I feel for you Lynn and I’m sure so do the cleaners, nurses, carers and catering staff of Britain – you may want to try one of those jobs instead?

‘I understand the anger at MPs ‘ –

tbh, Lynne, I wonder if you do – if you did, you might have thought twice about writing this defensive/not so funny article. Those of us who are dealing with redundancy first hand, etc, are so angry with MPs and bankers, etc, that we’re not really of a mind to see the funny side of a piece by an MP who looks to campaign/attempt a wry piece on the fact that she has not had her hand in the til.

It’s vaguely encouraging to know that a few of you at least haven’t been at it, and I hope you much enjoy your walkabouts as described above, but I’d rather hear more about how you and your Lib Dem colleagues plan to ensure public services will be preserved over the coming months, and how you’re going to pressure government to regulate the financial sector.

I’m not that interested to know that you won’t be having a holiday this year. We’re unlikely to have one at our house, either.

Your post is insensitive and tasteless.

@2 what the hell? Lynne does a good job and works very hard at it; why shouldn’t she explain to a wider audience what she does?

(and while you might not be having a holiday this year, the vast majority of Ordinary Working People will be…)

Your post is insensitive and tasteless.

I don’t think it is. I asked Lynne to write something for two reasons:

first, 38 degrees is running a campaign to get people to find out what their MPs are doing over recess. So I had this idea to ask Lynne. She’s simply explaining what an MP does.

It would be tasteless if she said she was chilling out in some big house she owned and anyone who can’t do that is just hating on her. I’m still struggling to find out what’s exactly ‘tasteless’ about this article.

Secondly, shouldn’t we at least be encouraged by MPs who are rather different to those like Hazel Blears or the guy with a big moat or the one with a big house? Or is the consensus that all MPs are despicable people and should be shouted down whatever the case?

Lynne

Consider the small business man whose suppliers can no longer get insurance to supply him because, in the current business climate, the chances of him going bust are too great. The bank that you rescued has called in his overdraft. He is paying pro-forma invoices with personal credit cards in a desperate and probably vain attempt to keep his business afloat.

He knows that, if his business fails, he will lose his house, pension and everything he has worked for all his life. He also knows the likely effect of this on his family will be catastrophic.

Think of him and ask yourself if he is likely to have much sympathy for the long hours you work.

OK I’ll come clean.

I don’t.

@pagar, perhaps your business’d be in better shape if you spent more time working on it and less time trolling LC. just sayin’ is all.

Junior doctors have been forced to curb their working hours considerably in recent years (because of the European working time directive) – this has had HUGE implications for the NHS.

So, if during term time, MPs are working a minimum of 12hr per days (Mon-Fri = 60hrs) PLUS weekends, surely this must contravene EU law?

Whatever problems we have with our MPs working them like dogs is not the answer, if only for the negative impact it must have on their role as parents or for their family life in general?

No wonder some bored husbands end up renting illicit porn films.

The fewer days the Hof C sit, the more difficult it is to hold the government to account.
Many issues are not debated for long enough; this in part why there is so much poor legislation.

Not asking for approbation, synmpathy or anything – just writing the article that Sunny asked me to write about what MPs do in the summer recess. But I defend my right to defend my own reputation when asked to do so. And I think insults and criticisms are mainly because people want to bash MPs – full stop and it probably only annoys everyone if I say not all MPs are bad.

Of course there are lots of people who work hard who will be hit by this recession. And Pagar – at last you do touch on something more relevant to the recession that the hours I work in recess etc – the fact that the banks aren’t lending. Yes – we rescued the banks (and LibDems supported this – suggested it in fact) but it is Labour, Gordon and Alistair who are letting them get away with taking our tax-payers money but not delivering on the lending. That is the real damage that is being done. But we have a very very weak and impotent (and incompetent) government.

So – whilst you all may wish to take a pot shot at me – I feel it is important to say that there are still MPs who are fighting for what is right and standing up for the people they represent. But if all you want to do is slag me off – it’s a free country – just about!

What utter nonsense.

Get off your high horse.

You’re just as guilty on expenses as Anthony Steen, Jacqui Smith, or Alistair Darling, and your pathetic self-justification just debases our society.

Every MP (which includes you) deserves nothing but scorn for their collective deception and cover-ups about expenses. Here’s a hint – the public aren’t stupid. You’re all tarred with the same brush for a good reason. You deserve every bit of the vitriol you get.

And now you’re taking a holiday. You even admit it – you’re working short hours.

