Monday, 26 December 2011

Semantics

Today John Redwood posted what I believe most would accept as a reasonable answer to his own question of whether a Central Bank can go bust. In answer to a well-reasoned comment by Faustiesblog, which hinted at the probity of MPs, John Redwood replied:
".......I think it very unlikely that an MP who has served time for false accounting or theft will make it back into government. It is very unlikely they would stand again for election, and unlikely they would be elected if they did."
Was not Alan Keen guilty of false accounting and was it not suggested by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards he should repay £5,678 for a serious breach of the rules? Did not the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee reduce that figure to £1,500? Was not Alan Keen re-elected on 6 May 2010? (Wikipedia) Alan Keen may not have served time, but the man committed what was in effect a fraud. Yet on November 23rd David Cameron delivers a eulogy to the man? A eulogy repeated by MilibandE who stated that Keen had 'friends across the House' - which is probably why Alan Keen escaped being 'thrown to the wolves', thus not suffering what may be called 'Devine' intervention.

It is indeed sad that a Rt. Honourable member of the House of Commons should insert the words 'served time' in his response, because are there not 'Honourable' members still sitting who broke the spirit of the expenses scheme at the time? They may not have 'served time', but they were considered 'guilty' by public opinion. That those 'guilty' men and women did stand for re-election and were re-elected is probably the most unfortunate result of the what passes for democracy in this country. Are we not still awaiting the result of investigations into the behaviour of the Member for Rotherham, a decision thereon that appears to be taking an inordinate amount of time? Do we not have in the House of Commons a Secretary of State, who it is reported, is about to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?

And members of the House of Commons are 'Honourable'? With some more 'Right' than others?

5 comments:

Fausty said...

Thank you, Mr W. Your response to JR was spot on.

Once inside their virtual gated community, MPs occupy a different realm and thence reality. They have no wish to return to the awful world outside that they created.

I continue to wonder whether or not MPs should be barred from spending 5 consecutive years in Parliament.

What are your views on the subject, Mr W?

WitteringsfromWitney said...

You are most kind, Faustie lass.

Have you not been following my demands for 'Referism' and Direct Democracy? Under such a system it would not matter the term of office as MPs would be no more than managers of the electorates wishes. The conditions of employment, salary and perks would be set by the people. Using Switzerland as an example, they have politicians in their 'cabinet' that have been there for 20+ years! Why? Because they are good managers, no more, no less.

right_writes said...

Just wonderin' WfW…

Is it the crime that makes these types repugnant, or do odious snakes spot an opening and commit the crime, or did they just get born that way?

NB: I am being a little unfair to loveable reptiles here maybe.

wiggiatlarge said...

I wouldn't personally put John Redwood in the "shining light" on the right catergory as many people would appear to,anyone who has read his blogs would be aware he does not like being challenged,resorting to patronising answers,no answers and as various sources outside his blog have stated ,resorting to removing or not posting comments that contradict him.
As an example when multiculturism was being discussed and the reasons Labour had promoted immigration to this country for their own ends ,he blamed it on us the public for voting them in and thereby approving the move,despite nobody ever remembering anybody promoting this as a party or individual at the time in any shape or form.
He really is no different than the rest of them.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

r_w: I think it fair to say that it is a combination of all three - and that is why our form of democracy and constitution needs changing!

w: You have a fair point there, but I have to say I don't trust the vast majority of MPs, being careerist as they so obviously are. If not 'careerist', but believing in devolution of power they do so on the basis that final control must end with them. I come down to principle and beliefs; if there are MPs who agree with total devolution of power, why are they still in the parties they are? Which brings me back to the careerist accusation - and don't one of them dare to defend their actions by saying they are fighting for change from within!