The rise and rise of the BNP

With the BNP having appeared on the BBC's flagship politics programme Question Time, it seems that the BNP have made it into the mainstream political landscape.

It is really not surprising too see how this has happened. Over the last decade, we have seen rising numbers of immigrants arriving on our shores, with few if any checks to see if they were entitled to do so. The tide started under the leadership of Tony Blair's New Labour government.

While there is nothing wrong with having an immigration policy that let's in those who genuinely want to be here to get a better life and contribute to the country, there is everything wrong with a policy of letting everyone in, whether or not they have any intention of putting anything back into the country. And this is precisely where we now find ourselves.

The British public for the most part are decent, hard working and tolerant. The issue most people have with immigration is the strain it causes on our services (NHS, housing, schools), and the cost to the tax payer for footing the enormous bill.

Labour have failed to stem the rising tide of immigration. Our borders have been wide open for over a decade. While they may have recently amended this policy failure, it is too little, too late.

Amid all of this, a party such as the BNP cannot but fail to exploit the public dissatisfaction. People who are fed up with what they perceive as the failure of mainstream politics to resolve the issue, will be pushed further and further into the political verges and recesses where parties such as the BNP inhabit.

The rise of the BNP can be blamed fairly and squarely on the incompetence of the mainstream parties. With the recent scandals over their expenses, to their failure to curb the obscene bonus culture within the banking sector, it is little wonder that people are turning away from mainstream politics.

There was much controversy over Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. As a non partisan reporter of the news, they have to ensure all political parties are treated with the same level of impartiality. This has absolutely nothing to do with their policies, and everything to do with a democratic society.

The real question for me though is this. How can a party as overtly racist as the BNP have ever been formed in the first place? How can a political party get away with having a 'whites only' exclusion policy? If the BNP has passed all the checks and balances for forming a political party, then what on earth does that say about the rules we have for forming political parties in Britain.

As the BNP is a legitimate party, then that speaks volumes about the complete lack of regulation we have surrounding forming a political party. If you can create a political party as racist and vile as the BNP without breaking a single rule, then I find that more disgusting than whether or not they should appear on programmes such as Question Time.

Restoring faith in British democracy Part II

Following on from my earlier article about how to restore faith in British politics, which was written as a response to the MPs expenses scandal, I now find myself writing an article on the scandal concerning the payback of those expenses.

The current review of MPs expenses, being led by Sir Thomas Legg, is to determine what should be repaid. Already, over three hundred letters have been sent out to MPs to either ask for further information to clarify a claim, or to demand that they return the money.

What is galling about this whole sorry episode is the fact that some MPs are so incensed by this, that they are threatening to refuse to pay the money back, with some threatening to take legal action (presumably at tax payers expense).

Having been caught red handed with their trotters well and truly in the till, having sucked on the teat of the tax payer's nipples, they now have the arrogance to whinge when asked to return what they were never entitled to in the first place. Their bleating that it is unfair and unjust is lamentable.

They were caught flipping their houses for personal gain, claiming for luxurious home appliances, moat cleaning and a duck pond amongst the most contemptible of their claims. In practically any other situation, they would have been charged with fraud. Now that they have been asked to return their ill gotten gains to the tax payer, it is appalling that some are so out of touch as to feel hard done by.

We are in the middle of a recession, money is tight, firms are closing all around, people are losing their jobs and homes, and yet some MPs are stamping their tiny little feet that they need to repay back their exorbitant claims.

Let's be clear, none of the MPs claims were just and reasonable, even under the old system. It just so happened that it was so riddled with corruption and inefficiency, that these claims ever made it through in the first place. Even judging many of their claims against the old system, they would have little if anything to do with their roles as a serving MP.

MPs are well paid, and are supposed to act in the interests of the public to whom they are rightly asked to serve. At least the party leaders seem to have correctly gauged the public outrage and disgust, and have demanded that their members return whatever cash is asked of them.

In my opinion, a failure to return what was not yours to take in the first place, should result in your swift exit from the party, and from politics. If they want to be voted in by their constituents, they had better get out their cheque books, and quickly.

Restoring faith in British democracy

With the revelations of MPs expenses, and the backlash meted out to the Labour government at the recent elections, the question now is - how can faith be restored in our democratic process?

Our MPs have shown themselves to be completely out of step with the common working man and woman of this country. They spent five years blocking reasonable and democratic attempts to get detailed information about their expenses (and now that they have been revealed, we know why). They have shown their contempt for the people who pay their wages. Look no further than Conservative MP Anthony Steen, who has stated that what he spends our money on is is none of our business, and that we are only jealous of him. Even more astonishingly, they tried to amend their own Freedom of Information law (the law that was being used to extract their expenses details) so that it did not apply to politicians. Their collective arrogance is truly staggering.