Your job isn’t to be a social worker. Your job is to legislate and hold the government to account. Delegate the casework to the councillors – you can do a small amount of it on weekends if you feel it is necessary to inform your debates in the House.

MPs make me sick. Especially hypocritical ones like you who pretend to be holier than thou, better than the others.

Sunny – I have a lot of time for you and think you are a great guy as you know, but that comment is dismissive and has really got to me.

You wouldn’t believe how angry this post has made me. I can’t really say much else on it without giving more details about my personal situation away, and discussing people in my family who haven’t agreed to be discussed. Suffice to say there have been a lot of sleepless nights for me this year, and I don’t see the Lib Dems or anyone else stepping up to pay my bills or reassure me any time soon.

Let me explain the tasteless bit – it’s the tone. It’s the crowing about being called a ‘saint’ – ‘gee, evewyone is bad but me!’ It’s the ‘I’m one of the good guys!’ It’s the blatant politician-eering – the ‘I know you guys are pissed, but I’m one of the few shining stars, Jack!’ MP-ishness of it all. Who gives a damn who Lynne Featherstone is, or whether she’s the only Christ figure in parliament? The recession and expenses row is not about her. It’s about us and the bloke in the street who has lost his job.

MPs may by all means write articles about the ways they plan to spend their recesses, but they should have the sense and sensitivity to do it without crowing on about their own exceptional characters, or by dismissing the real anger and hostility that a lot of people rightly feel. What about writing a humble piece saying it’s been a bad year for politics and we’re going to do X,Y and Z to clean it up? What about a better, less dismissive sentence than ‘I understand the anger, but…’?

What about a bit of humility?

Lynne – my comments are not potshots. That comment is as dismissive as your original post. I thought quite hard before putting my comment up, but felt it was justified. The problems a lot of us are dealing with are real, and the comments we make on them are substantial and thought-out. They’re not potshots.

While you’re there, then – could you let us know if the Lib Dems feel that public spending cuts are justified, and where you think they need to be made? Are the Lib Dems going to change focus and look at keeping services in house at councils and the NHS, etc, or are you going to follow the privitisation line, and continue to shore up the private sector that way?

That’s not a potshot – it’s a question from an angry and rather tense person who has spent much of the last 18 months on tenterhooks. I pay my taxes and my kids are in school and work. Have a grown up dialogue with me.

@ john b

perhaps your business’d be in better shape if you spent more time working on it and less time trolling LC. just sayin’ is all.

I think, John, that if you looked deep inside yourself, deep down into the very depths of your soul, you would find something there that would tell you that the above comment was unworthy of the fine example of the human being you could become.

If I’m wrong, you have my sympathy.

‘The year before last I set off to visit every shop in the constituency on foot. . .’

What a good idea!

‘Last year I set out to visit every older persons residential home. . .’

On behalf of the over-60s everywhere I do you hope you gave (and will give) ample warning of your descents.

‘This year I am aiming to spend one to two days walkabout. . .’

Fine by the rest of us – Ayres Rock is thataway.

“He knows that, if his business fails, that’s the genius of Capitalism.”

There, fixed.

Lisa – a very mean post. Not trying to be holier than though at all – but in current climate that is what people want to know – were you one of the ones…… So what should I do? Refuse to write articles. Cease my blog. Hide in a hole? I have to say – the blast of hatred from you makes me wonder just what I could do or should do?

And whilst you think I should only be in the House holding the government to account – consituents expect a lot more than that when they need help. But I think you have a point about the different things that are expected of an MP – but as it stands – both Parliamentary duties and constituency duties are part of the job.

The Parliamentary debates, committees, questions etc are obviously a very important part of the job – but quite frankly – with the way this government puts power into the unelected Lords and abuses power in terms of its lack of accountablity to Parliamentthrough abuse of process – it is barely accountable at all.

If there were to be any good come out of this whole dreadful mess – it would be genuine reform of the processes. But I think the other two main parties are just hoping for business as usual as soon as possible and that all the brave talk will turn out to be just that – talk.

Maybe if you don’t want to be seen as holier than thou then you shouldn’t go out of your way to use that old politician’s trick, the third-party endorsement, to try to describe yourself as a ‘saint’.

And where did I say you shouldn’t write articles, or cease your blog, or hide in a hole? Utterly typical of you MPs to put words in other peoples’ mouths.

I do sympathize, of course. It must be so awful for you to live on that meagre £70000 salary without having your massive holiday scrutinized by the evil media as well.

