The Speaker of the House of Commons to step down

[Banquo's Ghost]

It looks as if Speaker Martin, the most disastrous holder of the office for several centuries, will finally offer to resign this afternoon (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6318255.ece).

Yesterday saw unprecedented scenes in the House of Commons as the Speaker's authority evaporated in front of one's eyes. It was squalid behaviour, but symptomatic of the utterly base moral vacuum that Parliament now inhabits.

One can but hope this cathartic step will spur on deeper and more necessary reform and the immediate dissolution of this parliament so that the next one, empowered for reform, does exactly that.

Whereas I have been reasonably impressed by Cameron (at least in his ability to read and react, if not his initial leadership) one would worry that he will fall into Blair's trap: possessed of a powerful majority, elected on a mandate for reform and change, the lure of the monarchial powers thus afforded proved too much and reform was diluted into uselessness because the status quo is so much more appealing when in government. Cameron cannot allow his undoubted mandate to cheat the people of the United Kingdom a second time.

Electoral reform to PR, an elected second house (or a return to a hereditary house, anything is better than the bastardised version Blair created) application of the Freedom of Information Act across government with minimal exception, and a written constitution must be forthcoming. Only then will the electorate re-engage with the democratic process instead of chasing politicians and their canvassers down the street with pitchforks.

For interested persons, I include a poll to canvas thoughts on the likely successor (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6318513.ece) to the Speaker's Chair. Whereas Vince Cable is clearly the pre-eminent politician of this time, he ought to be Prime Minister, not Speaker. The fact that he is not even leader of his party speaks volumes. My own view therefore is that Sir George Young has the gravitas, record and breeding to be the best Speaker for these turbulent times - though Frank Field might just have the style to succeed, another Labour Speaker is unthinkable.

[InsaneApache]

I'll go with Frank Field. One of the few members of the Labour party I admire. An honest decent man, who, above all, talks common sense.

Martin was just a disaster.

[Furunculus]

Other - They should bring back Betty Boothroyd, she was awesome.

Martin is a cretin, whose limited intelligence is consumed by his partisan need to fight the class-war, which makes him totally unsuitable to EVER have been considered for the role of speaker.

[Furunculus]

Electoral reform to PR, an elected second house (or a return to a hereditary house, anything is better than the bastardised version Blair created) application of the Freedom of Information Act across government with minimal exception, and a written constitution must be forthcoming. Only then will the electorate re-engage with the democratic process instead of chasing politicians and their canvassers down the street with pitchforks.

For interested persons, I include a poll to canvas thoughts on the likely successor (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6318513.ece) to the Speaker's Chair. Whereas Vince Cable is clearly the pre-eminent politician of this time, he ought to be Prime Minister, not Speaker. The fact that he is not even leader of his party speaks volumes. My own view therefore is that Sir George Younger has the gravitas, record and breeding to be the best Speaker for these turbulent times - though Frank Field might just have the style to succeed, another Labour Speaker is unthinkable.

anything but PR, and i say this as a Con who has watched the horror show of the last 12 years. i trust british politics enough to allow a clear mandate to enact change.

i voted other because i don't know any of the other characters well enough to side one way or another.

[InsaneApache]

Aye, he seemed to forget that he was the Speaker not a shop steward. Plonker.

[Vladimir]

"Breeding" Banquo? That's disturbing for a couple reasons. First is that whenever Sir Whatever's breeding is mentioned I think of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Secondly, well, read the monarchy thread. I thought we were past that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Och, I'll miss old Gorbals Mick. He might not have known what he was doing but he's more likeable than the usual boring conservative.

[InsaneApache]

Och, I'll miss old Gorbals Mick. He might not have known what he was doing but he's more likeable than the usual boring conservative.

:dizzy2: Bizzarre! Against convention the last two Speakers have come from the Labour ranks. I think Weatherill was the last tory and that must be twenty years ago. I'll say it again. Bizzarre. :dizzy2:

[Rhyfelwyr]

:dizzy2: Bizzarre! Against convention the last two Speakers have come from the Labour ranks. I think Weatherill was the last tory and that must be twenty years ago. I'll say it again. Bizzarre. :dizzy2:

I don't mean a champagne socialist this is the Gorbals we are talking about.

[InsaneApache]

Now you've completely lost me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

anything but PR, and i say this as a Con who has watched the horror show of the last 12 years. i trust british politics enough to allow a clear mandate to enact change.

