Bishop Hill Kremlin watching
Mar 11, 2013 Climate: Parliament Also in the Telegraph letters page is this from Graham Stringer MP.
SIR – I agree with Graham Brady MP ("Liberate MPs from their party shackles", Comment, March 8) that MPs should wrest control of the business in the House of Commons from the Government.
I look forward to Graham Brady, who is chairman of the 1922 Committee, putting forward his ideas in a concrete form with all-party support to be voted on in the House.
Two issues illustrate this perfectly. A large majority of the public think that Sir David Nicholson, having presided over a health service that has allowed more than 1,200 patients to die needlessly, should be held responsible and sacked. Every backbench MP I have spoken to from across the political spectrum agrees. Health ministers and their shadows, for reasons that are opaque to me, disagree. They should not be allowed to stop a vote in the House of Commons that would show the electorate that they and their representatives are at one on this issue.
The absence of this vote leads to public cynicism. There is agreement between the front benchers on an energy policy that is going to be unnecessarily expensive for the consumer and place the security of supply at risk. I disagree with the policy and applied to go on the committee to give detailed scrutiny to this Bill. For the first time in 16 years, I was denied a place without explanation by my whips' office.
The public will be more than cynical if the lights go out after energy bills have increased and it is evident that critical appraisal that could have averted this catastrophe had been stifled.
Stringer's letter seems to give a real insight into what goes on at Westminster. Men and women of integrity are sidelined and preventing from standing up for what is right. In their place we get the corrupt, the sycophants and the placemen. You can see this effect across the policy spectrum, not least in the climate and energy field.
The letter also resonated with me because of the biofuels committee I reported on last week. Having watched the video of the debate, I had wondered at the persistence of the government minister in proceeding with biofuels subsidies when everyone - those in the committee as well as people outside like environmentalists - thought that it was a sheer madness.
What is driving the madness? The EU? Corruption? Both?
Answers in the comments.
Reader Comments (42)
Spread this as widely as you all can. This is a scandal beyond any recent scandal We have seen in the UK in recent years:
http://www.economicvoice.com/one-third-of-government-ministers-linked-to-uk-companies-fuelling-climate-change/50035569
If you don't like the answers an committee will give, then pack it with sycophants. A variant of the old addage in the civil service of 'if you won't like the answer, don't ask the question'.
Nothing new here...
This stupid article is saying that govt minsters are linked to "big oil"
Taxation without representation is tyranny. Scream loudly enough so that Belgium can hear you.
==============================
It's generally a mistake to ask what a politician is seeking to achieve by passing a bill. Of course some are pursuing crude financial self interest, but that's more rarely the underlying driver than people think. At heart politicians have more in common with Z list celebrities than with sophisticated fraudsters.
What a politician is seeking to achieve by passing a bill is quite simply passing the bill. In the strange world they inhabit this is seen as being in itself a virtuous act. The idea that changing the law might have consequences simply doesn't occur to them: indeed quite often it doesn't have consequences because the secondary legislation enabled by the bill is never actually enacted.
Once you see parliament as an obscure form of performance art it starts to make sense.
Are there no mechanisms to allow debate direct from the floor (of the House of Commons)?
Prime ministers question time would be one.
Such questions might include;
1) Does your father-in-law benefit from Government subsidies for wind energy?
2) Is there no conflict of interest in Tim Yeo's chairmanship if the Energy committee and his dealings with green (scamsters) sorry energy firms?
I quite like Graham Stringer even though I don't agree with his party because he appears to be an honest advocate for his point of view. He seems wholly out of place in the HoC.
I think it is probably fair to say that — to an extent — "it was ever thus".
Governments of all parties, and probably in most countries, have always tried to sideline the "awkward squad" as a means of efficient government. The likes of Tam Dalyell and Denis Skinner and in an earlier time Gerald Nabarro and the "usual suspects" whose names could be guaranteed to appear opposing virtually everything that the Tories and the Wilson Labour government put forward could be accomodated as long as business could be carried on with reasonable despatch.
