The scandal surrounding Peter Viggers' expenses claim for a duck island brings a whole new dimension to the notion that politicians are in it to feather their nests.
However, Sir Peter's pledge to stand down at the next election – forced out of him by Tory leader David Cameron - is not good enough. He must go now. He has done wrong, and therefore has no right to dictate when he should go. If an ordinary citizen committed an offence, we could not demand that our trial or imprisonment be delayed to suit us.
Until a new MP is elected, Gosport will have a lame duck representing it in Parliament – utterly discredited, he will be completely ineffective. Sir Peter might as well stay at home watching Countdown for the next 12 months for all the good he will be to us. Yet taxpayers will still have to fork out every month for his generous pay and expenses. Moreover, if he waits until the next election before standing down, he will get a tax-free pay-off of tens of thousands of pounds and will also be entitled to one of the most generous pensions in Britain – all of it paid for by us, the taxpayer.
In effect, he will have been handsomely rewarded for having blatantly defrauded us. Yet we will have been without an effective voice to stand up for us in Westminster during one of the worst recessions this country has ever seen.
David Cameron says that, because of the scandal surrounding MPs expenses, there should be an immediate general election. I agree with him wholeheartedly. If we follow his logic, though, there should be an immediate by-election in any constituency where an MP has been clearly found to have abused the system. If David Cameron has the courage of his convictions, he should tell Mr Viggers to resign his seat immediately so that the voters can have their say.
Mr Viggers is currently on another foreign trip, this time to Washington. Perhaps when he returns he could pop down to Gosport and listen to what his constituents have to say on the matter. And then do the honourable thing.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Expenses, sleaze, and the strange case of Haslar
The scandal surrounding MPs' generous expenses claims and second home allowances has reached Gosport. Over the last 5 years – approximately the time of a parliamentary session – Gosport's Member of Parliament, Sir Peter Viggers MP, has cost us no less than £940,000 in salary, allowances, expenses and such like.
Some of this I do not begrudge. An MP's annual salary of £60,000-plus is a lot of money, but it is roughly equivalent to the salaries of many managers, and a good deal less than top civil servants and even local authority chiefs.
I also have no reason to grumble – from what I have seen – at the claims he has made to pay his staff to help him carry out his Parliamentary duties. Every MP has a duty to serve their constituents, as well as perform their job as a Member of the House of Commons. In an age when government and ministers have concentrated so much power, it is more important than ever that opposition backbenchers have the resources to scrutinise the executive, and to effectively oppose their excesses.
But what is completely unacceptable is that Sir Peter has REPEATEDLY claimed the absolute maximum possible for “additional cost allowances” - the hugely controversial “second home allowance”. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether or not MPs should have the right to buy second homes at taxpayers' expense, we have no idea whether his second home costs more or less than what he has claimed. He has simply claimed the limit of what the skewed and absurd rules (which MPs themselves wrote) allow an MP to claim. In fact, in the last few years, he has come TOP of the national 'league' of MPs and their second homes claims on more than one occasion.
On top of that, he has ALSO come near the top of the table for other expenses claims, including “incidental expenses” - the definition of which is so vague as to be virtually meaningless – and has made claims which,whilst within the aforementioned rules, will cause eyebrows to go up around Gosport, such as the claiming of £1,000 to cover his wife's travel expenses.
There are two salient points which come out of this episode.
The first is that it is high time that MPs, who are paid such generous salaries and expenses, actually proved their worth. The fact that public confidence in politicians is at an all-time low is justification enough. In Gosport, there is one issue which virtually everyone agrees on and which virtually everyone believes is the most important issue in the borough and the constituency. That issue is Haslar Hospital.
The job of an MP – above all else – is to promote the views and fight the cause of his or her constituents. Here in Gosport, our MP has been quiet on Haslar for far too long – save the occasional flurry of publicity – and even when he has claimed to have acted, it is clear that he has been largely ineffectual. He hasn't even been able to persuade his own party leader, David Cameron, of the merits of Haslar Hospital (Cameron, you may recall, famously told 'The News' his view that Haslar had “no future”).
For Peter Viggers to miss a key demonstration in defence of Haslar just weeks before it is due to be closed is an unforgivable error of judgement. He did not send his apologies, he did not send a representative, he did not even send a telegram of support to the organisers. If the message that local people got from this was loud and clear, then the message that the Government will have heard will have been even clearer – namely, that if the elected MP for Gosport isn't bothered about fighting the closure, then there is nothing to stop them from going ahead.