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it only works if your remove parties and the whip. All horror shows (and the last 12 years is not the only example) have been facilitated by the fact that Prime Ministers have monarchial powers - and if they get a substantial majority, there is no way Parliament can hold the executive to account. Powers of patronage are exclusively those of the Prime Minister so everyone with any ambition for advancement kowtows.

Mrs Thatcher destroyed Cabinet government which was the only restraining hand left that laid heavily on the party system, constitutionally speaking. John Major had small majorities, and had no choice but to try and govern with consensus - which he did, quite successfully (he is, in my opinion, one of the greatly under-rated PMs) until his own party fractured. Blair, with a massive majority, once again rejected Cabinet government and took the familiar route.

British parliaments are actually coalitions anyway. The positions of people within parties are often further apart than between parties. It would be sensible to make this more explicit to the electorate. Furthermore, both major parties now have re-invented the depth of sleaze - yet any new party has an almost impossible task to break the two-party stranglehold because they will never overcome the existing system.

I would be in favour of removing parties from politics and banning the whips. Modern politics may be unable to cope with this - few voters could tell you the name of their MP, but most can identify with a party. However, together with educating the electorate to take responsibility for their franchise (after all, this government and its excesses are only what the supine citizens deserve) a constituency system would be, in my opinion, the best option.

If one wishes to keep any kind of party activity however, proportional representation is the only way to avoid being in this self-same position in a few years time.

[Scurvy]

:dizzy2: Bizzarre! Against convention the last two Speakers have come from the Labour ranks. I think Weatherill was the last tory and that must be twenty years ago. I'll say it again. Bizzarre. :dizzy2:


I thought the convention was debated? --> something like the ruling party had always appointed the speaker, but it happened that each time the speaker changed, the parties changed.

I didn't vote on poll, as I have no idea who is best suited to the role - although Menzies Campbell presumably ruled himself out with the expenses thing, and IMO it should be a conservative, just to even it out a bit.

:2thumbsup:

[InsaneApache]

With Esther Rantzen standing at the next election, we can look forwards to some skateboarding ducks in parliament. About time an all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Now you've completely lost me.

I'm just joking about Mike being a hardcore radical (you do know about the Gorbals, right?).

[InsaneApache]

Yes I do. I lived in Scotland for a couple of years.

Boothroyd came from Dewsbury, you know, Shannon Mathews country. Not exactley salubrious. I'm still lost on your point though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Naturally, I do not know who most of the candidate speakers from the poll are.

Just posting here to say that I am fascinated by recent events in Britain. This time, it's serious. The British electorate means business. Exciting times!

(Do they by any chance have a handful of inconsequential vagabonds and drunks locked up in a small prison tower in London somewhere? About to be freed by a pitchfork-armed mob? :beam:)

[KukriKhan]

So, with Mr. Martin being sacrificed, is this the end of it? Or just the start of inquiries, inspections and investigations? And will/would those i,i & i's thwart the House's ability to do its normal business?

[InsaneApache]

So, with Mr. Martin being sacrificed, is this the end of it? Or just the start of inquiries, inspections and investigations? And will/would those i,i & i's thwart the House's ability to do its normal business?

Not the end by a long chalk. People are furious at being bilked by our elected representatives. Combined with the general ineptitude and incompetence of our present government, the people are in no mood to be lectured to by these no marks.

I expect that the three main parties will take a hammering in the EUSSR elections in June. I also suspect that come the general election there will be an awful lot of independent Mps in parliament.

My moneys on the skateboarding duck. :balloon2:

[Furunculus]

the end of it will come after the next general election, which will be a bloodbath for those perceived to be at the forefront of the sleaze.

[Furunculus]

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it only works if your remove parties and the whip. All horror shows (and the last 12 years is not the only example) have been facilitated by the fact that Prime Ministers have monarchial powers - and if they get a substantial majority, there is no way Parliament can hold the executive to account. Powers of patronage are exclusively those of the Prime Minister so everyone with any ambition for advancement kowtows.

Mrs Thatcher destroyed Cabinet government which was the only restraining hand left that laid heavily on the party system, constitutionally speaking. John Major had small majorities, and had no choice but to try and govern with consensus - which he did, quite successfully (he is, in my opinion, one of the greatly under-rated PMs) until his own party fractured. Blair, with a massive majority, once again rejected Cabinet government and took the familiar route.

British parliaments are actually coalitions anyway. The positions of people within parties are often further apart than between parties. It would be sensible to make this more explicit to the electorate. Furthermore, both major parties now have re-invented the depth of sleaze - yet any new party has an almost impossible task to break the two-party stranglehold because they will never overcome the existing system.