The public hate all politicians, and if you’re lucky, might on a good day grudgingly admit they are necessary. You should be thankful that they are prepared to extend even that small courtesy to you.

I’m not sure you deserve it. After all, as you seem to admit in your reply you can’t actually achieve anything in Westminster anyway because of the ‘processes’. Though of course, in typical politician fashion, you blame everyone else for the problem.

I don’t know who you are, and to be honest I don’t really care – some minor Liberal Democrat, according to Wikipedia. I know it must be hard for an MP, but maybe you should stop thinking about yourself for a change.

Lynne – while there are some MPs who are/were on that saint list, many people ignore it because MPs are paid a massive, minted package while the ordinary folk have to live how they can – and some in dire poverty.

Some MPs represent their constituents – many are just there for themselves. and that is why you all get tarred with the same brush, and I really don’t think that MPs are anywhere near aware of how angry the people of the UK are.

The problem is that once you about to be told how this anger whats to manifest itself, especially on blogs etc, those posts are taken down because they are deemed to be a threat to the person – and that really is how angry people are, and it isn’t a fantasy.

If the British were some other nations I do believe that some would advocate the storming of Parliament.

The best thing for MPs is to get their heads together – certainly not on party lines and bicker like children – and get to the real cure for the ills of the UK while the population hurt.

Be honest with the electorate, tell them the truth and for the love of Christ don’t say there is just going to be tax cuts.

Get people back to work, if that means MPs have to work 24 hours a day then so be it – you, as a parliament, got us all into this mess – you get us out of it – that is your only way back to redemption and respect of the electorate.

Earn ya crust as some old geezer told me.

An interesting article.

@ Kate Belgrave: You attack the article for being too light-hearted and “funny”. We seem to have gotten more than our fair share of dark, despondent articles about the current problems in the economy and the House of Commons. Something more positive, like the above, is no bad thing.

‘@ Kate Belgrave: You attack the article for being too light-hearted and “funny”. We seem to have gotten more than our fair share of dark, despondent articles about the current problems in the economy and the House of Commons. Something more positive, like the above, is no bad thing.’

There’s little different from the ‘jokey’ article above and Boris’s comment about being paid ‘chicken feed’ for outside work.

It’s the same arrogant dismissal of genuine concerns.

Perhaps the people who are reacting with anger and frustration because of their own circumstances should be careful about negative interpretations.

I agree with Sunny @4 on this. Important to get past this “All MPs are now on holiday” meme, because some of them ain’t, just as some of them didn’t take advantage of the expenses system. They aren’t all bad. I appreciate Lynne showing a human face here – and once again engaging with people – even though I might disagree with her policies.

lisa @ 10:

Your job isn’t to be a social worker. Your job is to legislate and hold the government to account. Delegate the casework to the councillors – you can do a small amount of it on weekends if you feel it is necessary to inform your debates in the House.

Just plain wrong.

Charlie @ 8:

The fewer days the Hof C sit, the more difficult it is to hold the government to account.
Many issues are not debated for long enough; this in part why there is so much poor legislation.

Of course, but it should be recognised that Lynne can’t do anything about the reams of legislation churned out by this ridiculous Government – the quantity is one reason why there is insufficient time to scrutinise it properly.

I’m slightly confused about the debate here too.

Kate – I’m not at all belittling your experience or the financial problems you’re facing. But the recession is a different issue to MPs expenses (where Lynne is blameless).

Furthermore, if we want to blame someone for the recession or the economic crisis – the Libdems had the best proposals around! Way better than what the Tories or Labour were proposing.

What’s the point of blaming a Libdem MP for the recession or people’s circumstances? Unless you believe that the entire system of parliament should be scrapped and we should stop paying MPs full stop. That would be a consistent position and I’d accept that (though I wouldn’t agree with it).

Again – Lynne wrote the article because I wanted to ask her to give an insight into what MPs do over recess. It’s not actually very light-hearted contrary to the supposed comparisons to ‘chicken-feed’.

People could get angry and say Lynne F isn’t doing enough work and complaining about having to walk around. But that is a separate complaint (I feel) to blaming her for not caring about what people are thinking/feeling on the recession.

[23] But the recession is a different issue to MPs expenses (where Lynne is blameless).

Are you sure about such a claim, Sunny?

I could accept it if certain parties were completely oblivious to the screw-fest that had been happening amongst the MPs for many years – but from the many reports that followed about how WIDESPREAD expenses abuses were I find it rather hard to believe.

