Cash for Grouse

Or how the toffs who run our country help their huntin’ n shootin’ chums!

“So now you might have to buy your own crutches, but you'll get your shotgun subsidised by the state. A few days after it was revealed that an NHS group is considering charging patients for the crutches, walking sticks and neck braces it issues, we discovered that David Cameron has intervened to keep the cost of gun licences frozen at £50: a price that hasn't changed since 2001.

The police are furious: it costs them £196 to conduct the background checks required to ensure shotguns are issued only to the kind of dangerous lunatics who use them for mowing down pheasants, rather than to the common or garden variety. As a result they – sorry, we – lose £17m a year, by subsidising the pursuits of the exceedingly rich.

The Country Land and Business Association – the armed wing of the Conservative party – complains that it's simply not fair to pass on the full cost of the licence to the owners of shotguns; unlike, say, the owners of passports or driving licences, who are charged on the basis of full cost recovery.

Three days later – on Friday – the government announced it would raise the subsidy it provides for grouse moors from £30 per hectare to £56. Yes, you read that right: the British government subsidises grouse moors, which are owned by 1% of the 1% and used by people who are scarcely less rich.

While the poor are being forced out of their homes through government cuts, it is raising the payments – across hundreds of thousands of hectares – that some owners use to burn and cut the land (helping to cause floods downstream), shoot or poison hen harriers and other predators, and scar the hills with roads and shooting butts.

While the rest of us can go to the devil, the interests of the very rich are ringfenced.

Before examining the wider picture, let's stick with the shooting theme for a moment, and take a look at the remarkable shape-shifting properties of that emblem of Downton Abbey Britain: the pheasant. Through a series of magnificent legal manoeuvres it can become whatever the nation's wealthy want it to be.

When pheasants are reared, they are classed as livestock: that means the people who raise them are exempt from some payments of value added tax and certain forms of planning control, on the grounds that they are producing food.

But as soon as they're released they are classed as wild animals. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to shoot them. But if you want to re-capture the survivors at the end of the shooting season to use as breeding stock, they cease to be wild and become livestock again, because you aren't allowed to catch wild birds with nets.

If, however, pheasants cause damage to neighbouring gardens, or to cars, or to the people travelling in those cars, the person who released them bears no liability, because for this purpose they are classed as wild animals – even if, at the time, they are being rounded up as legal livestock.

The pheasant's properties of metamorphosis should be a rich field of study for biologists: even the Greek myths mentioned no animal that mutated so often. In the treatment of pheasant and grouse shoots we see in microcosm what is happening in the country as a whole. Legally, fiscally and politically, the very rich are protected from the forces afflicting everyone else.

For example, earlier this year Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK listed the ways in which the chancellor, George Osborne, had changed the tax regime for the largest corporations, and calculated that these concessions would cost the exchequer between £5bn and £10bn a year over the next six years.

At the higher end of his estimate, that money could have prevented all the benefit cuts overseen by the Department for Work and Pensions.

But to call on the government to make rational and progressive fiscal decisions, as many of us do, is to misunderstand what it is attempting. It is not seeking to save the country from fiscal ruin – there are many ways of doing that without cutting essential services. It is re-engineering the United Kingdom as a plutocrats' paradise, in which the rich are scarcely troubled by laws or taxes, while the poor are plunged into a brutal world of casual labour, insecurity and legal restraint.

There are a dozen ways in which it could have discharged the deficit without inflicting cuts in social security or other essential public services. It could have introduced land value taxation. Or it could have unlocked the deeply regressive banding of council tax which, as Ian Jack showed last month, ensures that the Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, who bought a double penthouse in One Hyde Park for £136m, pays less in tax for that property than do the owners of a £200,000 house in Blackburn.

If even a flat council tax were applied – in other words, if everyone paid tax at the same rate – Akhmetov might contribute around £2m a year to the exchequer, rather than £1,353. If council tax were progressive – in other words if those with the most expensive homes paid proportionately more – he might be charged £4m or £5m. Such taxes would also have the additional benefit of suppressing house prices.