I would be in favour of removing parties from politics and banning the whips. Modern politics may be unable to cope with this - few voters could tell you the name of their MP, but most can identify with a party. However, together with educating the electorate to take responsibility for their franchise (after all, this government and its excesses are only what the supine citizens deserve) a constituency system would be, in my opinion, the best option.

If one wishes to keep any kind of party activity however, proportional representation is the only way to avoid being in this self-same position in a few years time.

i recognise the flaw you point out, however PR always strikes me as the option for the electorate that does not hold faith in the electorate, and vice versa.

i am proud to live in a country where the electorate has faith in the civic duty of the political class to govern in their name without resulting in authoritarianism, and that the political class has faith in the collective maturity of the electorate not to fall under the sway of demagogues.

moving to PR is admission of failure in team GB in my eyes.

[InsaneApache]

There's a great big gaping flaw in your argument there Furunculus. The scales have at last fallen from the eyes of the electorate. I was just several years in front of the curve, as they say in managementspeak. :sweatdrop:

[tibilicus]

Either of the Lib Dems, preferably Cable. I'm not just saying that because I support the Lib Dems either, the fact is Cable has 10x the experience and is 10x the politician in comparison to most of the people on this list.

It would also be a nice break to have a non Con-Lab speaker. In the past many have failed to stick to the role of political neutrality and surely putting a third party speaker in place would be a nice balance. Also Cable has proved he is competent when it comes to political affairs.

[InsaneApache]

He does a mean foxtrot an all....

[Furunculus]

There's a great big gaping flaw in your argument there Furunculus. The scales have at last fallen from the eyes of the electorate. I was just several years in front of the curve, as they say in managementspeak. :sweatdrop:

to you maybe, this is a natural pendulum swing to me which right now has reached its apogee. no need for panic, just make sure that as much of gov't is transparent as possible.

[InsaneApache]

Gone by the 21st of June.

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out Martin. :whip:

[Tribesman]

Other :
Ian Paisley , he is the oldest in the house , make the other half of the chuckle brothers deputy speaker.
Or put in Adams , that will be funny .
Or maybe to bring some Respect to the office put in Galloway , he should be be good at ripping into people over disputes.

[AussieGiant]

It looks as if Speaker Martin, the most disastrous holder of the office for several centuries, will finally offer to resign this afternoon (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6318255.ece).

Yesterday saw unprecedented scenes in the House of Commons as the Speaker's authority evaporated in front of one's eyes. It was squalid behaviour, but symptomatic of the utterly base moral vacuum that Parliament now inhabits.

One can but hope this cathartic step will spur on deeper and more necessary reform and the immediate dissolution of this parliament so that the next one, empowered for reform, does exactly that.

Whereas I have been reasonably impressed by Cameron (at least in his ability to read and react, if not his initial leadership) one would worry that he will fall into Blair's trap: possessed of a powerful majority, elected on a mandate for reform and change, the lure of the monarchial powers thus afforded proved too much and reform was diluted into uselessness because the status quo is so much more appealing when in government. Cameron cannot allow his undoubted mandate to cheat the people of the United Kingdom a second time.

Electoral reform to PR, an elected second house (or a return to a hereditary house, anything is better than the bastardised version Blair created) application of the Freedom of Information Act across government with minimal exception, and a written constitution must be forthcoming. Only then will the electorate re-engage with the democratic process instead of chasing politicians and their canvassers down the street with pitchforks.

For interested persons, I include a poll to canvas thoughts on the likely successor (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6318513.ece) to the Speaker's Chair. Whereas Vince Cable is clearly the pre-eminent politician of this time, he ought to be Prime Minister, not Speaker. The fact that he is not even leader of his party speaks volumes. My own view therefore is that Sir George Young has the gravitas, record and breeding to be the best Speaker for these turbulent times - though Frank Field might just have the style to succeed, another Labour Speaker is unthinkable.

Great sentiment and I truly hope so, but what part of politicians behaviour have we observed in the last 18 years that gives any indication that this wont simply repeat itself in another 2 to 3 years?

The cycle of disgraceful behaviour is ingrained, institutionalised and terminal.

It's like scolding a dog for licking it's private parts.

(Apologies for the visual representation in arrears there guys. I'm big on analogies and examples :balloon2:)

[LittleGrizzly]

I have to admit i don't really understand this speaker business....

I was basically under the impression his job was to chair debates in parliment, as in keep it running smoothly, make sure people get thier chance to speak and a few shouts of order now and again when the mps get a bit flustered...