If – as widely predicted – Haslar's doors do shut this summer, a large part of the blame can be laid at the feet of our local MP who – at the critical moment – turned and walked away.
The other point is that the revelations of Mr Viggers' claims should not be seen in a vacuum. In recent weeks, there have been a number of related revelations in Gosport. For example, the Mayor of Gosport – like Mr Viggers, a Conservative – has ordered a £30,000 Chauffeur-driven limousine (complete with personalised number plate) in which to perform his ceremonial duties. The cost of this monstrosity is to be borne by local Council taxpayers. Another recent revelation is that the local Conservative Association ordered a lavish “make-over” of its offices on Stoke Road, and then – with the connivance of Mr Viggers – sent the £18,000 bill to the taxpayer.
In spite of David Cameron's PR-wash of the Tories, it seems that - in Gosport at least - the undisputed masters of sleaze are still the Conservatives. As for Peter Viggers, the combination of outrageous expenses and political invisibility could combine to bring about his downfall.
Some of this I do not begrudge. An MP's annual salary of £60,000-plus is a lot of money, but it is roughly equivalent to the salaries of many managers, and a good deal less than top civil servants and even local authority chiefs.
I also have no reason to grumble – from what I have seen – at the claims he has made to pay his staff to help him carry out his Parliamentary duties. Every MP has a duty to serve their constituents, as well as perform their job as a Member of the House of Commons. In an age when government and ministers have concentrated so much power, it is more important than ever that opposition backbenchers have the resources to scrutinise the executive, and to effectively oppose their excesses.
But what is completely unacceptable is that Sir Peter has REPEATEDLY claimed the absolute maximum possible for “additional cost allowances” - the hugely controversial “second home allowance”. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether or not MPs should have the right to buy second homes at taxpayers' expense, we have no idea whether his second home costs more or less than what he has claimed. He has simply claimed the limit of what the skewed and absurd rules (which MPs themselves wrote) allow an MP to claim. In fact, in the last few years, he has come TOP of the national 'league' of MPs and their second homes claims on more than one occasion.
On top of that, he has ALSO come near the top of the table for other expenses claims, including “incidental expenses” - the definition of which is so vague as to be virtually meaningless – and has made claims which,whilst within the aforementioned rules, will cause eyebrows to go up around Gosport, such as the claiming of £1,000 to cover his wife's travel expenses.
There are two salient points which come out of this episode.
The first is that it is high time that MPs, who are paid such generous salaries and expenses, actually proved their worth. The fact that public confidence in politicians is at an all-time low is justification enough. In Gosport, there is one issue which virtually everyone agrees on and which virtually everyone believes is the most important issue in the borough and the constituency. That issue is Haslar Hospital.
The job of an MP – above all else – is to promote the views and fight the cause of his or her constituents. Here in Gosport, our MP has been quiet on Haslar for far too long – save the occasional flurry of publicity – and even when he has claimed to have acted, it is clear that he has been largely ineffectual. He hasn't even been able to persuade his own party leader, David Cameron, of the merits of Haslar Hospital (Cameron, you may recall, famously told 'The News' his view that Haslar had “no future”).
For Peter Viggers to miss a key demonstration in defence of Haslar just weeks before it is due to be closed is an unforgivable error of judgement. He did not send his apologies, he did not send a representative, he did not even send a telegram of support to the organisers. If the message that local people got from this was loud and clear, then the message that the Government will have heard will have been even clearer – namely, that if the elected MP for Gosport isn't bothered about fighting the closure, then there is nothing to stop them from going ahead.
If – as widely predicted – Haslar's doors do shut this summer, a large part of the blame can be laid at the feet of our local MP who – at the critical moment – turned and walked away.
The other point is that the revelations of Mr Viggers' claims should not be seen in a vacuum. In recent weeks, there have been a number of related revelations in Gosport. For example, the Mayor of Gosport – like Mr Viggers, a Conservative – has ordered a £30,000 Chauffeur-driven limousine (complete with personalised number plate) in which to perform his ceremonial duties. The cost of this monstrosity is to be borne by local Council taxpayers. Another recent revelation is that the local Conservative Association ordered a lavish “make-over” of its offices on Stoke Road, and then – with the connivance of Mr Viggers – sent the £18,000 bill to the taxpayer.