Labour's grubbing at the polls has hopefully sent the message that a government cannot afford to ignore it's constituents. In a democracy, the role of government is to serve its people. We vote them in, we can equally vote them back out. Governments are temporary, and we have the power to voice our displeasure by removing them from office.

For all MPs who have abused the expenses system, they should immediately face a by-election, where their constituency can vote them out if they wish to. The fact that so many MPs are hanging on until the next general election, so they receive their golden payoffs and fat pension pots must fill every person in this country with disgust. Giving us the power to vote out these pointless and greedy politicians would be a very welcome step in restoring our faith in democracy.

The expenses system should be completely over hauled. The fact that every single one of the claims that are now being revealed was authorised by the Fees Office shows how incompetent and self serving it is. The Fees Office should be under the control of an independent body, where the taxpayer is represented and can voice their concerns over its running. The second homes allowance should be abolished immediately. Many people commute to London daily, showing it is unnecessary to furnish our MPs with luxury homes in the capital. Most of the claims that have so horrified the general public have involved a second home, or a claim made against it.

The expenses system should only be used to claim the most basic of expenses, such as their staff salaries (who should not be related to the MP at all) and other expenses that are essential to the role of an MP.

Whatever happens, faith needs to be restored. It is currently at an all time low. We need MPs who understand the meaning of the words honour, diligence, industry and integrity. Currently, our House of Commons if full of shysters, liars and bullshitters.

The Unsung hero behind the publication of our MPs expenses

I have already written two previous blogs about MPs expenses, so I will not repeat what I have already written. However, I think everyone should read the following article by Heather Brooke. She is a journalist for the Guardian newspaper, and led the Freedom of Information (FOI) request that has subsequently brought our government and democracy into such dishonour and disrepute.

MPs expenses - Heather Brooke

Her first had account of the scandal makes for breath-taking reading. At every turn, she faced obstruction, court appeals and deliberate time wasting. Reading her account must make every single member of the House of Commons (including the Speaker of the House) ashamed of themselves.

In my book, Heather Brooke is nothing short of a hero - and should be knighted for her contribution to democracy. Her perseverance to reveal the truth was only equalled by our MPs refusal to reveal it.

Pill solves complex social problem

Ok, I admit I borrowed my blog title from a chapter in Ben Goldacre's excellent book Bad Science (which I fully recommend everyone to read). He also has his own web site called Bad Science.

We've probably all read the headline grabbing stories whereby some new potion or pill is reported to cure or solve some social problem. "Omega-3 increases attention and behaviour in children", "Scientists have discovered fat gene", "New pill to aid weight loss". All of this sounding very familiar?

There are several things wrong with this level of reporting. Firstly, most of it is quite simply wrong, and is not based on any evidence. What evidence there may be, may simply show that there is a relationship between certain factors, but the underlying cause may not be known. What has been confused is what the study was measuring, with the conclusions of the scientists who undertook the study. For example, compare these two sentences: 'Research has shown that black children in America tend to perform less well in IQ tests than white children', and 'Research has shown that black people are less intelligent than white people'. The first sentence tells you what the research found - the evidence. The second tells you the hypothesis - the interpretation. They are very different.

Newspapers and magazines are in the business of maximising their circulation to as wide an audience as possible. Attention grabbing headlines such as those above certainly help. Why let something like the truth get in the way of selling a few more copies.

Secondly, stories such as this hide the solutions that may actually provide real benefit. Social problems such as obesity, problem behaviour in children and so on, are complex. Instead of focusing in on gimmicks such as quick fix pills and potions, we should instead be looking at parenting skills, teacher recruitment and retention, social exclusion, classroom size, social inequality and the widening income gap. None of these solutions however are going to grab any one's attention in the media. Finding a quick fix pill is much more like a 'proper' news story, than anything as boring as a parenting programme.

Thirdly, stories such as this do science no favours. As many of these stories are not based on clinical trials (which should have been double-blinded, randomised, tested against placebo, and their methods, measurements and results published in the public domain for closer scrutiny), then is it any wonder people have come to have completely unrealistic expectations of both the role of science, and what science can achieve.

Fourthly, they do the general public no favours. They feed our growing fixation for quick fixes. Rather than implement societal change and parenting programmes, we'll simply develop a pill instead - it takes far less effort. So real change is never forthcoming, and the problem never goes away.

The media (propped up by their PR machines), with their focus on maximising copy, are responsible for circulating vast quantities of mis-information and bullshit. If you are genuinely interested in science, and what a study may reveal, or what possible benefits a study may have on society, then read a proper science book, magazine or journal. I fully recommend New Scientist. Do not rely on getting your science information from the tabloids, broadsheets, daytime TV and the like. If you do, fully expect to be manipulated and lied to.

MPs caught with their snouts in the trough...again!

Practically every one of the UK broadsheet newspapers today is running a story relating to MPs expenses. This follows on from a full expose on the issue by The Telegraph. I have also covered this issue myself in an earlier blog.