But it is also his job to look after MP's which is what he was up to with the whole blocking expenses claims ?

I did feel sorry for him the other day in parliment might be because he looks like a nice guy and i always feel pity for even the most awful people when they get dumped unceremonously out of power...

Is the main reason the speaker is getting replaced because of the blocking expenses thing ?

I like the sound of gable mainly becuase hes outside of the 2 main parties... in all honesty i don't really now any of the names of the list... i could tell my who my local mp is though... names a bit tricky though..

[Adrian II]

Just posting here to say that I am fascinated by recent events in Britain. This time, it's serious. The British electorate means business. Exciting times!Aren't they? And they certainly put paid to recurrent British whining about corruption, absenteeism and the expenses culture in France or Brussels. Makes one wonder how the British public will react? Will they chop off some heads (the French way) or elect a brute to do the chopping for them (the German way)?

In the background of all of this, I hear the constant drumroll of forces affirming that democracy is a shambles and that there is an alternative, that we deserve better.

[LittleGrizzly]

I heard an intresting bit on the expenses debate the other day...

British mps are paid less than thier counterparts in other countrys (obviously america but more similar countrys like france and germany) back in the eastly 90's mps were told it wasn't politically a good idea to have a pay rise... so they should claim extra expenses instead...

Sounds fairly reasonable....

I think we should give mps a pay rise and make expenses only for no london mps who need a property to stay in overnight sometimes and cover thier expenses for trips they have to make... and nothing else... no moat cleaning, porn or gardeners...

[InsaneApache]

I think that MPs should be paid the minimum wage. After all they keep trotting out the mantra that they are in politics for public duty, not self enrichment. (yeah riiight!) It might keep their feet on the ground when they pass all the stealth taxes they expect the rest of us to pay.

Some gaol time for the worst miscreants would be a welcome thing as well. :furious3:

[AussieGiant]

I think you'll find MP's have been giving themselves very nice pay rises in the last 18 years. Certainly more than the average wage earner.

Likewise the pension funds and expense accounts are very generous.

Bottom line:

If a member of the public was abusing the welfare system to the extent these MP's were abusing their expenses, where do you think they would be standing in relation to the legal system right now?

Do you think a person could admit to what they did, and stand down from their job and expect the civil law system to say: "Fair enough, good play their old chap. You've fallen on your sword and we will move onto the next case."

How about Meryll Lynch paying out some 2 billion dollars in bonuses to their executives after posting a 800 billion dollar loss, and the cracking thing is...the bonus money is tax payer funds from the treasury of the United States through AIG.

I mean really, do these people really think it doesn't go unnoticed that everyone seems to be using tax payer funds to line their own pockets?

And guess what.

The government of the UK decides to up the tax rate to 50% plus in response to the cataclysmic screw up perpetrated by the private banking sector.

Last time I check how banks deal will loans is they ask the person or organisation to pay the loan back themselves. Not some 3rd party like the tax payer who was slugged with coming up with the bail out money in the first place.

Doesn't it strike you all here as simply incredible that the UK government can hand out taxpayer money to the private sector, then turn around to the same tax payer who had no hand in the disaster in the first place and then ask them to help pay back the very money that was handed out in the first pace?

Seems rather like double dipping to me.

On that statement alone anyone can run for office and win in most 1st world western countries in the next 15 years.

The moral fiber of people in general is rapidly falling into disgrace.

[drone]

At least the Speaker of your House has the common decency to resign when he/she disgraces him/herself. :bow:

[King Henry V]

Sir George Young sounds like the sort of chap for the job: not too involved in his party's politics and of the right sort of standing, unlike most parliamentarians nowadays, who, to quote an eminent politician of the printed page, have "no breeding, no backbone, and no bottom".

[InsaneApache]

I think you'll find MP's have been giving themselves very nice pay rises in the last 18 years. Certainly more than the average wage earner.

Likewise the pension funds and expense accounts are very generous.

Bottom line:

If a member of the public was abusing the welfare system to the extent these MP's were abusing their expenses, where do you think they would be standing in relation to the legal system right now?

Do you think a person could admit to what they did, and stand down from their job and expect the civil law system to say: "Fair enough, good play their old chap. You've fallen on your sword and we will move onto the next case."

How about Meryll Lynch paying out some 2 billion dollars in bonuses to their executives after posting a 800 billion dollar loss, and the cracking thing is...the bonus money is tax payer funds from the treasury of the United States through AIG.