In recent years the obsession with legislation and yet more legislation — urged on by the media which are likely to fling accusations of "running out of steam" at every government that doesn't plan for at least 20 Bills per parliamentary session — has meant in effect that there is simply no time, and therefore no place, for the independent-minded MP.
There are other reasons. As Booker persists in reminding us, a very large percentage of what is churned out of the Whitehall sausage machine has come, not from the hot air factory up the road, but from the EU bureaucracy. As a consequence there is very little that individual MPs can do anyway and since ministers quite patently would rather we didn't know where all this legislation is coming from (as witness the gay marriage proposals which were initiated in this case with the ECHR aided and abetted by Teresa May and Lynn Featherstone — not by David Cameron or indeed anyone else at Westminster) allowing backbench MPs to sit on committees where they might not just rock the boat but conceivably seduce a few of their colleagues into trying to overturn it is simply unacceptable.
The whole government edifice in the UK is built on an interlocking pattern of lies.
On the one hand the government assiduously refuses to be honest about the extent to which UK laws are made in Brussels and again I would urge everyone to read Booker's columns and his books on the subject.
On the other hand it is equally assiduous in blaming Brussels for the interpretations which its own civil servants place on these directives, interpretations which are needlessly onerous and in some instances contrary to the stated intention of the original directive.
(Perhaps if Chris Booker is passing he could point us to a couple of instances which he has mentioned in the past but which I cannot now find!)
In addition to this desperate thrashing around in an effort to be seen to be doing something (anything) to justify their existence the current crop of politicians are by and large a fairly useless bunch mainly because they don't have a clue about how the world works. A look at the CVs of Cameron, Miliband (2), Balls, Osborne, Clegg, Cooper, and several dozen more as compared with any cabinet minister or shadow minister of the 60s, 70s, and 80s — starting with age! — is instructive.
The result is that they are in it for what they can get out of it because they don't know any better.
No, it's not corruption — at least not in the sense we would apply the word to the dictators on whom we repugnantly lavish UK taxpayers' money. It's ignorance. Whim has replaced knowledge. Gesture politics is what gets the headlines and the headlines are all that matter because — as Blair and Campbell taught is — all that matters is getting re-elected.
Enough, Jackson. Shut up!
Mr. Jones,
If politicians pass Bills just to be seen doing so whilst ignoring the possible consequences, one has to ask if they are fit for purpose? And the answer would be "no", So why are we paying so much to so many, it is after all our money not theirs.
Jonathan Jones - "Once you see parliament as an obscure form of performance art it starts to make sense."
Quite possibly the most insightful sentence I've read in a decade.
Don I suspect the whips police who gets to ask what question at question time, so they might need to be ambushed, given the consensus across the leadership of all three parties in favour of troughing, whether climate-related or otherwise.
The expenses scandal taught us a lot about MPs' grasp of ethics, and their acceptance of Yeo, Deben and Cameron's overt conflicts of interest suggests they are passive as well as corrupt, with the honourable exception of Messrs Lilley and Stringer.
We hear regularly that China and Russia have serious corruption problems and that this significantly increases costs. Indeed in both countries people are regularly imprisoned (In China's case dissected) for corruption.
In Britain nobody ever gets arrested for fraud. Occasionally they are allowed to resign. In the case of Muir Russell, who took the blame for "concealing" from the politicians the fact that the Scottish Parliament building was exceeding its promised cost of £40 million, he got a string of lucrative government jobs, including certifying that nothing fraudulent happened in climategate.
In China a mile of road costs £900,000, In Russia £7 million. The Aberdeen bypass cost £23.3 million and this is typical of Scottish projects.
One obvious explanation for this is that our politicians and bureaucrats are far more corrupt than any in Russia or China. If there is another then no doubt every Holyrood politician and every journalist whose job is allegedly to report the news, will be able to say what it is. So far none have been willing to.
In 1882, in the Sentry's Song in the operetta "Iolanthe", W.S. Gilbert gave us his forthright opinion on members of the House of Commons. It seems little has changed in 140 years!
MPs (mostly) just to what they're told by the Party leaders. What drives the Party leaders can be anything from, at one end of the spectrum, a genuine desire to serve the nation, to ambition and greed at the other.
