Wholesome goodness and hope

Having looked through the various blogs recently (mainly political I have to say) it got me wondering what is the purpose of this blog?

I've mulled this over for a few days now, and I seem to be asking myself all sorts of questions.

Some of them could be considered having a political basis (e.g. How can the MP's raid the piggy bank so much); however I think the questions go much deeper than that.

In the above example, is it right that the MP's get these allowances?

To then go even deeper, what is "right" (in any circumstance)?

It is answers to questions like this that build the very foundations of our society.

Sure one's answer to a question such as "is xxxxxx right?" can and will be influenced by one's upbringing, religion, political bias etc, however there must be a fundamental principle which underpins all of these answers.

I don't want this to turn into some pseudo psychology blog, but I do believe to start with the basics and build up from there.

So I'd like to include some thought provoking stuff and apply these principles to both situations in my own life, and stories in the media. No doubt my definitions of these principles will need tweaking along the way, and it will be interesting to see what influences those tweaks.

Right, a starter for ten.

What is "Right" and "Wrong"?

Clearly one is the opposite of the other,so in defining one do we automatically define the other?


Definition of wrong

My generic definition of "Wrong" would be:

"To deliberately set out to hurt another member of our society"

My reasoning behind this statement (and a few definitions) is as follows:

Deliberately
I chose the word "deliberately" as we may inadvertently hurt someone/something without forethought.
Example would be: Say you were playing golf and inadvertently hit someone with a stray ball. Yes, you hurt that person, but there was no intent.
In my view that would NOT be wrong.

Set out to
I chose the expression "set out to" as I don't believe it matters whether you carry the act out or not.
An example: Someone who plots another's murder, but is foiled for whatever reason is wrong.

Hurt
Next is the word "Hurt". How do I define that? There is obvious physical pain, but there is also psychological pain. So I think "hurt" means anything which makes someone uncomfortable, either physically or mentally.

Another Member of society
Obvious definition is another human being, but should it be that wide or that narrow a definition?
Some cultures have a class system whereby "another member of their society" would be a social class or a particular religous following. Is that too narrow?

Others may say that animals fall into this category. Is it wrong to beat a dog? Yes, in my opinion, but where does that end? Is it all living organisms? Is it wrong to cut down a tree? Is it wrong to eat meat?

Sometimes difficult to argue these points which is where I believe the definition of "Right" comes in.

Right

I could simply take the view that it is the exact opposite of my definition of "Wrong".
It kind of works, but the waters get muddied when one takes a series of actions, where the outcome is "Right", but we must do a few "wrongs" along the way.

An example would be:
You see someone being mugged. You go and thump the mugger.
You've set out to hurt the mugger (wrong), however the reason for doing it is to help the muggee (is that a word?) to escape (right).

It's one of those "the end justifies the means" scenarios, but does it? How do you assess beforehand whether the end would indeed justify the means?

A good example would be the Iraq war. Does the end justify the means?

OK, moving on, so what is my definition of right?

Definition of right

"To improve our society"

Likewise for "wrong", how do I define these terms?

Improve
This would be an easy answer if I jumped five steps forward. i.e. "Better quality of life, running water etc." but I need to stick to the principles.
I think "improve" means
Do less "wrong"s, and encourage the opposite of those wrongs (e.g. set out to help another member of our society"

Is that it?

Yes for today, that is it. I'm sure the above will need serious revision, but you have to start somewhere.

Looking forward, I intend to tackle (not necessarily in this order)

Balance of right and wrong
Morals and ethics
Religion
Politics
Economic models


...and I'll also blog about my search for employment, my relationships (friends and family), my goals (from financial success through to my hobbies such as golf & guitar) and some mickey taking out of the media stories.

Sorry it's a boring one tonight, but it is an important one.

UB41.

What can the party leaders do?

It is quite easy to accuse Cameron (and no doubt tomorrow, Clegg) of being spineless and not sacking MP's who appear to have abused the expenses system, however that decision should not be taken so lightly.