Or the government could have levied a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions – which, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, would raise £20bn a year at a rate of just 0.01%. Or, instead of bamboozling the public and surreptitiously turning the UK into a new tax haven, it could have taken real action to prevent tax avoidance, saving perhaps tens of billions.

But governments almost everywhere, beholden to donors and newspaper proprietors, unchallenged by either opposition parties or their cowed and passive electorates, are not seeking to prevent the resurgence of patrimonial capitalism, of which we have recently heard so much, but to hasten it. They are creating a world in which the rich may live by their own rules.

So back we go to the hazy days of Edwardian England: a society dominated by rentiers, in which the city centres are set aside for those with tremendous wealth and the countryside is reserved for their bloodsports. As the queues lengthen at the foodbanks, our money is used to subsidise grouse and shotguns. That is all you need to know about how and by whom we are governed.” (my emphases)

George Monbiot, Guardain 29/4/2014

Beatification of two popes

Are devout catholics singularly stupid or are they colluding with a massive PR exercise? Any sentient being living on planet earth these last five decades will be aware that the catholic clergy have had more than their share of scandal and criminality. 

Children were abused by serial paedophiles operating around the world under the cloak of religious respectability and ‘respect’ for their position. That is not even half the story.

When these poor abused little people summoned up the courage to tell someone in the church what was happening, they were ‘persuaded’ to keep their silence and frequently given the impression that they were somehow to blame. 

The church systematically covered up child abuse; protected the abusers and not the victims and went to great lengths to keep the matter secret. They used their money and influence to protect the sinners and punish the innocent. This was not a one off. Many sick and disturbed men acting as priests took advantage of the trust in their position to abuse children. Suffer little children indeed. 

The damage done to thousand upon thousand of young lives around the world is incalculable. 

The church claims to have learned its lessons and moved on.

Bollocks.

The beatification of a pair of popes who were in charge when this abuse and cover up was at its height (one more culpable than the other) yet who maintained the vatican line, is a sick, sick gesture by a deeply corrupt and sinful organisation. 

‘Saint John Paul of the Kiddy Fiddlers Protection Service.’ 

Seeing that outside a church should bring ‘em in.

PS: Watch ‘Calvary’ to improve your understanding.

Christian Conservative

‘Call-Me-Dave’ worked briefly in PR before entering politics. He used his skills to good effect before the last election. He persuaded a sceptical electorate that snaps of him with a dog team were enough to prove his green credentials. He showed a ruthless streak to react so much quicker than the hapless Brown to the Expenses scandal. Several grandees with their moats and duck-houses were rapidly binned. A Primary process was introduced to change the way tories picked their candidates. He made himself look 'strong' - a quality much appreciated by the media. He worked hard to distance his brand from the ‘nasty party.’ Remember ‘Hug a Hoodie’?

What happened next? 

The greenest government ever has become a fracking joke. His handling of the Maria Miller Expenses scandal showed him as even more out of touch than Brown. Not one hoodie has been hugged. And the nasty party are back. Nastier than ever and determined to flog off as much as they can while they can. 

Bankers and financiers who ruined our economy continue to enjoy their bonuses and gross incomes. Not one of the fiddling fraudsters has been sent to jail. Corporations similarly relish their tax evasion schemes and wealthy landowners have the cards stacked in their favour. All of them pay their dues to Tory party coffers. Fancy that!

On the other side of the coin, the vulnerable, the poor and the disadvantaged have paid - and continue to pay - a crippling price. Events have shown the repeated slogan “We are all in this together” to be a deeply cynical PR stunt. 

The rapid rise in the use of food banks has been a stain on our nation. Our economy is ranked in the world’s top ten by some and in the top fifteen wealthiest by others. How shaming it is to see such wealth reinforced at the expense of the poor. 

So what does desperate Dave do to improve his fortunes? He claims to be a practicing Christian. Mmmm. Has he not read or heard any of the core beliefs? Dave’s deeds reveal his ‘Christian Conservative’ slant on the old teachings. 