But "green" policies have acquired an almost religious status. Just as in the church it would be heresy to deny the existence of god, in present political circles it is considered heretical to deny that man-made CO2 poses a serious threat to the climate.
Of course, there's no scientific proof of the basic tenet in either case. No one can prove that there's a god, but that didn't stop the church spending vast amounts of money building churches, cathedrals, etc in order to worship an entity which may or may not exist.
The religious parallel with climate policy (and many "green" policies) is remarkable. There is no scientific proof that man-made CO2 poses a serious threat to the climate, but that doesn't stop governments from spending billions fighting it.
And it's easy to recognise the modern-day equivalents of priests, bishops, cardinals and so on – all beavering away, saving us from disaster, while making a very nice living at it, thank you very much.
It seems there really is nothing new under the Sun.
The problem is that, with the legislature and the executive all muddled up together, it is quite possible for the whips to ensure that the awkward squad can be overlooked.
I join Cumbrian Lad in the applause for J Jones. Very funny, as well as insightful. But, as Isaiah Berlin used to say:
In case it's not clear that's a compliment, a big one. Plus one of my favourite passages of all time on the history of ideas. At least from an Oxford man :)
This reminds me of a comment by historian Richard Starkey in his series called "The Churchills".
Winston was a quiet back-bencher at the time, pre WWII, many thought his career was over. So he decided to write a million word, four volume biography about his ancestor the first Duke of Marlborough - as you do!
Starkey opined that most current MPs would find it difficult to write their own biography even with the help of a ghost writer.
Jonathan Jones
I am sure this 'virtuous bill' effect is multiplied exponentially when you have a H of C increasingly stuffed with lawyers. They pass laws, more and more enthusiastically; it's all they know how to do.
it appears that doing nothing needs to be re-elevated to its former prestige.
@graphicconception
'This reminds me of a comment by historian Richard Starkey in his series called "The Churchills".
Though Richard Starkey is indeed a man of many parts - most famously the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine on the telly - but also described by John Lennon as 'not even the best drummer in the Beatles', his talents do not yet extend to popularising history a la Simon Schama.
I think you mean David Starkey and not his near namesake who we also know as Ringo Starr. :-)
@Barbara- I think it is alot more trivial than that.
Alot of MPs C.V.s read like this.
Public School Debating Society,
Oxbridge Union Debating Society,
MPs "special" advisor,
MP.
They are essentially overgrown public schoolboys scoring debating points (often at the expense of those they purport to represent).
Latimer: First John Gummer is likening Richard Lindzen to Cliff Richard, now it's spot the difference between Simon Schama and Ringo Starr. Next they'll be trying to form a TV science team of Brian Cox and a famous guitarist from Queen. Or maybe I'm too late ...
The fact that the news media are complicit in the HoC show is a major part of the problem.
I'm sure most of the country would agree that "Prime Minister's Questions" is an embarrasing spectacle of said "overgrown public schoolboys" making complete arses of themselves, yet on all news channels we are informed of the wonderfully witty attacks made by one eejit or another, and the brilliant ministerial responces, and never ever do the moronic parliamentary correspondents seem to realise that nothing whatsoever was accomplished by this purely theatrical charade.
I despair. When asked "why are we paying so much to so many, it is after all our money not theirs", the answer is that we have simply no choice. All political parties with any chance of influencing government policy are part of the establishment, as are the journalists, and see nothing wrong with it.
Next they'll be trying to form a TV science team of Brian Cox and a famous guitarist from Queen. Or maybe I'm too late ...
Mar 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM Richard Drake
"Thiiiiiings can only get better."
Never in the field of public corruption has so much been stolen from so many by so few.
I'm sure that many people here are well aware of it, but for the uninitiated Richard North's EUReferendum blog is endlessly enlightening, if depressing.