The key objective of each of the party leaders has to be to get into (or stay in Gordon's case) power, and then effect change from there.

The difficuties of these decisions is is probably best illustrated with an example.

If one of Dave's backbenchers has a nicely safe seat (even with the expenses issues taken into account), what benefit is there by sacking him/her? They'd have to get someone sharpish to stand in that constituency and put the seat at much greater risk. Which is an own goal given the key objective.
Thus in my view, it is a balance between how much damage has been done to the MP in question versus how safe their seat is versus the general public's opinion over the party's misdemeanours.

A different scenario.

One of the Tory backbenchers has committed a "mild" misdemeanour in the current context of revelations, but his seat is shaky.

Dave could sack him & would get a bit of good PR and the seat was at risk anyway, but the public will look at the misdemeanour's committed by that MP and demand that anyone worse than that must go also. Rightly so, you can't have double standards.

The above scenarios equally apply to Clegg, however Brown's position is somewhat different.

He has to continue to the country and so any action he takes results in a cabinet reshuffle. As the likelihood of Labour managing anything but a very poor result at the elections, is there any point?

There is another way to tackle this which I alluded to yesterday (and does seem to be growing legs amongst the community). MP's of moral substance appear to have already taken this up.

The Pay It Back campaign.

All parties have to do this, and those that don't face severe political disadvantage.

Pay It Back

Conspicuous by their absence in the media - who is the worst?

There are some MP's who are conspicuous by their absence in the Telegraph's revelations.

Some muse that it is because their expenses discretions are already in the public domain, but I'm not so sure.

The libdems are off the hook here (until tomorrow I understand) as they have yet to have their expenses revealed.

So who are the missing miscreants?

My bets for those to be revealed in the Telegraph's crescendo:

Jacqui Smith
James Purnell
Ed Balls
Yvette Cooper

Interestingly all Labour, however that is as much due to their public profiles than anything else.

Expenses - Increase. Sorry, increase? Did I read that correctly?

One of the stories regarding the MP's expenses has been buried by the revelations of what MP's are claiming for.

They have voted for a 17% rise in their expense allowance for this year.

Is inflation sky high ? Nope

Are interest rates punitively high? Nope

So why award yourself what is in effect another £25,000 each worth of expenses?

The cynics say that this will be the last year for many MP's and they want the trough topped up to the brim.

Difficult to argue otherwise with the current state of the economy.

Update: Six pence added to the minimum wage - roughly 1%. You couldn't make it up.

Expenses - What retrospective action to take? The Pay It Back campaign...

I don't think "Sorry" is enough given the outrageous claims that MP's have made.

That said, the "Hang 'em high" or "Head's on a spike" view is a little too extreme, although I understand the sentiment.

I think we should have a two stage process.

1) An amnesty
2) A thorough investigation


Whilst the defences to date have been abysmal, the "dissolve parliament" approach would cause chaos.

I think we should allow MP's a short period of time (3-6 months) to repay what they have claimed which they deem to be morally wrong.

They should publish what they have repaid (as in what claims they believe were morally wrong).

Following on from the amnesty, the investigation could focus on the outstanding claims.

Any issues of tax evasion etc. should be subject to the law.

Other issues of whether the MP still has morally questionable claims? Let the electorate decide.

Update:

Seems fellow bloggers have similar views.

Hat tip to Constantly Furious and Mark Reckons..

ACA Expenses - What are the solutions?

Iain Dale put forward a very simple solution on his blog which I support in some form.

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/darling-hoon-are-two-most-serious-cases.html

I think everyone can sympathise with MP's whose constituency is beyond reasonable commuting distance from Westminster. They do need somewhere to stay whilst in Parliament.

So what are the leading options?


1) Strike a deal with a number of hotels
2) Purchase grace & favour homes for all
3) A standard overnight allowance which they spend as they choose
4) Carry on as is with some modifications

1) Hotel deal
Not sure this is the most cost effective. Assuming a negotiated price of say £80 per night, this would exceed the current second home allowance. Would remove the ability for the MP to profit personally (and avoid tax) as they do currently.