‘Blessed are the wealthy for they can squander the earth and all therein.’

‘Blessed are the tax avoiders, as they show us the true path to enlightenment, for verily it will be a piece of cake for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom of heaven.’ 

‘The poor can sod off as can all those claiming disability benefit for they are unsightly in the eyes of the rich.’

Thanks to Steve Bell for telling it like it is.

Andrew Bingham MP Replies

I emailed my MP last Thursday afternoon having heard Miller’s apology for an apology at midday. There are a couple of factual inaccuracies which became clearer over the weekend (the amount was £45k not £100k and the amount she made on the sale of her house was £1.2 million).

“I am disgusted at the way Miller has behaved. 

There are times when you despair. Our Parliamentarians, despite many claims of having ‘learned lessons’ and ‘moved on,’ have done no such bloody thing. 

The apology for an apology delivered by Greedy Miller was heard in silence. MPs cannot all be on the take. Can they? Many will have sat there thinking ‘there but for the grace of god etc go I.’ Hence the silence. There must be some decent, honest, transparent MPs who feel as affronted as the citizens of this country. Who feel sick to the bottom of their stomach at not only the fraud, but the hard-faced brass-neckery of the fraud. And her disdainful treatment of the process. So why did they keep their gobs shut? Why were they not howling with rage at the effrontery of the woman? 

Add the collusion of the Standards Committee - made up of chums from the Commons rather than a jury of electors. 

The  Commissioner recommended she pay back £100,000. Bit of a difference. 

And Cameron - giving her his full support. She is Minister for Equality as well as Culture. What a joke. A fraudulent culture - apparently according to the Telegraph she made £1.4 million on this house which we paid her mortgage for, when she sold it recently - and had her parents living there at our expense. Tony McNulty resigned when caught doing the same thing. 

Equality? One law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. It stinks. 

Nigel Farrago played the Trust Card very well in his debate with the hapless Clegg last night. It chimes with the electorate. We are entering dangerous waters when ultra rightwing parties thrive with the supine collusion of our bastions of democracy who are supposed to maintain standards yet turn blind eyes to offences which would end up with a poor person going to jail. 

Double standards fuel extremist attitudes. Parliament needs reform. MPs are incapable of judging themselves. We need an independent system made up in part at least with members of the electorate. And we need Recall.

Not impressed.” 

The following email arrived today (8th April). It was sent via his office manager. 

“Thank you for your e-mail regarding Maria Miller and the issue of her expenses. Given the nature of the issue and that it is still very live please excuse an e-mail response as opposed to my normal letter.  I wanted you to know my views as soon as possible as I view this whole matter extremely seriously. 

Whilst much of the issue relates to mortgage interest payment prior to the last elections, something that is now no longer permissible, only rental costs may be claimed, I can fully understand the indignation felt by yourself and many others.

As I am sure you will be aware, I have always striven to ensure that any of my claims have been open and above board.  They are open for anyone to see and on many occasions I have not put claims in because I didn't feel comfortable despite the fact that they would have been permissible.

Prior to the 2010 election I produced a ‘Candidates Contract’ on the matter and I can confirm to you that I have adhered strictly to it.  I have never claimed for food, I have never claimed for first class rail travel and I have never employed a member of family.  Any accommodation claims relate directly to the small flat I rent in Lambeth.  No accommodation claims relate to my family home in the High Peak.

Whilst I do not relish openly criticising colleagues, neither do I blindly defend one no matter what.  Therefore,  I have to say that after my own comments prior to the last election that adhering to the spirit of the rules is equally as important as sticking to the rules themselves, and I am afraid to say it appears that this has not been the case here, then I would be somewhat ingenuous to say that there is no case to answer.

There is a bigger question also to be answered. Whilst the Standards Commissioner identified that there was an error of £45,000, the Parliamentary Committee on Standards ruled that only £5,800 should be repaid.  This committee is made up of MPs and if nothing else then this issue has exposed that system as being wrong.  As MP's pay and expenses is taken out of our hands and placed into the hands of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority - an independent body, then I feel that this process should also be taken out of MP's hands. This will remove the ‘marking their own homework’ accusations.