First rule of thumb: if a proposed law is apparently completely baffling, against the best interests of the UK, supported by virtually no-one, against everything that the party of the proposer has ever professed to believe in and/or completely counter-productive but is still being steamrollered through parliament it is almost certainly a diktat from The EU or Council of Europe. The proposer will never admit that this is the case despite looking, in the absence of this explanation, clinically insane
Second rule of thumb: in the face of a public/political outcry a bold new initiative is announced; a change in law which would be popular, ethical and enhance the government's standing no end. Then everything goes quiet and the idea is quietly dropped. Because the media is lazy and has no memory the proposer is never asked why the law was dropped. Not that they would say anyway, but it was because the EU wouldn't allow it. The proposer was too ignorant to know that this was always going to be the case.
Third rule of thumb: any explanation of any major cross-border cock-up/scandal which doesn't even mention the EU is at best incomplete if not a complete lie.
So much of what goes on in parliament makes more sense if you bear these points in mind.
Interesting that Graham Stringer is so incensed by the abuse of free and open parliamentary democracy by those dictating the agenda and their cronies that he is motivated to write to the Telegraph to vent his spleen. And an interesting federation with Conservative Graham Brady, present Chaiman of the 1922 Committee. Brady always seemed to be ambivalent about Climate Change, but to his credit always recognised the economic impact of green levies on industry, even back to 2001 in Hansard records, and has tabled penetrating questions on airline tariffs etc as well.
Graham Crackers. Wholesome.
============
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
And if voting changed anything they would ban it.
Paul is pushing a deceptivearticle that begs the question: How many elected reps are under the thumb of big-enviro NGO's and companies soaking the tax payers, gaming the system to receive fat wind subsidies and in suppressing frakking and other real energy solutions?
The sieve through which one must pass to become an MP ensures anyone with drive, ambition, competence or skill will do absolutely anything else, all that is left are the dregs
Society will pay the price in the next few years, a wood burning Drax will double the per household subsidy for renewable energy on it's own, this may be an understatement given wood has only 66% of the energy density of coal.
Would that the recent anti terrorist legislation allow retrospective prosecutions of those such as Milliband (jnr), Huhne & Davey, for crimes against the state is certainly their legacy
Huhne gets 8 months. Not enough.
Pryce gets 8 months
Short answer is neither - It is political processes.
The Climate Change Act was passed with as near unanimity as you are likely to get in the House of Commons. It is very clear that the target for renewables is not going to be met. Further, with nuclear power off the agenda, there will be a huge lack of base load capacity. So there are two options.
1. Change the rules and convert the largest power station in the country into a wood-burning stove, at huge cost.
2. Hold your hands up and admit there is no way the renewables target is going to be achieved.
Remember that a committee only has a single voice if everyone is of like mind. Yet if this happens, and they also agree with the Executive, then the function of committees - holding the Executive to account - is undermined. Normally, having representatives from all parties helps stop this from happening. The Opposition make vocal disagreement even if there is nothing fundamental to disagree upon. But with a cross-party consensus, it is far easier to remove the sole dissenting voice than serve the best interests of the country.
Fantastic news about Huhne.
Wind mills do not enough energy make.
=======
He'll miss his framed portrait of himself, his fluffy dusters, his chocolate HobNobs and his trouser press in Wandsworth tonight.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5314093/Chris-Huhne-a-multi-millionaire-but-you-buy-his-chocolate-HobNobs-MPs-expenses.html
Huh, he'll be out in 4 months. Why do judges make all the right noises about seriousness of crimes then hand out derisory sentances?
Is HuhneToTheSlammer going to change his handle?
steveta_uk: "Is HuhneToTheSlammer going to change his handle?"
He already did.
Right guy in the pokey.
But for the wrong reasons.
He should be there for the windmills.
And for mush longer.
Sorry - no idea why that last comment was posted twice. But there was a very long delay before BH came back to me.................
Is the Jonathan Jones whose comment above makes no kind of sense the same Jonathan Jones who regularly pontificates with unreadable bilge at Spectator.co.uk? Can there be two, equally disastrously thick people, with the same name?
@Owen Morgan
you ask the strangest questions.... Prof J Jones's comments above made perfect sense to me but then I am probably not as well educated as you. What are your credentials, Owen?