2) Grace & favour homes for all
A big bill initially (hundreds of millions) but an (generally) appreciating asset.
Would remove the ability for the MP to profit personally (and avoid tax) as they do currently.
Worth considering.

3) Standard overnight allowance
Hmm, allowing MP's to be in charge of money? Discounted as it would be open to outrageous ruses!

4) Carry on as is with some modifications
A bit like Iain's view really, but I'd like to add a few things.

MP's should not personally profit using taxpayers money. Therefore any second home (which has had the mortgage interest paid for by the taxpayer) which is sold at a profit should have that profit (or the relevant percentage if the MP was paying some of the interest themselves) paid back to the fees office. If the MP was paying some of the interest, then they should pay CGT on the relevant portion of the profit.

Food allowance - drop it

Furniture - agree with Iain - a one off payment at the beginning (say £5K) and then every three years or so.

Expenses - Where MP's went wrong

Okay, there's the obvious "don't claim for porn" etc, but what why are the public so outraged by it all?

1) It appears that there is one rule for "us" and a different rule for "them"

Most people who are given expenses as part of their job either claim by a receipt process, or where allowances are given, maybe taxed as a "benefit in kind".
For the self employed, tax deductible expenses have to be incurred "wholly for business purposes" or the expense is pro-rata'd with personal use.

Some of the claims that have been submitted by the MP's (although receipted) would be very difficult to justify as "wholly pertinent to undertake their duty as an MP".

A patio heater? A barbecue? Do you really need those to undertake your duty as an MP?

The flipping of homes and avoidance of CGT is the real money spinner here.
How can an MP profit from the rise in value of a property (where the mortgage interest is either partially or wholly funded by the taxpayer) full stop never mind avoiding CGT on the profit.


2) Why try to cover it up? It immediately implies guilt

The battle to get these expense claims in the public domain has cost a considerable amount of money. MP's have fought to prevent their publication using significant sums of taxpayer's money employing legal experts to try and prevent publication.

In the words of the government on the DNA database, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

Thus going to such extremes to prevent publication already implies guilt from the above mantra.

Interesting that the redacted (censored) receipts which are to be published by the government do not have address details on them. That would have kept the tax evasion on property under wraps.


3) The attempts at defending the claims has been badly thought out at best, at worst, pathetic.

Why did GB give his disastrous YouTube debut on this subject?

The government were desperate to get some actions in place which they could tout around to show they were the part of action and deflect attention from the claims themselves with "We're dealing with it, let's look forward yada yada"

The "It's within the rules" line just doesn't wash. They have totally missed the point on the public's outrage. There is a question of morality here which they have missed completely.

That said, there appears to be masses of claims which I would describe as "outside the rules".

A £3,100 TV? What's wrong with a £300 TV? And then to have the audacity to challenge the fees office suggesting they were unjust? It beggars belief.

What is it with Woolas? Five receipts that match the sum recompensed to the penny and he says "it proves nothing".
Sounds like something out of a Sweeney programme.
And on those receipts? Women's clothes (presumably for his partner - quick disclaimer!). How can they be relevant to him doing his job?
His other defence?
"I could have claimed more, but chose not to. I am too honest for my own good"
Is the man unable to judge right from wrong?

The "S" word. Whilst I'm sure it was purely political motivation which led Dave to issue the first "Sorry", at least he did it.

GB has made a complete fool of himself again by initially backing the "It's within the rules" line, only to switch to a "sorry" as appeared to be more acceptable by the public.


4) Ultimately it is taxpayers money

There is no such thing as victimless crime as I'm sure Madoff's investors would testify (including the charities).

MP's are paid out of tax revenue from the public and they should take public money very seriously. They should realise that they are accountable (yes, accountable) for every penny spent.

It's no good bleating on about what a difficult job they have because of the accountability and then not even display that quality with their own financial conduct.

It will be very very difficult for MP's to restore the public's faith. All we have heard on the subject of expenses has been spin and arguments over semantics.

They have a large hill to climb.