While the Telegraph expose primarily centres its focus on the Labour Party (which is to be expected from a right of centre newspaper), no single party is blameless. This is an issue which more than most, cuts across all party boundaries.

The expenses system is supposed to compensate MPs for out of pocket expenses, which I am sure most people would see as quite reasonable. What it is actually used for is something quite different. MPs view the expenses system as a lifestyle, rather than a privilege of the job. What is coming to light is MPs claim for many items which the majority of people would view as inappropriate. When each new revelation comes to light, we hear the usual bleating of 'I was acting in complete accordance with the rules', as if that makes any difference. If the rules state you can claim for a second home when you live less than ten miles from Parliament, then the rules are clearly wrong.

MPs do not use the expenses system to remunerate themselves for just their subsistence expenses, but to subsidise their lifestyles. They claim for their TVs and other electric appliances, fitted bathrooms and kitchens, new carpets and furniture and even their food.

The entire expenses system needs a complete overhaul. As I have said previously, I would remove the claim for MPs second homes. Instead, I would let them claim for travel expenses and overnight accommodation in Travel Lodge style hotel.

The argument for increasing their salaries is a spurious one. They are already well rewarded in their roles as MPs. No further increase in basic salary is necessary. I would remove the ability for MPs to vote on their own pay awards too. In no other role can you vote for your own pay increase, and I would not make MPs any exception to this.

We are in the middle of a recession, but you'd never know this from looking at the items our MPs are claiming for.

They have completely forgotten that their purpose is to serve their constituents and country, not to serve themselves.

G20 Summit

The G20 summit was a surprising success. World leaders meeting in London recently to thrash out a solution to the global economic downturn showed a great deal of unity. Together, they pledged $1.1 trillion in loans and guarantees to poorer nations. This is an unprecedented and staggering figure, and probably beyond the comprehension of most people. It also agreed a commitment to prop up tottering economies of developing nations through the International Monetary Fund, and pledges of a heavier regulation of international finance. The latter included pledges to remove tax havens and the bonus culture that is endemic in the institutions that have been largely blamed for the global crisis. This has to be a good thing. The days of laissez faire economics that has prevailed over previous decades may at last be coming to an end.

The promise of $1.1 trillion to help poor countries exceeded even the most optimistic of outside expectations. The money will help keep small nations from tumbling into deep crisis, essentially serving as a firewall to keep the recession from deepening, analysts have said.

However, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the recovery process is the banks. They have shifted from lending irresponsibly and shoring up huge amounts of toxic debt, to refusing to lend altogether. The solution is to find a happy medium. I am certainly not advocating a return to irresponsible lending, but there is no doubt that the banks have a vital part to play in the solution.

With the summit now over, it remains to be seen if the pledges turn into action. These will have to be implemented by individual countries. We need our politicians to act more than we ever have, and in this, they have my full support. I feel we all owe them our support in these troubling times, and for the time being at least, to put aside our political difference while we get ourselves back on track.

Cyclists to blame for their injuries if not wearing a helmet

This was reported in The Independant recently. In a high court ruling, the judge claimed that the cyclist was partially responsible for the injuries suffered by the cyclist, even though the motor cyclist that hit him was found to be "entirely to blame".

This sets a very serious precedent, and is wrong for so many reasons. It is wrong to penalise someone when they are not at fault, or in this case, blameless. There is no legal requirement in the UK to wear a helmet, it is down to the discretion of the rider to make that decision. Practically everything we do in life carries a risk, from crossing the road to boarding a bus. Cycling to work must sensibly be classified as a low risk activity. When a pedestrian is involved in an accident that is not their fault, they do not wear helmets. Is this case really any different?

The next question is: are we going to see the same precedent creeping into other areas of compensation within the UK?

MPs expenses at the centre of another furore

This week we have another story relating to the abuse of the MPs expense system. Jacqui Smith's husband Richard Timney submitted an expeneses claim for £67 to his wife, who then processed the claim. This included two adult pay-per view adult films. Further details of the case can be found here from The Guardian.

Whatever the details of this case may be, it seems clear that the entire expenses system requires reviewing, as it is simply too easy to abuse by those who wish to do so. The expenses that MPs receive is very generous, and it would seem that many MPs are simply using the expenses system to top up their salaries, rather than for its intended purpose.

From Derek Conway paying his feckless son a salary whilst he did no work, to the John Lewis shopping list, to the reimbursement for viewing porngraphy, there is seemingly no end to the scams that MPs seem willing to take to abuse the system.

My solution would be to stop the payment of second homes to MPs, and replace it with a fixed sum that covered the cost of an overnight stay in the capital. I would not pay to decorate or furnish any homes, I would not pay for their food, I would not pay their living and upkeep expenses. Like the rest of us, they receive a salary, and they should learn to live on it.