In my line of work if somebody know about something that is wrong and does nothing about it then they are just as culpable as doing something wrong then trying to cover it up.

To my mind this was one of the things the public found hard to understand – why did MPs fail to self-regulate themselves when the abuse was so blatant?

I’m with the nurse on this one.

The recession and the MPs’ expenses scandal were most certainly linked in the minds of many of us – at just the time that people began losing their jobs and homes, the very people whose lax regulation of the financial industry and love of the bonus culture contributed at least in part to the mess were found to have been feathering their first, second, third and duck homes, etc, at our expenses, and claiming for mortgages that had long been paid, etc. Now, we’re told that we must kiss our public services goodbye because there isn’t enough money to pay for them. The recession and MPs’ expenses are inextricably linked in my mind.

I note that Ms Featherstone has not responded to my reasonable request for an adult dialogue, or acknowledged that as a taxpayer and reasonable member of society (haven’t been in jail yet, etc) I deserve one.

Poor show.

Um… I don’t think anyone is claiming any MPs were oblivious to the abuse. After all, it appears they were advised by various people to squeeze as much out of the system as they could. Indeed, wasn’t it an open secret, such that all the Westminster journalists knew full well what was going on, too?

I’m not sure what the minority of MPs who didn’t want to take advantage (and it must have been a minority, else it would have been stopped) were supposed to do.

And I think Lynne had rather more important matters than MPs expenses to think about these past couple of years.

[26] So if MPs were not only aware but encouraged to milk the cow then how can they be characterised as “blameless” as Sunny claims?

Personally I suspect few will buy into the MPs were too busy with other stuff to worry about expenses fiddling and certainly once they had been exposed their own party leaders were literally tripping over themselves to put the boot in.

[27] Why are you conflating (Lynne) with (all MPs)?

Kate @ 25:

I note that Ms Featherstone has not responded to my reasonable request for an adult dialogue, or acknowledged that as a taxpayer and reasonable member of society (haven’t been in jail yet, etc) I deserve one.

Perhaps Lynne is wondering what she personally did to deserve your vitriol – or perhaps she has better things to do.

All the way, nurse.

Anyone who thinks people have put the expenses scandal behind them is dreaming. Tell you what – I’ve attended a few rallies lately (have put reports on them on this site) where people have been fighting service cuts, etc. They spend most of their time yelling things like ‘if there’s enough money for duckhouses, there’s enough for us!’ and ‘I haven’t got a second home to move into!’ etc.

Any MP who is too busy to acknowledge that anger has a problem.

FYI – I did not know that expenses were being abused in the way that was revealed. What an MP claims is entirely between themselves and the Fees Office. I was as shocked as anyone with the flipping, the phantom mortgages and the duck moats etc. However, what really shocked me when I came to Parliament in 2005 was that you could even be allowed to use public money for a mortgage which then, if you made a tidy profit, you kept. Seems to me that no one should be able to make a profit out of public money. And yes – I voiced it loud and clear. And I voted when I had the opportunity to change the expenses regime – but the LibDems were alone in the lobbies on all three occasions that the opportunity arose since 2005. If the establishment wont vote for change – then the status quo remains. So I am glad that the whole of it has now been exposed. And there is a spectrum of wrong-doing from criminal to petty and the consequences should equally be from possibly prison to deselection to simply facing the electorate as soon as possible.

Kate – sorry to not have responded earlier to your question. There will have to be cuts somewhere – but I would say that health, education etc should not be cut. LibDems accept there will have to be cuts – and we are saying that these should be things like the Euro-fighter contract, not replacing Trident with like for like, scrapping ID cards, closing tax loopholes for the super-rich, stopping the higher rate pension relief and so on. We are still committed to doing away with tuition fees – but that would be paid for by reducing the 50% quota that the current Government insist go to university etc. We will be publishing our pre-manifesto shortly.

We have to give Lynne a bit of credit for writing a piece on an open comment blog – there are many, many more MPs who wouldn’t do that because the moderation keeps them free, to a certain degree, of overt criticism.

Yet – Lynne, like all MPs are public servants, they are supposed to work for the public, the voters, the electorate, and because of a consequence of circumstances the whole thing blew up in their faces.

MPs take a chunk of money for doing a public service job – they tell the population, repeatedly, that it is they who must be responsible and keep wage demands down – and then the vast majority of them fleece the system, albeit, as they say, within the rules.

How can MPs or journalists expect people to look at each circumstance separately?

If MPs were on , say, 20 grand a year I am sure people would have looked at it in a different light – though even that is arguable at this stage.