We need to work very hard to re establish peoples trust in politics and politicians.  I have tried very hard to do that through my own financial conduct, treating the public funds as if they were my own, but I do tend to despair when an incident like this can undermine everything I have striven very hard to do for the last four years. I hope you don't mind but I have made your views very apparent to senior colleagues here in Westminster although I have not given your name as I would ask your permission to do such a thing. 

As MPs we have a duty to maintain the highest standards of financial propriety. Any slip from those standards should carry a penalty commensurate with that slip. It’s what people would expect and indeed what I would expect” Andrew Bingham MP High Peak.

If many of his colleagues share his view then her days are surely numbered. The 1922 Committee are meeting tonight and that could be the last nail. 

Toxic Tory helps Farrago and UKIP

Oh how Nige must be a wishin’ and a prayin’ that dear old Maria clings on to her job like a superglued limpet. The longer she stays the more damage she does. Nige and his merry chums have run riot with EU expenses in their brief time there but none of that matters. The old politics derided by Call Me Dave (CMD) when in opposition are back and ramping up the UKIP vote. 

On the 22nd May, Farrago and his chums will be hoping to win the European election and thereby give themselves a springboard for the General Election in May 2015. 

Many Tory MPs are more than aware of this having had their ears bent over the weekend. CMD is making another bollocks of things. Good. The sooner they are out of office the better. 

However - who will represent the decent people of Britain (or England, Wales and N. Ireland if Scotland vote ‘Yes’)? The swivel-eyed loons are getting more than their fair share of time in the limelight. 

The Committee on Standards and Maria Miller

Watching ‘Question Time’ last night it quickly became clear that Cameron’s statement at the time of the expenses scandal that ‘the old politics is gone - we are in an era of new politics’ was total twaddle. Nothing exemplifies the hold the political class have over their own affairs than the way they have dealt with Maria Miller. Each of the three political reps on the programme defended Miller and the process to a greater or lesser extent. Each mentioned in justification the ‘independent’ process that Miller had been through. Unfortunately no-one in the audience mentioned just how bizarre a claim that was. 

The editor of the Daily Telegraph said this morning that the report from the Commissioner was damning about Miller’s avoidance, obfuscation and delaying tactics. Plus Miller had challenged and obstructed her attempts to find out exactly what she had been claiming for. Serious stuff from someone who wants to regulate the press. Miller’s Special Adviser had threatened the Telegraph reporter with the aftermath of Leveson. This was later followed up by Number 10’s press spokesman doing the same with the editor. Hmmm. 

The august body who massively watered down the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards  recommendations on Maria Miller are worthy of further scrutiny. On the select committee there are 10 members, 5 Conservative, 4 Labour and 1 LibDem.

Some of these ‘honourable’ members have a bit of form.

The Chairman sets the tone.

Sir Kevin Barron (Lab)

He sold his taxpayer funded flat for £500,000, then rented a property from shadow-minister Jon Trickett for £1500 per month plus utility bills all paid for out of the public purse. To compound the irony - Trickett’s position in the shadow cabinet is to highlight government sleaze!

Once this cosy arrangement became public knowledge in 2012 it was quickly dropped. It was no barrier to Barron getting a knighthood in 2014.

Sir Paul Beresford (Con)

Not content with the salary and demands of being a constituency MP, Beresford has maintained a second job as a dentist. He works 3 days a week from a surgery in the London house he had designated as his second home. He worked out a deal with the fees office where we pay for three quarters of the running costs. Nice one!

Geoffrey Cox (Con)

Another who feels he can do justice to his constituents while also working as a QC. The Daily Mail reported back in 2012 that he had “made over £400,000 as a QC in the last 12 months.” Wonder what his constituents think about that?