I mean really, do these people really think it doesn't go unnoticed that everyone seems to be using tax payer funds to line their own pockets?

And guess what.

The government of the UK decides to up the tax rate to 50% plus in response to the cataclysmic screw up perpetrated by the private banking sector.

Last time I check how banks deal will loans is they ask the person or organisation to pay the loan back themselves. Not some 3rd party like the tax payer who was slugged with coming up with the bail out money in the first place.

Doesn't it strike you all here as simply incredible that the UK government can hand out taxpayer money to the private sector, then turn around to the same tax payer who had no hand in the disaster in the first place and then ask them to help pay back the very money that was handed out in the first pace?

Seems rather like double dipping to me.

On that statement alone anyone can run for office and win in most 1st world western countries in the next 15 years.

The moral fiber of people in general is rapidly falling into disgrace.

By gad sir, someone else who's 'got it'. I salute you. :bow:

[AussieGiant]

Well I'm glad someone agrees with my rant InsaneApache :egypt:

I realised I went off the deep end there after re-reading this morning.

Sorry about that fellas.

[Furunculus]

Aren't they? And they certainly put paid to recurrent British whining about corruption, absenteeism and the expenses culture in France or Brussels. Makes one wonder how the British public will react? Will they chop off some heads (the French way) or elect a brute to do the chopping for them (the German way)?

In the background of all of this, I hear the constant drumroll of forces affirming that democracy is a shambles and that there is an alternative, that we deserve better.

lol, i don't think so. british politics is well above the bar when it comes to corruption, even in comparison to just the 'developed' world.

the remarkable thing is how much fuss is made for a little expenses fiddling from a political class that is paid very little, in comparison to the weary silence found in other countries that have politics tainted by brown-paper envelopes of cash and collusion with organised crime.

[Furunculus]

Good article from the author of Democracy: 1,000 Years in Pursuit of British Liberty:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5351885/MPs-expenses-British-democracy-has-thrived-on-controversy.html

[Rhyfelwyr]

Norris, a teller for the Bill's supporters, had counted the inordinately fat Lord Grey as 10 votes rather than one.

lulz :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Makes one wonder how the British public will react? Will they chop off some heads (the French way) or elect a brute to do the chopping for them (the German way)?

In the background of all of this, I hear the constant drumroll of forces affirming that democracy is a shambles and that there is an alternative, that we deserve better.I think the reaction will be that the electorate will show Westminster real good by electing some useless plonkers to the European parliament next month. That'll show 'em real good and all that.


Of course, that won't be the end of it. The difference in reaction between this scandal and previous ones in recent years, shows that the old adage about British democracy still holds true: You can take away a Britons pride and freedom. But you can't touch his money.

[Furunculus]

Michael Martin was brought down in a shadowy Rightist putsch. So says the World Socialist Web Site

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/05/20/comrades_the_fascist_hyenas_hannan_and_carswell_have_orchestrated_a_counterrevolutionary_coup

:laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Michael Martin was brought down in a shadowy Rightist putsch. So says the World Socialist Web Site

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/05/20/comrades_the_fascist_hyenas_hannan_and_carswell_have_orchestrated_a_counterrevolutionary_coup

:laugh4:

Ridiculous I know, but its not like the right isn't prone to conspiracy theories (did somebody say Dow Jones?). I like how the article links to another one about the Levellers, talk about an EPIC FAIL trying to understand what the Leveller movement is about.

[Adrian II]

I think the reaction will be that the electorate will show Westminster real good by electing some useless plonkers to the European parliament next month. That'll show 'em real good and all that.You mean with Britain needing the EU more than ever because of the present economic crisis, they are going to send yet more illiterate isolationists to Brussels? In view of the record that sounds plausible.
Of course, that won't be the end of it. The difference in reaction between this scandal and previous ones in recent years, shows that the old adage about British democracy still holds true: You can take away a Britons pride and freedom. But you can't touch his money.Now that is ungrateful. The Brits have subsidised undeserving French farmers for decades. It just hurts their pride to subsidise their own non-valeurs instead of just yours. As a Dutchman I am perfectly willing to keep financing the lot of you, since that seems to have been our main job in this bloody union all along. In exchange for that, would you guys please behave like grown-ups for a change?

Btw I voted for Vince Cable because that's a kewl name. I don't know any of those losers. Anyway, can I claim a toilet seat now? Or a barrel of horse manure?

[InsaneApache]

Only if you have a moat and your mortgage paid off.

