BNP opens mouth, inserts foot. Again.

[Erudite]

It's an incredibly difficult job and they are running the country after all and if that shouldn't be well paid job I don't know what should be! £60,000 or whatever it is really is a paltry amount for they have to do... And to state what should be glaringly obvious if you pay them a crap salary you'll get (even) crappier people. Anyone who says they should do it for the public good and not for the salary will be suitably mocked and told to live in the real world.

Where I come from £60,000 is hardly a paltry or crap salary!
Nurses and teachers are paid far less, and those involved in hard physical labour often earn little above minimum wage.
60K plus expenses (within reason) strikes me as a decent package.

As for the public good, I believe the American expression is "elected by the people for the people".
MPs, first and foremost, are meant to be public servants.
I don't believe it makes me a fantasist or some kind of idiot to expect a degree of public service from them - after all, that's their job.

If I were caught fiddling my expenses (here we've moved beyond mere accusation) I would expect a swift dismissal and possible prosecution.
The same government that is so concerned about "dole scroungers" and benefit cheats seems to have a double standard in relation to their own embezzlement.

[silentNate]

The MPs are being pilloried over accusations of wrongdoing.

Consider this people: if you were accused of fiddling your expenses at work, would you expect to be sacked on the spot, or would you expect to have some kind of hearing?

Whilst I agree about 'trial by media' opinion pieces in the newspapers this story is very much in the public interest. If I were accused of fiddling expenses at work it would hardly be newsworthy unless I chose a chicken as my representative at the tribunal
I actually think arguments over federal europe are more relevant and more interesting myself given the upcoming elections

[emilystrange]

there are also some that have no idea what they've claimed for - handed over everything to PAs, accountants etc. left hand not knowing what the right is doing, which ain't great - but that's not paying attention, it isn't embezzlement. and claims were paid, in the main. not queried. bloody cheeky to allegedly claim for horse manure, but idiocy to pay it.

[the_inescapable_truth]

£60,000 is a lot to most, but not to lawyers, city bankers, CEOs, the sort of positions MPs would be in if they weren't in the parliament game. Also given the hours they work, and having to spend the majority of time away from their friends and families it doesn't amount to much. IIRC I also read they are paid substantially less than any other MPs in Europe, and of course in the US.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't be in for the public good. One would course hope their heart is in it as much as their pocket. But it's self-evident that money TALKS.

[DeWinter]

£60,000 is a lot to most, but not to lawyers, city bankers, CEOs, the sort of positions MPs would be in if they weren't in the parliament game. Also given the hours they work, and having to spend the majority of time away from their friends and families it doesn't amount to much. IIRC I also read they are paid substantially less than any other MPs in Europe, and of course in the US.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't be in for the public good. One would course hope their heart is in it as much as their pocket. But it's self-evident that money TALKS.

So they insist on telling us, but why then have so few of them ever had a career outside of the public sector? The amount of successful businessmen in Parliament is probably countable on your fingers and toes. Blair and Darling were jobbing lawyers, Brown at best could have had a future as a lecturer with his Doctorate of History. Blears was a local government solicitor, Jacqui Smith was a schoolteacher for four years, and Harman has never had a job in her life. Nick Clegg wrote a few articles for one year before he started working for the E.C. Cameron and Osbourne were born with an entire canteen of silver cutlery in their mouths.
Too few Parliamentarians know what the daily grind is like,perhaps that's why the poor darlings are so shell-shocked by the outburst of anger towards them. If they'd dealt with nasty colleagues and bosses, maybe they wouldn't be so terrified by the Whips, and had they dealt with an enraged customer, maybe they'd realise sulky defensiveness doesn't mollify an enraged electorate.
I have no sympathy with anyone who tells me that three times the supposed average wage is tough.
Oh, and I work 12 hour shifts. I'm either working or asleep, so they can cry me a bloody river.

The BNP are also doing a "My enemy's enemy" ploy too, and reaching out to those getting antsy over Islam. There's a youth movement (and out of interest, all those I've heard supporting them are under 30), and a gay movement too, though not openly advertised or supported called "gay friends of the BNP" or something similar. I think they even have a Jewish councilor now as well. Certainly Livingstone's glad-handing of some of the more extreme Islamic figures made the gay community turn on him in London.

[stufarq]

Nobody can argue with this surely? It's an incredibly difficult job and they are running the country after all

You misspelled that, didn't you? Should have been ruining the country.

It's a strange thing about politicians that they always seem to forget that they work for us and not the other way round. And yet, somehow, they keep on telling us what to do but never listen when we tell them what we (their employers) want them to do. And when they get caught stealing our money there doesn't seem to be any apparatus for us to sack them until they decide to call an election. They're supposed to represent the people but most of them seem just to represent themselves. (Except, of course, the late lamented Tony Blair who, as we all know, represented God. And the even more lamentable Margaret Thatcher who was God walking among us.)

there are also some that have no idea what they've claimed for - handed over everything to PAs, accountants etc. left hand not knowing what the right is doing, which ain't great - but that's not paying attention, it isn't embezzlement.