This anger is just from the working-class, middle-class – it is across the board. The people have paid their taxes and MPs of whichever party have screwed things up big style! And they should be held accountable for that.

Saying that Lynne, Nick Clegg, even Dave couldn’t do anything about it is bollox! They, MPs, could have walked out of Parlliament if they believed things were so bad, they could have put pressure on the government in a plethora of ways – they didn’t because they, most, were sniffing the pot of gold and digging in.

Again, I come back to offering credit to MPs who do engage with people in such ways as this – but if they are stupid enough to think that we will just sit back, offer tea and crumpets, and say bravo after what has happened in the house they should not be there in the first place.

[28] Sunny, claimed LF was “blameless”.

I pointed out that in certain fields knowing something is wrong but FAILING to take remedial measures is as bad as doing something wrong then trying to cover it up.

If LF knew did know about expense abuses but failed to challenge them (note, I said IF) then she is far from ‘blameless’ – this is quite different from the erroneous conflation defense that you are putting forward on her behalf.

ukliberty – Ms Featherstone must know what she did to deserve an angry response from me, because I explained it in my earlier comment. I thought her tone was flippant, and her piece dismissive of very real concerns. I thought it was inappropriate to joke about the expenses scandal. I asked her to address some of my concerns. She hasn’t.

You keep saying she has better things to do than talk to taxpayers like myself. Could you list some? If you open your mouth, a few of her ideas might fall out of it – I get the feeling you’re trying to channel her anyway.

Kate – I have given a brief response @31

[32] We have to give Lynne a bit of credit for writing a piece on an open comment blog – there are many, many more MPs who wouldn’t do that because the moderation keeps them free, to a certain degree, of overt criticism.

Indeed, Will, but I’m sure LF is wise enough to realise one or two of us can become rather excitable in these here parts ;o)

I have noted that Lynn was largely unaware of the abuses [31] and I see no reason not to accept her word – I do actually agree with ukliberty that we should not assume that all MPs are the same.

I do actually agree with ukliberty that we should not assume that all MPs are the same.

As do I, A&E. Yet this isn’t about one bad apple this is a bunch rotting the few. I commend those MPs who didn’t rob the public of public funds. But, the anger seethes because they, MPs, have just written it off and none of them will be held accountable – lest they pay a few quid back and repeat “I didn’t really do anything wrong because it was in within the rules but I’ll hand back this – now, back to business will you vote for me come the next election, dear!? There you go.”

From that people have tarred each and every MP with the same brush – but what do MPs expect? A hug?

“I don’t know who you are, and to be honest I don’t really care – some minor Liberal Democrat, according to Wikipedia. I know it must be hard for an MP, but maybe you should stop thinking about yourself for a change.”

Ouch. Why isn’t this be taken to piece for being soo rude, mental amd nasty?Oh well.

Lynn, why bother? These people will ALWAYS be the victim oh poor mee…ah…

They hate you. They will never like you or respect you because when you’re dealing with one dimensiobnal dogmatic people with low integrative complexity…YOU will ALWAYS be the enemy.

Claims of an adult conversation BUT then you’re insulted and belittled MP or not because you actually speak out??!

I’m unemployed, live in a council estate and actually have a healthy number of middle class and very poor mates and dear god, way to go for democracy-which I don’t think you actually want.

Thanks Sunny for be equal opp!

Lynne – appreciated.

Ranter – I do not hate Lynne. I have appreciated her work in the past, and have thought of her as one to watch for a while.

I disliked the tone of this post.

[27]

Personally I suspect few will buy into the MPs were too busy with other stuff to worry about expenses fiddling

I think Lynne has a reasonable excuse, such as the matter of the authorities in her constituency not preventing the death of a baby from months of abuse?

Will @ 37,

From that people have tarred each and every MP with the same brush – but what do MPs expect? A hug?

I think they expect to be tarred with the same brush but hope that they wouldn’t be.

It is quite clear that many MPs are unapologetic and don’t think their actions were wrong or unreasonable. But why have a go at the good MPs?

It does strike me that Lynne Featherstone has been one of the few MPs who has actually bothered to post on this site. It is a shame that people have been quite rude to her. Disagree on policy, by all means, but it does strike me the personalisation of politics is a bad thing. To be honest, her hours in “term time” sound rather excessive and I definitely would not want to work those myself.

You can hardly blame Ms Featherstone for gov’t or Tory policy, being as she’s a Lib-Dem.