[Tribesman]

28 tons is a big barrel Adrian .
Actually that makes me think , since most stables will happily give their :daisy: away for free what was this crook doing submitting a bill for buying it ?

[Adrian II]

28 tons is a big barrel Adrian .
Actually that makes me think , since most stables will happily give their :daisy: away for free what was this crook doing submitting a bill for buying it ?He was feeding it to his constituents, no doubt.

[Tribesman]

He was feeding it to his constituents, no doubt.
No , the constituents were on a diet of :daisy: not :daisy: .

[Adrian II]

No , the constituents were on a diet of :daisy: not :daisy: .Squeezing out the last penny, eh? Typical.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now that is ungrateful. The Brits have subsidised undeserving French farmers for decades. It just hurts their pride to subsidise their own non-valeurs instead of just yours. Ungrateful? I am merely expressing my continued amusement about Britain getting its knickers in a twist over some pocket money for politicians. 88 pence for bathtub plugs and the like. It is cute and adorable. :smitten:

French politicians snub at anything below 100 million euros.

So much as try to strip an inch of liberty from higher eductation, and the French universities will shut down for months on time, trying to spread their opposition to the working classes. But political parties can blur the difference between private and public money indefinetely.

In Britain, you can install a CCTV in a person's bathroom and he'll only politely object a bit. But embezzle five quid, and you are history.

It is a fun difference.

Just a small sample. There are always large-scale, insidious schemes at work in French politics. I could fill the next five pages of this thread with them.


Elf Aquitaine, until its privatisation in 1994, was much more than a oil company - according to prosecutors at the trial of Elf's top managers.

They claim the state-owned firm worked as an unofficial arm of France's murkiest diplomacy. The close relationship between Elf and French officials is well-documented, and goes back to the presidency of General Charles de Gaulle.

Elf had close links with the French state

As the company expanded into Africa in the 1960s and 1970s, Elf paid secret "commissions" to African officials with the blessing of French governments. By the 1980s Elf had operations in Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, Cameroon, Angola and Nigeria - which, investigators say, were kept well oiled by bribes.

Furthermore, Elf allegedly channelled increasing amounts back to France, where the money found its way to politicians and parties, investigators claim. As the former socialist foreign minister Roland Dumas recently put it, Elf turned into a "cash-cow".


Mitterrand 'gave Chateau to Golf Partner'

"It was magnificent," said Jean-François Pagès, Elf's former real estate manager. "A superb 2-hectare [5-acre] park, two- or three-century-old trees, 600sq metres of accommodation and an enormous marble staircase." http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-29-2003-40965.asp


French Corruption Erodes Trust in Politics


The latest corruption trial of the French president's cronies leaves the public shaking their heads, yet again.
It is a case of déjà vu for millions of French people: forty-seven politicians and other officials are on trial this week over a vast kickback scheme. For several years in the early 1990s, construction companies are said to have paid 90 million euros ($116 million) in bribes, swelling the coffers of political parties. Their reward: contracts to build and maintain secondary schools in the Paris area.

#And yet again, the trials involve President Chirac when he served as mayor of Paris and his allies, politicians from the entire spectrum. Mr Chirac invoked presidential immunity to escape investigation over other affairs, but his allies didn't have that option.

[Banquo's Ghost]

May I remind Honourable Members that I shall be claiming these daisies on expenses?

[Adrian II]

Just a small sample. There are always large-scale, insidious schemes at work in French politics.It's true, in France or Italy a politician's capacity for embezzlement and fraud has become the measure of his political clout and competence. French politicians are extremely competent.

There's yet another marked difference in style. French politicians are accustomed to being bribed, whereas British politicians feel obliged to bribe others, usually foreign gentlemen in tea towels or ill-fitting Hong Kong-made suits. The Al Yamama deal (1985) comes to mind, a zinger so big that details about the slush funds have never been released by the Serious Fraud Office. At least Giscard was given diamonds by Bokassa, not the other way round.

After financing hundreds of insufferably stupid French movies, thousands of useless French EU bureaucrats and megazillions of overrated, heavily subsidised French wine I feel that The Hague should present Sarkozy with a towel and a $45 suit on his next birthday.