Sir Nick Harvey (LibDem)

The sum involved was very small but his judgement and values were shown to be appalling. Back in May 2012, the Telegraph reported that Harvey, who was at the time Armed Forces Minister, claimed £7-10 in mileage allowance to attend a poppy day event in his North Devon constituency. He had the ignominy of being later confronted by an angry ex-Wren who presented him with the £7-10. 

Christopher Chope (Con)

Regarded by the media as a Tory Grandee, Chope certainly has ideas about his elevated station. In January 2013 he let slip his attitude towards House of Commons waiters and waitresses when he described them as ‘servants.’ This was said in a debate where he was trying to reduce the price MPs had to pay for their highly subsidised meals. He also used £881 of our money to get a chesterfield sofa re-covered. 

Tom Clark (Lab)

Another with ideas about his status. He uses the Sloane Club in Chelsea as his second home. We pay £1500 per month for his privilege. Oh, and we also pay £400 a month for his food.

Robert Buckland (Con), Heather Wheeler (Con) and Fiona O’Donnel (Lab) were all elected in 2010 and as yet have little to show just how honourable or otherwise they are. Fiona O’Donnel made a bid for early fame by putting in a claim for expenses that was the highest in Scotland. Must be a swift learner.

Arguments that MPs are quite capable of looking after their own affairs have been - and continue to be - demonstrably false. As for MPs making vast sums from selling properties that we paid for, many MPs looked to Tony Blair for inspiration. He acquired a property portfolio estimated at £14 million by 2010. Unfortunately his expenses records were destroyed as he left office. Fancy that.

And where does this leave the standards commissioner, Kathryn Hudson? She had reported 

"I have established beyond reasonable doubt that between June 2005 and April 2006 Mrs Miller claimed for mortgage interest against a mortgage significantly larger than the one required to buy her property," along with several other damning conclusions. Guardian

The select committees failure to support her report in any substantive way must leave her considering her position. 

The fact that Miller made money - lots of money - from the sale of the house does not help:

“Culture secretary Maria Miller made more than £1.2 million on the London home she shared with her parents after it was sold on Valentine’s Day for £1.47 million.” Telegraph

Paying back nearly £6000 will not trouble her. The reaction of the public may do. This morning’s press are full of condemnation for Miller and the pathetic process. Our rotten politics is alive and well. 

The perception that there is one law for them and another for the rest of us has yet more traction.

Information on the committee members mainly obtained from the Telegraph and the Daily Mail

Maria Miller - an apology for a Minister

There are times when you despair. Our Parliamentarians, despite many claims of having ‘learned lessons’ and ‘moved on,’ have done no such bloody thing. 

The apology for an apology delivered by Greedy Miller was heard in silence. They cannot all be on the take. Can they? Many will have sat there thinking ‘there but for the grace of god etc go I.’ Hence the silence. There must be some decent, honest, transparent MPs who feel as affronted as the citizens of this country. Who feel sick to the bottom of their stomach at not only the fraud, but the hard-faced brass-neckery of the fraud. So why did they keep their gobs shut? Why were they not howling with rage at the effrontery of the woman? 

Add the collusion of the Standards Committee - made up of chums from the Commons rather than a jury of electors. The Commissioner recommended she pay back £100,000. Bit of a difference. 

And Cameron - giving her his full support. She is Minister for Equality as well as Culture. What a joke. A fraudulent culture - apparently according to the Telegraph she made £1.4 million on this house which we paid her mortgage for, when she sold it recently - and had her parents living there at our expense. Tony McNulty resigned when caught doing the same thing. 

Equality? One law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. It stinks. 

Nigel Farrago played the Trust Card very well in his debate with the hapless Clegg last night. It chimes with the electorate. We are entering dangerous waters when ultra rightwing parties thrive with the supine collusion of our bastions of democracy who are supposed to maintain standards yet turn blind eyes to offences which would end up with a poor person going to jail. 

Double standards fuel extremist attitudes. Parliament needs reform. MPs are incapable of judging themselves. We need an independent system made up in part at least with members of the electorate. And we need Recall.