In spite of David Cameron's PR-wash of the Tories, it seems that - in Gosport at least - the undisputed masters of sleaze are still the Conservatives. As for Peter Viggers, the combination of outrageous expenses and political invisibility could combine to bring about his downfall.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Gosport War Memorial inquest - perverting justice?
Gosport MP Peter Viggers has publicly criticised the opening of the inquiry into the deaths of 10 elderly patients at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital in the late 1990s.
The inquiry has been set up following concerns by relatives of those who died that sedatives may have been used excessively and contributed to the early death of the patients.
Mr Viggers is entitled to his personal opinion, but for him to use his position as an MP to intervene via the media as the inquiry begins is to undermine an independent process which seeks to bring closure to the many local families who have been through great heartache and pain. His actions cannot be blamed on naivety – he has been a politician for far too long for this to be a plausible explanation. They can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to influence the inquiry's outcome.
This is a shocking abuse of his position. He should either apologise immediately to the inquiry and the relatives of the deceased, or - if he refuses to do so - he should be reported to the appropriate parliamentary standards authority.
Moreover, by attacking the inquiry, he is also forgetting his fundamental duty as a Member of Parliament. Regardless of the grievance, his first and foremost responsibility is to fight for the interests of people in his parliamentary constituency.
Those who died were Gosport voters. It is irrelevant whether they voted for him or not, or whether he agrees with the grievances that his voters (and in this case, their surviving families) bring to him: it is his constitutional duty to stand up for them. That is an MP's job, it is what we as taxpayers pay him to do.
The rights and wrongs of this case are not for him to decide – it is for the jury to decide. I for one have no argument with Gosport War Memorial Hospital (on the contrary) and I have a completely open mind about this particular issue – and that is precisely what the jury need to have in such a sensitive case. That is why Mr Viggers' public intervention is such a serious matter, and must be investigated and properly addressed.
And if Mr. Viggers refuses to stand up for his constituents' interests, then perhaps it is time for him to stand aside and let someone in who will.
The inquiry has been set up following concerns by relatives of those who died that sedatives may have been used excessively and contributed to the early death of the patients.
Mr Viggers is entitled to his personal opinion, but for him to use his position as an MP to intervene via the media as the inquiry begins is to undermine an independent process which seeks to bring closure to the many local families who have been through great heartache and pain. His actions cannot be blamed on naivety – he has been a politician for far too long for this to be a plausible explanation. They can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to influence the inquiry's outcome.
This is a shocking abuse of his position. He should either apologise immediately to the inquiry and the relatives of the deceased, or - if he refuses to do so - he should be reported to the appropriate parliamentary standards authority.
Moreover, by attacking the inquiry, he is also forgetting his fundamental duty as a Member of Parliament. Regardless of the grievance, his first and foremost responsibility is to fight for the interests of people in his parliamentary constituency.
Those who died were Gosport voters. It is irrelevant whether they voted for him or not, or whether he agrees with the grievances that his voters (and in this case, their surviving families) bring to him: it is his constitutional duty to stand up for them. That is an MP's job, it is what we as taxpayers pay him to do.
The rights and wrongs of this case are not for him to decide – it is for the jury to decide. I for one have no argument with Gosport War Memorial Hospital (on the contrary) and I have a completely open mind about this particular issue – and that is precisely what the jury need to have in such a sensitive case. That is why Mr Viggers' public intervention is such a serious matter, and must be investigated and properly addressed.
And if Mr. Viggers refuses to stand up for his constituents' interests, then perhaps it is time for him to stand aside and let someone in who will.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Homes fit for heroes?
A third of armed forces families in Ministry of Defence housing are unhappy with the standard of their home, it has been revealed.
A National Audit Office survey of over 12,000 families found that 31% were living in poor quality housing.
The body also found that it could take the MoD 20 years to get all its housing stock up to decent standards.
More than 9,000 properties - or 18% - are currently standing empty.
Service personnel and their families routinely suffer from long waits for repairs, whilst others complain of their children having to live in damp accomodation which is affecting their health.
Is this the homecoming our heroes should expect?
A National Audit Office survey of over 12,000 families found that 31% were living in poor quality housing.
The body also found that it could take the MoD 20 years to get all its housing stock up to decent standards.