[Brenus]

"heavily subsidised French wine " and doing this making them undrinkable... :shame:

What was the Commission doing? After failing to ban one of the pillar of the frenchiness (the “fromage au lait cru”) it plotted to destroy the French Wine (Grand Cru) in subsidising the product based on quantity produced.
That was a smart move for who know peasantry. Greed took the green workers as bonuses for bankers. They destroyed their old but not so productive vineyards and put new ones. Quality went down, but quantity up. There is the machiavelic plan. The people started to stop drinking French vine.
They turn to New Zealand, Australian, South African and even Californian vines.
It was an Anglo-Saxon plot, the 100 Years War “The return with a vengeance 2”.
They lost Bourgogne and Bordeaux so nobody will have them, never ever… Sad sad sad story…:sweatdrop:

[InsaneApache]

:laugh4: @ Adrian II.

Class man, class. :2thumbsup:

[Beskar]

I believe Ian Hislop should become the Speaker of the House of Commons. It would definitely get MP's standing on their toes.

"Well, Mr Prime Minister, I believe you should stop speaking as you are talking utter Horse radish."

[InsaneApache]

Some wag suggested Stanley Unwin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T-AYKo_ygk)

[rory_20_uk]

I believe Ian Hislop should become the Speaker of the House of Commons. It would definitely get MP's standing on their toes.

"Well, Mr Prime Minister, I believe you should stop speaking as you are talking utter Horse radish."

Good idea.
I don't see why the Speaker should be elected as an MP in the first place. Someone chosen by a different system would have a better chance of keeping things in line as they're not directly dependent on the system.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's true, in France or Italy a politician's capacity for embezzlement and fraud has become the measure of his political clout and competence. French politicians are extremely competent.But Adrian, dearest, that was exactly my point.

Imagine your, or a Britons, bemusement when Finland finds itself in a severe political crisis because an MP accidentaly took home a 25 cent pencil with him. That's a sign of different norms, no? The innocence of it all would be striking to you.

Don't you see what I was getting at? This is the second thread in which I payed a compliment to Britain by putting the crisis into perspective:

Me, I see it all not as a sign of deteriorating political norms in Britian, but as a sign of growing British democratic maturity.

Try Belgium. France. Italy.I was actually paying the UK a compliment. I guess it sounded like I was slagging the UK off then.
Oh well, file this under 'different norms' too. I also already know that I am the only one who thinks Brenus' post is hilarious. :beam:



Edit: you speak French, Adrian. Insults are disguised as compliments. Compliments disguised as insults. Half of Belgium looked at me funny when I expressed my admiration for Belgium by claiming it doesn't exist. Last week, Zapatero (and silly Royal) thought Sarko was slagging him off, when he was doing the exact oposite. When a Frenchman adresses you as 'my dear friend', it means you are anything but. Etcetera.
Maybe the style doesn't translate well to the blunt and direct Germanic cultural and linguistic world.

[Adrian II]

Edit: you speak French, Adrian. Insults are disguised as compliments. Compliments disguised as insults.My dearest friend, you are so right.

When a Frenchman says 'Je constate..' in the most sober, business-like manner, that's when he is about to launch his worst insults and insinuations. When he gives you a parting handshake and a smile as well, it is the surest sign that he is going to go straight to the police and his lawyer and sue you till kingdom come.

EDIT
I have to hand it to you, though.
In France it is unthinkable that a person would be arrested for wearing a tee-shirt quoting, say, Anatole France: 'Religion has done love a great service by making it a sin.' A huge stink would ensue.
In Britain a man has been arrested for wearing a tee-shirt that quoted Orwell: 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.' His arrest was doubly absurd in view of the text on his teeshirt. What made it triple absurd is that no one, not even a single member of parliament, raised his voice against this.

[Furunculus]

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it only works if your remove parties and the whip. All horror shows (and the last 12 years is not the only example) have been facilitated by the fact that Prime Ministers have monarchial powers - and if they get a substantial majority, there is no way Parliament can hold the executive to account. Powers of patronage are exclusively those of the Prime Minister so everyone with any ambition for advancement kowtows.

Mrs Thatcher destroyed Cabinet government which was the only restraining hand left that laid heavily on the party system, constitutionally speaking. John Major had small majorities, and had no choice but to try and govern with consensus - which he did, quite successfully (he is, in my opinion, one of the greatly under-rated PMs) until his own party fractured. Blair, with a massive majority, once again rejected Cabinet government and took the familiar route.

British parliaments are actually coalitions anyway. The positions of people within parties are often further apart than between parties. It would be sensible to make this more explicit to the electorate. Furthermore, both major parties now have re-invented the depth of sleaze - yet any new party has an almost impossible task to break the two-party stranglehold because they will never overcome the existing system.