Then it would be negligence. Equally sackable.

[7anthea7]

there are also some that have no idea what they've claimed for - handed over everything to PAs, accountants etc. left hand not knowing what the right is doing, which ain't great - but that's not paying attention, it isn't embezzlement.

Then it would be negligence. Equally sackable.

Weeeeell...maybe not. What would seem more fair to me - and certainly is the case in the US - is that if, by 'negligence', you've done something that has civil (rather than criminal) repercussions, then you're responsible for repaying the money, and for any other related costs. You've undoubtedly already lost public trust at that point. If your constituency then demands a recall/vote of confidence/whatever, they sack you. Or they oust you in the next election.

In any case, the accountant should lose his/her certification - unless it is proven that the reimbursement guidelines are so poorly written that they allow for this kind of abuse, and/or that the reimbursements have been handled so casually by the responsible bureaucracy that they haven't been caught. IMNSHO, it's the morons who let this kind of stuff get paid that want immediate sacking - the rest will get theirs in due time, one way or another.

[emilystrange]

is it negligence to ask an accountant to do all your tax returns and sort out your expenses? there's an element of professional trust here. If an accountant puts in a claim and the money appears back in your account, then most people don't argue. it's their job to ensure that you get whatever you can out of the system, whether you know what they're claiming on your behalf or not.
The idiots who paid it may not be corrupt either. the ones who cleared it may be. but under the presiding culture and years of precedent, nothing appears to have been refused or queried.

i'm not excusing anyone or defending it. but i bet that in some cases, financial matters are left to the experts and if they say 'i have done your claim' then that is accepted.

some MPs have played the system. some are corrupt and were complicit in their ridiculous claims. i can't help feeling that some of them have been dropped in it by other people. just because they're MPs does not mean that they're experts in tax/expenses claims. they employed someone to do it for them, and trusted them.

naive, perhaps. but is it naive to trust an accountant in the same way one trusts a doctor or lawyer, in the main?

[stufarq]

is it negligence to ask an accountant to do all your tax returns and sort out your expenses? there's an element of professional trust here. If an accountant puts in a claim and the money appears back in your account, then most people don't argue. it's their job to ensure that you get whatever you can out of the system, whether you know what they're claiming on your behalf or not.

If you're making a claim and receiving money for it then you're the one responsible and leaving it to someone else without checking up on them doesn't in any way absolve you. A politician in particular is actually responsible for the public money that they're claiming from, which makes it worse.

Allowing yourself to be ripped off may be naiive. Allowing an accountant to rip off someone else on your behalf without taking a proper interest in what they're doing is negligent.

[7anthea7]

is it negligence to ask an accountant to do all your tax returns and sort out your expenses? there's an element of professional trust here. If an accountant puts in a claim and the money appears back in your account, then most people don't argue. it's their job to ensure that you get whatever you can out of the system, whether you know what they're claiming on your behalf or not.

If you're making a claim and receiving money for it then you're the one responsible and leaving it to someone else without checking up on them doesn't in any way absolve you. A politician in particular is actually responsible for the public money that they're claiming from, which makes it worse.

Allowing yourself to be ripped off may be naiive. Allowing an accountant to rip off someone else on your behalf without taking a proper interest in what they're doing is negligent.

A lot of people attempt the 'ignorance' defence - which isn't much of one, granted. There's no doubt that it's often a case of intentional ignorance, but as often as not it's just that we're all so mired in a swamp of never-ending bureaucratic paperwork that any responsibility that can be passed on to someone else to relieve part of that burden is welcomed. I've worked with both pristinely honest accountants and with slimy masters of the loophole, so I know it's often just the luck of the draw.

In the US, when, for instance, an accountant prepares and signs an income tax return, they certify that they believe it to be true and accurate to the best of their knowledge, placing the onus on the taxpayer to have supplied them with complete and proper documentation from which to work. The taxpayer also tacitly certifies their belief that the work done by the accountant is correct by signing it. If the accountant has done something not allowable (but not criminal), the taxpayer is responsible for monies owed, including penalties. Unless they were using Wesley Snipes' accountant, they wouldn't be likely to face anything worse, even if they held political office. (Although if they managed to appear stupid enough, they'd probably find it awkward come re-election time...)

It's easy to want to pillory everyone, but it's a hard call, really.

[Debaser]

Was teaching Douglas Hogg's grandaughter how to pat a pony yesterday - when he came to pay I did wonder whether to ask him whether he was going to claim it on expenses......