More than 9,000 properties - or 18% - are currently standing empty.
Service personnel and their families routinely suffer from long waits for repairs, whilst others complain of their children having to live in damp accomodation which is affecting their health.
Is this the homecoming our heroes should expect?
Monday, 16 March 2009
Iraq war protests - who's waving placards FOR our servicemen?
There have been angry protests in recent days against British servicemen returning from duty in Iraq. A small group of radical Muslims hurled insults at soldiers in Luton as they marched through their regiment's home town.
The protests have (rightly) drawn furious responses from the media and politicians. However it is worth noting the repulsion felt by Muslims everywhere at the actions of this mindless minority. As Mohammed Bashir, chairman of a local advice centre for the Asian community, put it: "They are nutters and criminals. What they did was disgraceful. There is no place in our society for people like that.” Further afield, Iman Kurdi – writing in Saudi Arabia's “Arab News” - described the actions as “abusing the right to protest”.
At the end of the day, the protesters – who numbered just 20 – have probably been given too much attention. But the whole episode does raise an interesting point. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war (and I, for one, remain convinced it was an illegal conflict that needlessly cost the lives of servicemen and civilians on both sides) the targets of the protesters should never be the soldiers. They are not the ones who decide where Britain's interests should be defended. They are given a job to do, and do it to the best of their ability.
And in so doing they are prepared to pay the ultimate price. I know many servicemen in Gosport, and I know the enormous sacrifices they and their families make every day. The long separations, coping alone, the worry about loved ones, the fear felt by young children, worries about the future – this is what our servicemen and their families have to contend with every day on top of the demands of frontline duty.
In return they are rewarded with wages that do not begin to recognise the danger they put themselves in, housing that is often substandard, and constant uncertainty about relocation and job cuts.
What angers me in all of this are the politicians who are prepared to put young British men and women in harm's way in almost reckless fashion, yet at the same time refuse to stand up for them and their families.
Take the Royal British Legion's Military Covenant campaign to improve healthcare, compensation and support for bereaved service families. You would have thought that any MP who was happy to vote to send our boys to Iraq might support a motion backing this campaign.
Not so Peter Viggers, the Tory MP for Gosport.
In spite of his outside directorships, he found time to traipse through the lobby to back the invasion of Iraq – but has found it harder to find the time to sign a piece of paper backing the covenant campaign.
As I write this, I've recently been made aware of an excellent charity, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Children's Fund, that is being championed by another local politician (see, they're not all bad), namely Portsmouth's Mike Hancock MP. This is the only charity dedicated to helping children of serving, and ex-serving, Naval Services personnel. It has been running for over 100 years and helps children deal with the long-term psychological, emotional, physical, financial and social impacts that can result from having a parent work in the Navy. It helps over 1,500 children each year.
If the protesters want a target, it should be those hypocritical MPs who send our boys into battle – but who then aren't prepared to help them and their families at home. And as for me, I'm waving a placard..in SUPPORT of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Children's Fund.
The protests have (rightly) drawn furious responses from the media and politicians. However it is worth noting the repulsion felt by Muslims everywhere at the actions of this mindless minority. As Mohammed Bashir, chairman of a local advice centre for the Asian community, put it: "They are nutters and criminals. What they did was disgraceful. There is no place in our society for people like that.” Further afield, Iman Kurdi – writing in Saudi Arabia's “Arab News” - described the actions as “abusing the right to protest”.
At the end of the day, the protesters – who numbered just 20 – have probably been given too much attention. But the whole episode does raise an interesting point. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war (and I, for one, remain convinced it was an illegal conflict that needlessly cost the lives of servicemen and civilians on both sides) the targets of the protesters should never be the soldiers. They are not the ones who decide where Britain's interests should be defended. They are given a job to do, and do it to the best of their ability.
And in so doing they are prepared to pay the ultimate price. I know many servicemen in Gosport, and I know the enormous sacrifices they and their families make every day. The long separations, coping alone, the worry about loved ones, the fear felt by young children, worries about the future – this is what our servicemen and their families have to contend with every day on top of the demands of frontline duty.
In return they are rewarded with wages that do not begin to recognise the danger they put themselves in, housing that is often substandard, and constant uncertainty about relocation and job cuts.