I would be in favour of removing parties from politics and banning the whips. Modern politics may be unable to cope with this - few voters could tell you the name of their MP, but most can identify with a party. However, together with educating the electorate to take responsibility for their franchise (after all, this government and its excesses are only what the supine citizens deserve) a constituency system would be, in my opinion, the best option.

If one wishes to keep any kind of party activity however, proportional representation is the only way to avoid being in this self-same position in a few years time.

it would seem that Bozza agree's with you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5381377/Where-are-the-rebel-MPs-who-will-dare-to-vote-from-the-heart.html

I will still never accept PR as a part of British politics.

PR is the refuge of politicians that fear revolution, and an electorate that fears tyranny, it is implicit recognition of a lack of faith in the social fabric of the country.

If Britain cannot manage politics without ineffectual (read "safe") coalitions, then what message does that send ot the rest of the world? Indeed Brussels would be delighted, for it would herald the dawn of the post sovereign era, and validate their attempt to dismantle the legitimacy of the nation-state.

If this country decides it 'needs' PR then it is not my country anymore, merely another tin-pot democracy staggering drunkly between the extremes of tyranny and revolution, and populated by exactly the excitable hand-wavey types we have for so long disparaged.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I still think this whole scandal is much ado about nothing. MP's claiming pocket money. All perfectly legal. :shrug:

Corruption in Britain lies elsewhere.

Contuining on the theme of 'different countries, different norms'. In France or Italy, power is centrally located. Hierchical, pyramidal. In Britain, and also elsewhere in the English-speaking world, power is more privatized.

Corruption can be defined as those with power using unlawful means to amass fortune. In Belorus, you slip a customs officer 100 euros so your truck can pass. In France or the UK, this form of corruption is absent. One needs to look at more organised forms of the use of state power to enrich the powerful.

Somewhat famously, very different political organisation in France and the US have very similar results:
In France, in the article quoted in a previous post, Elf, the oil company, is a state-run company. The state uses the company for foreign policy and for personal enrichment. State powers are used to grant the (publicly owned) company priviliges, such as monopolies, priviliged treatment, access to information. The defense industry too is publicly run, and is made a tool of the state. The state makes little difference between foreign policy and defense industry policy, as every francophone African state can attest. Likewise, French foreign aid is usually spend on contracts for French state-run companies.

In the US, the oil company is privatized, and it uses the state for foreign policy and personal enrichment. State powers are used to grant the owners (privatized) priviliges, such as access to tax haves, tax loopholes, low gasoline taxes, regulation to increase the number of gas-guzzling vehicles etcetera. The defense industry too is privatized, and has made the state a tool. The state makes foreign policy on behalf of the defense industry. For example, as attests a billion dollar contract for Clearwater. Less directly, by massive defense spending,

Put simply, Elf was used by the French state for regime change of African dictators of oil-rich states. In the US, oil companies used the state for regime change of Arab dictators of oil-rich states. In both cases, state power is used by the few to have the many pay for their personal enrichment.


Britain is a financial centre. In its system more akin to the US: wealth and power are privatized. The corruption is the financial loopholes, the billions that dissapear in the City into the pockets of the few. The problem is not that they make money, the problem, the corruption, is their control and their use of state power to facilitate their enrichment.



In similar vein, and unlike the above argued succinctly and in proper English (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/sep/04/politics.economicpolicy).

Britain is 'as corrupt as worst African states'Buzz up!

Britain, the US and Switzerland should rank among the world's most corrupt countries, according to a paper delivered to an economics conference at the weekend.

[Furunculus]

sounds like an old school class warrior who still digs the old marxist dogma as it is now presently configured which is to say Transnational progressivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_progressivism

[Louis VI the Fat]

Marxism? Class warriorism? No! Merely showing the real means (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4749181.ece) of corruption in Britain. Of which the many tax loopholes are a prime example.


Lord Ashcroft funds Tories from Belize tax haven


LORD ASHCROFT, deputy chairman of the Conservative party, has channelled money into party funds from the Central American tax haven of Belize, despite a ban on overseas donations.

About £4.79m has been transferred via a chain of companies to Bearwood Corporate Services, a key donor to the Conservative party, according to company documents.That's five million quid right there. All made perfectly legal, if considered an abuse of the system.

The above is the face of British corruption: that enormous flow of capital between tax havens while the political class turns a blind eye.

[rory_20_uk]

Tax loopholes should be closed and UK tax should be lowered and massively simplified.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Tax loopholes should be closed and UK tax should be lowered and massively simplified.

~:smoking:

agreed, but i have no objection to sovereign territories organising their tax laws as they please.