Am a bit cross with him really where these expenses are concerned - he's a thoroughly good egg and a right giggle

[boudicca]

Speaking of good eggs... Nick Griffin got pelted at Westminster today by a group of anti-fascists

[Quiff Boy]

Speaking of good eggs... Nick Griffin got pelted at Westminster today by a group of anti-fascists

video:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_ ... 091605.stm

looks like the ant-fascists are intent on making the bnp's life in office as much of a circus as possible

[boudicca]

Only problem is it gets his ugly mug on the news

[the_inescapable_truth]

I don't like that at all. They were democratically elected and it's disrespectful to those who voted them in - no matter how 'vile/stupid'[1] you may find their views. I suspect it's this sort of mindless and childish reaction that motivated many people to vote for them in the first place. There's nothing quite like pissing off some self-righteous. Nothing worse than a Guardiasta...

I suggest we tackle with where it hurts by showing up the holes in their arguments. Of course this is much harder to do, isn't?

It doesn't really matter anyway. Britain will never be a fascist country.

[1] It's mostly unhelpful to call them vile/stupid. Hitler wasn't stupid at all and he was a raging racist of course. And vile? It's quite a simple-minded view that says someone with racist views is necessarily vile... I am reminded of a Simon Armitage poem, but I can't remember what it is called.... Anyway, mistaken is a better way to put it IMHO.

[Quiff Boy]

if you had seen the local news i have, from salford and burnley, with interviews with members of the public who admit to voting bnp, you would think that my original description is actually quite fitting.

and i dont hold by all this democratically elected bullsh*t. they're not a democratic party. they're a collection of thugs, bullies and bigots who have realised over the last few years that you get further (and richer) by pretending to be a real politician. and the other thugs and bigots that voted for them, along with the foolish and the downright repugnant who went along with them, thinking it was a good idea, deserve none of my respect.

"Britain will never be a fascist country"

hopefully not. but as they grow in stature they get more funding, which in turn allows them to grow further, until they become entrenched in our political setup and unshiftable. if we are not careful in 10 years time they will be an established force, a blight on western politics and a smear on the british reputation. instead of the tin-pot bunch of w*nkers they are at the moment.

f*ck them. not in my name, as the saying goes. not ever in my name.

[emilystrange]

i'm with quiff. if you can't see that their arguments are divisive, then you're stupid. and if you think that their arguments are right, then that's vile.
not in my name, either.

[7anthea7]

'Democratically elected' is a bit misleading as well. If it's anything like the situation in the US over the past (far too many) years, a lot of the more liberal, intelligent citizens had become apathetic - or perhaps they were just in denial - but whatever the cause, they didn't vote. With the far right on a roll, the voting results were representative only of who was voting, not the genuine beliefs of the populace. If there were any way to achieve a true democratic election - i.e. 100% voting - I very much doubt these fcukwads would stand a chance.

Eggs are the least of what needs to be thrown at them.

[lazarus corporation]

I don't like that at all. They were democratically elected and it's disrespectful to those who voted them in - no matter how 'vile/stupid'[1] you may find their views. I suspect it's this sort of mindless and childish reaction that motivated many people to vote for them in the first place. There's nothing quite like pissing off some self-righteous. Nothing worse than a Guardiasta...

Nope, you're completely wrong. Mockery and humour are very good weapons against the BNP - and that's exactly what this protest was.

Long may the freedom to make such protests continue.

And of course I'm happy to be disrespectful to the morons and wankers who voted for the BNP - they lost any respect when they voted for the BNP. Why on earth should I respect them?

[the_inescapable_truth]

Christ, it's not in your name if you didn't vote for them.

I've seen it all before. Person says 'They are vile' in place of they are mistaken because a, b, c... The later takes conscious effort. It's much easier to demonise them. And I've said already it is precisely attitude that allows them to garner votes.

You may find it easy to label them as vile and stupid, but I just find it impossible to throw around value judgments so easily. Things aren't black and white. I've known incredibly smart people who have what you might call racist/extreme views. Leo Tolstoy wrote beautiful prose, but beat his wife; Richard Feynman was a misogynist, but utterly charming; one of my teachers used to call me a stupid Jew and yet he was by far and away my favourite teacher. It just means nothing to me. I just find it all a bit simple-minded. What could be a debate degenerates into useless character assassination. I'm much more inclined to attempt to say why someone is wrong rather than spout obscenities. It's logical fallacy 101 really.

In this case, it's even more complicated by the fact that there was really no other party to vote for if you're an Old Labour supporter. Like it not, but the BNP are Old Labour with a racist streak.

At the risk of triteness: '“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.� Some French guy got it years ago really, and for me that's all it comes down to.

If it was a completely peaceful protest I might have more time for them. Though I'm still very much in favour of rational debate.