What angers me in all of this are the politicians who are prepared to put young British men and women in harm's way in almost reckless fashion, yet at the same time refuse to stand up for them and their families.
Take the Royal British Legion's Military Covenant campaign to improve healthcare, compensation and support for bereaved service families. You would have thought that any MP who was happy to vote to send our boys to Iraq might support a motion backing this campaign.
Not so Peter Viggers, the Tory MP for Gosport.
In spite of his outside directorships, he found time to traipse through the lobby to back the invasion of Iraq – but has found it harder to find the time to sign a piece of paper backing the covenant campaign.
As I write this, I've recently been made aware of an excellent charity, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Children's Fund, that is being championed by another local politician (see, they're not all bad), namely Portsmouth's Mike Hancock MP. This is the only charity dedicated to helping children of serving, and ex-serving, Naval Services personnel. It has been running for over 100 years and helps children deal with the long-term psychological, emotional, physical, financial and social impacts that can result from having a parent work in the Navy. It helps over 1,500 children each year.
If the protesters want a target, it should be those hypocritical MPs who send our boys into battle – but who then aren't prepared to help them and their families at home. And as for me, I'm waving a placard..in SUPPORT of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Children's Fund.
Sunday, 8 March 2009
A bunch of bankers
In February 1995, Nick Leeson fled Singapore after his irresponsible banking practices led to the collapse of the Barings bank. He was tracked down, extradited, tried and jailed for 6 years.
In February 2009, the men who have brought the entire British banking system to its knees through their irresponsible banking practices have been bailed out by the government using our money, and are now arguing that they should be getting a bonus - and that if they can't have a bonus, they should award themselves a payrise.
Is it just me, or is someone having a great big laugh at our expense?
In February 2009, the men who have brought the entire British banking system to its knees through their irresponsible banking practices have been bailed out by the government using our money, and are now arguing that they should be getting a bonus - and that if they can't have a bonus, they should award themselves a payrise.
Is it just me, or is someone having a great big laugh at our expense?
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Cameron says Haslar has no future - so why is Viggers calling for a Commons debate?
Peter Viggers, Gosport's elusive MP, has resurfaced and says he is going to call for a House of Commons debate on the future of Haslar.
After months of silence, he has been stung into action by the launch of a new campaign – led by his rivals, Gosport's Liberal Democrats – which cleverly sets out a plan for keeping hospital beds and services open after the MOD leaves via a Council-led take-over and redevelopment of the site which would generate enough revenue to keep it open. The Liberal Democrats have launched an online petition to put pressure on the MOD to hand over the site as soon as they leave so that health equipment doesn't deteriorate and become unusable.
Viggers' ploy is too little too late however. Nobody believes that the Conservatives – who systematically ran down the NHS when they were in power - have any intention of keeping Haslar Hospital open. David Cameron admitted as much: when asked by a reporter on The News, he answered that Haslar had “no future”.
Of course this greatly embarrassed Gosport Conservatives who are still shell-shocked from having lost control of the council. They have tried to claim that – whatever their party leader says – they are fighting to persuade the MOD to change their minds (not least with that grotesque banner hanging from above the Conservative Club on the High Street).
There's just one problem: if Gosport's Tories can't even persuade their own party leaders to do a U-turn, does anyone really believe they will succeed with the MOD?
After months of silence, he has been stung into action by the launch of a new campaign – led by his rivals, Gosport's Liberal Democrats – which cleverly sets out a plan for keeping hospital beds and services open after the MOD leaves via a Council-led take-over and redevelopment of the site which would generate enough revenue to keep it open. The Liberal Democrats have launched an online petition to put pressure on the MOD to hand over the site as soon as they leave so that health equipment doesn't deteriorate and become unusable.
Viggers' ploy is too little too late however. Nobody believes that the Conservatives – who systematically ran down the NHS when they were in power - have any intention of keeping Haslar Hospital open. David Cameron admitted as much: when asked by a reporter on The News, he answered that Haslar had “no future”.
Of course this greatly embarrassed Gosport Conservatives who are still shell-shocked from having lost control of the council. They have tried to claim that – whatever their party leader says – they are fighting to persuade the MOD to change their minds (not least with that grotesque banner hanging from above the Conservative Club on the High Street).
There's just one problem: if Gosport's Tories can't even persuade their own party leaders to do a U-turn, does anyone really believe they will succeed with the MOD?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
