman later said: “There is no question the minister acted improperly or sought to undermine the political impartiality of his private office . . . It is normal to identify those supporting voices for proposed legislation.”

So, initial response was to deny it ever happened. Then, when confronted with the evidence, they changed their tune to, "this is perfectly acceptable behaviour".
The full article’s here.

"Yes Minister" is available on DVD from the Parliamentary Bookshop at Portcullis House.

Bush or bust

Not long ago... our ambassador to the US presented Dubya with a bust of Winston Churchill.

Both Bush and Blair are self-confessed, fully paid up members of the Winston fan club.

So with a backward glance at the invasion of Iraq and a nod to the on-coming express train of Iran, perhaps now is a time for them to reflect on one of the great mans many proclamations ;

"Let us learn our lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on that strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that, once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated war officers, weak, incompetant or arrogant commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations - all take their seat at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war."

Winston Churchill

Hot waters

Ahhh yesssss....the capture of 15 Naval personnel in Iraqi/Iranian waters.

In the argument against holding our elected representatives to account for lying, much noise has been made by legal types - "Where's the loss incurred because of the lie ? If there's no loss, what are you holding them to account for exactly ?"

When our elected representatives are perceived as anything other than honest, Foreign Affairs are precisely where "the people" suffer "a loss".

Blair says we were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians say bollocks.

It would be nice to think that when the PM says "our lads were in Iraqi territorial waters" you could bet your life they were (after all, that's what "our lads" are doing).

It would be nice to think that in the face of such a clear denial, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki would feel ridiculous even questioning our PM's integrity.

It would be nice to think the UN and international allies would see Mottaki as ridiculous because he questioned our Prime Minister's integrity.

The foreign minister of Iran can put doubt in our minds, the minds of the UN and our international allies over anything our Prime Minister says for two reasons ;

1) The current governments track record.

2) The Belgrano.

The glory days of Thatcher and the Belgrano come 2nd in our series "Great Political porkies" of our time.

Hours after the Peruvian-brokered peace plan landed in London, Thatcher (cigar in mouth) said to the Argentinians, "If you don't stop that naval vessel coming toward the Falklands, I'm going to blow it out of the fucking water."

The Argentinians replied, "What the hell are you talking about ? We're sailing away from the islands. "

Thatcher said, "No you're not." and promptly blew them out of the fucking water.

In fact the Belgrano was sailing away from the Falklands.

She went on to lie in Parliament and on national TV about the incident.

Clive Ponting, a senior Ministry of Defence civil servant, was increasingly frustrated both by Whitehall's misuse of secrecy and by the way the Navy was using the Falklands experience to try to roll back the 1981 defence review, In July 1984, he gave Tam Dalyell MP documents to show how he and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that was enquiring into the affair were being misled.

Clive was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act (later) acquitted but civil service career effectively over.

P.S. Freedom of Information request into the Belgrano sinking was refused in June 2005

The Limitation of Information Act

Well, well, well...

One of the counter arguments we've continually had thrown against "The Misrepresentation of the People Act" is that despite a lack of formal, legal accountability for MPs there are two extremely powerful measures already in place to hold our elected representatives and Government to account.

1) the so-called "Fourth Estate" - The Press/media.

2) the Freedom of Information Act.

Despite charming the pants off us in our interview with him, the Lord Chancellor was keen to emphasise both of these. So we were suprised to hear him at the Lord Williams of Mostyn memorial lecture give the following argument on why the rules governing the Freedom of Information Act need tightening ;

"The Government approaches openness on the basis of improving how government operates, for the benefit of the public. Many sections of the press do not approach it in that way. Instead, many approach it on the basis of what gives them most information exclusive to their journalistic outlet.... The job of the Government is not to provide page leads for the papers, but information for the citizen. Freedom of information was never considered to be, and for our part will never be considered to be, a research arm for the media.... People, not the press, must be the priority. There is a right to know, not a right to tell"

So the problem with News organisations is that they tell people what they've found out from an FOI request.

Perhaps they'd be better off simply ammending the Act to allow you to make a request so long as you don't tell anybody the results.

At least that would have stopped us knowing about the 13 meetings Lord Falconer had with the AEG/Anschutz mob about the millenium dome/super-casino.

P.S. The Independent points out government commissioned research showed journalists account for about 16 per cent of the total costs of central government FOI requests - at a cost of around £4m. If the problem was a purely financial one - couldn't you simply charge the media for their requests ?

Sir Alistair for the Misrepresentation of the People Act ?

Apologies to HSBC.

Amidst our quest to find an MP who'll support the Misrepresentation of the People Act, Sir Alistair Graham, outgoing and outspoken chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has agreed to an interview.

Over the years he's had his disagreements with the PM over policing Parliamentary standards...

HANSARD - 1 Dec 2004 : Column 624

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): On Monday, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life repeated the Committee's view that allegations against Ministers should be considered by members of an independent panel, drawn up in agreement with the Opposition, which would be ready to act whenever an allegation is made. That recommendation was originally made in April 2003, and the Prime Minister rejected it. Will he now reconsider it?

The Prime Minister: No, for the reasons that we gave at that time. We believe that it is better, if an allegation is made, to appoint people on an individual basis and not to have a standing panel. That is the right way to do it. In this instance, we have someone of unimpeachable integrity who will examine all the facts of the case and come to a conclusion.

Mr. Howard: Let me tell the House what Sir Alistair Graham, the man appointed by the Prime Minister to chair this important Committee, said a couple of days ago:

"The Committee was disappointed that the current Government did not take the opportunity to put this mechanism in place, particularly as it provides speedy and independent investigation of allegations against Ministers. Current events demonstrate the continuing practical relevance of adopting these recommendations."

The Prime Minister said that he wanted the highest standards in public life. He appointed the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Committee has made clear recommendations. Why has not the Prime Minister accepted them?

The Prime Minister: We did not accept this recommendation because we believe that it is better to appoint people on an individual, case-by-case basis. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the speed of the inquiry's being set up, but the allegations were made on the Sunday in the newspapers, and that day, at the insistence of the Home Secretary, somebody was appointed to examine them. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that Sir Alan Budd is a man of independence and unimpeachable integrity. He will have the opportunity to look at the facts of the case and to make those facts known to the public. I cannot see what is wrong with that way of proceeding.

He talks the talk and his press office indicated he was ready to spill the beans on standards and accountability. Will he be in favour of the act ? We're taking bets. Naturally, we'll keep you posted.

Clicks’n Pops'n echoes.

Much weirdness at the Ministry.

The new pizza delivery guy seems skittish – furtive eyes and small hands. When we question him even lightly on the Diablo with extra cheese - he clearly knows nada.

Clicks, pops, echoes and whistling on our phones.

Our friends at Spymaster tell us if Her Majesty’s Government (Ltd) wants to hear what we’re up to - there's basically no way we can stop it.

Do we have delusions of grandeur ? Should we be flattered ?

Can you make a Freedom of Information request to find out if you’re being bugged ?

Did the Lord Chancellor’s office buy into our low-grade porn gag and tip off the thought Police ?