[stufarq]

Actually, much as I love the idea of Clegg being egged, the_inescapable_truth does have a point. We only think it's okay to pelt him with eggs because we hate what he stands for. What if they pelted someone you agreed with or adored? Is it really okay to throw things at someone just because you don't like them? Or is it being just as thuggish as they supposedly are?

And, apathy or not, they were democratically elected. But then so were Hitler and Mussolini. That's the problem with democracy - it gives the worst as much of a chance as the best. But at least it does give the best a chance, rather than allowing the worst to take over by force.

[silentNate]

if you had seen the local news i have, from salford and burnley, with interviews with members of the public who admit to voting bnp, you would think that my original description is actually quite fitting.

and i dont hold by all this democratically elected bullsh*t. they're not a democratic party. they're a collection of thugs, bullies and bigots who have realised over the last few years that you get further (and richer) by pretending to be a real politician. and the other thugs and bigots that voted for them, along with the foolish and the downright repugnant who went along with them, thinking it was a good idea, deserve none of my respect.

"Britain will never be a fascist country"

hopefully not. but as they grow in stature they get more funding, which in turn allows them to grow further, until they become entrenched in our political setup and unshiftable. if we are not careful in 10 years time they will be an established force, a blight on western politics and a smear on the british reputation. instead of the tin-pot bunch of w*nkers they are at the moment.

f*ck them. not in my name, as the saying goes. not ever in my name.

Well said sir

They polled fewer voters than previously and only got these seats due to an exceptionally low turnout in these elections. I blame the main political parties for allowing them to take advantage of this and the media for giving facist scum a platform

[silentNate]

If it was a completely peaceful protest I might have more time for them. Though I'm still very much in favour of rational debate.

Absolute bollocks- I'd have these holocaust deniers lynched myself. Where the BNP do well there is always a rise in racially-motivated crimes and (as Copeland is an example) these are dangerous thugs who would quite easily turn to violence themselves...

[lazarus corporation]

Hitler said that the only time he could have been stopped in his rise to power was if people confronted his thugs in the streets with direct action.

It's somewhat naive to try to deal with the BNP as if they were just a political party like Labour, the Tories or LibDems rather than a bunch of street fighters and thugs directing race hate attacks with a political front for "legitimacy".

Quoting Voltaire and saying that you've "seen it all before" is all very well-intentioned (if a tad patronising), but that's naive 6th Form politics compared to the reality of how the BNP operate.

If we could stop the BNP's street-fighters from hospitalising innocent people by sitting them down for a jolly good rational Students Union debate then I'd be all for it. But the reality just isn't that fluffy, I'm afraid.

[the_inescapable_truth]

Hitler said that the only time he could have been stopped in his rise to power was if people confronted his thugs in the streets with direct action.

I was dying for someone to bring up Hitler! To compare the rise of the BNP with the Nazis is patently absurd. Different times, different circumstances, different attitudes. It's just silly, but let's not even go there.

It's somewhat naive to try to deal with the BNP as if they were just a political party like Labour, the Tories or LibDems rather than a bunch of street fighters and thugs directing race hate attacks with a political front for "legitimacy".

I'm sorry, but like it or not, they are a legal political party.

Quoting Voltaire and saying that you've "seen it all before" is all very well-intentioned (if a tad patronising), but that's naive 6th Form politics compared to the reality of how the BNP operate.

Not really. I think it was a very fair point in the context in which it was made. That is to say I've seen people hiding behind pejorative adjectives instead of making substantial arguments plenty of times. And actually you sort proved the point.... You're trying to build yourself some sort of legitimacy by calling me 'naive' (I am young. You are old. Sorry), with presumably the hope of pissing me off. Maybe I am naive - like Socrates! I definitely don't purport to have the truth and see everything in black and white like seemingly everyone else here. Either way, it adds nothing to this debate. At all. If anything I find it utterly amazing people can come out with things like 'lynch the holocaust deniers'.

If we could stop the BNP's street-fighters from hospitalising innocent people by sitting them down for a jolly good rational Students Union debate then I'd be all for it. But the reality just isn't that fluffy, I'm afraid.

Nick Griffith was supposed to talk at the Oxford Union a while ago, and he was stopped by the same kind of morons who threw the eggs today. Most people seem to be in agreement now that this was a mistake and it would have been much better to tackle him, yes rationally. It can be done, and it's far more effective. A lot of those 'stupid' and 'vile' people are amenable to reason.

Generally though, it's a bit odd being made to feel my views are somehow extreme or something when, er, they're really not. Sorry I don't just get all my views from the Guardian. :/

I don't know maybe I take the importance of free speech as a given too much. I always thought it's pretty obvious why it is important though. Why do you draw the line? I don't know. As far as I know Nick Griffith hasn't physically hurt anyone.