Also, it does strike me that a lot of the people that criticise MPs would not be able to actually do the hard work of campaigning and of representing constituents [who have contradictory and inconsistent views]. It is all very well – as i do – to post things on a blog. It is another thing to try and reach a compromise between those voters who want tax cuts and are quite anti-the-state and those who want more spending. The public are inconsistent and MPs thus feel obliged to pander to that [those who don’t – like Michael Foot – soon end up political failures]. It is unworthy of people to slag off MPs when, in practice, the real issue is that people in this country demand good public services and aren;t prepared to pay the taxes to fund it. Someone has to make tough decisions and, in our political system, it is MPs and senior civil servants

So, AnonyMouse – does that mean we can expect some tough decisions on bankers’ bonuses sometime in the near future? Will some of these bankers’ employment contracts finally be tested in court? Will we see some hardnosed decisions on the de-selection of doubledipping MPs?

Can’t wait.

Kate grow up.

What is YOUR solution?? what have YOU done??

Are you so self involved that you have to be so mean and bitchy about someone you don’t know??

Are YOU the future of the left??

Kate, why did New Labour carry on with were the Tories left? Why is Alan Sugear a Sir? What about the Houdini brothers?

Please oh wise one who has travelled and is open minded to blacks, white and gays plus the poor and the wealthy…what must we do to fit into your equal, fair and democratic society?

Don’t get me wrong, Kate, I would like to see some bankers up before the courts on criminal charges for negligence/theft/fraud etc.

The point I was making is a simple one – the Telegraph and others have been directing public anger at MPs. They are merely one group of people among others who have been earning a lot during the boom years. And, compared with city traders/businessmen and so forth they actually haven’t made that much. I am sure the CEO of Barclays or Lloyds or some other bank makes as much in a week as Lynne Featherstone does in a year. Therefore you should be at least 52x ruder about him that you are about MPs.

Anger is being focussed on MPs and Labour ministers by the media and right-wing press to avoid the public turning their anger upon the City etc. And, MPs are some of the few people who are actually accountable to us through the ballot box. Denigrating them doesn’t really challenge the abuse of power in the business world since, the trouble is the business world has escaped the power of the ballot box. By damaging public trust in politics, the right-wing media have actually made it harder for politicians to get public backing for any measures that increase the power of the state over the capitalist market economy.

AMouse

Agree.

Some quite vitrioloic posts and, frankly, I’m surprised that anyone is surprised.

“I understand the anger at MPs ” I very much doubt that you do.

“But as one of the MPs who was declared a ’saint’ by the Telegraph, ’squeaky clean’ by my local papers” Ok. If you actually didn’t engage in the same fraudulent practices as a large number of your colleagues, I don’t think that should be a source of pride. It just means that you appear to have met the bare minimum of ethical standards, it’s not an achievement. You didn’t go out of your way to do something difficult, you just refrained from doing something wrong.

“FYI – I did not know that expenses were being abused in the way that was revealed.” I find that impossible to believe. You have been working for years with a group of people who got the taxpayer to fund second homes, floating duck houses, matching sets of crockery cutlery in separate residences because thay have “self – diagnosed OCD” (that one’s my personal favourite) etc and you had no idea any of it was going on? If you had exposed it all, rather than The Telegraph then I might have mustered some respect but, of course, it came as much as a shock to you as it did to the rest of us. Right.

“Not asking for approbation, synmpathy or anything” I stand corrected because, when I read your post, it certainly looked to me as though you were.

I could go on. And on and on and on, but I will close by mentioning the fact that MPs, collectively, are still allowed to determine their own pay (somewhere between £65,00 and £70,00 pa for most of you, I believe). Do you really expect any of us to take you seriously?

uklib –

It is quite clear that many MPs are unapologetic and don’t think their actions were wrong or unreasonable. But why have a go at the good MPs?

I think you answered your own question. But, as clarification, I have tried to give credit where credit is due and vice-versa.

Lynne, by doing her piece on a open comment blog has more balls than many in that corrupted house. I would suggest to those who don’t – grow some, engage with the public on places like this. Frig, even Harris has done a few come backs – and for a Tory [NuLab] like him that is pure bottle.

Yet if we could look at the positive, if Lynne, from taking these responses on-board, can show and convince other MPs of the way the UK public really feel and can, by that, get a change in policy then all well and good. Just saying leave that kid alone because they are a minor member of the gang isn’t going to achieve anything.

A member they are and are subject to the same or similar criticism. No one is saying public service is a piece of piss.

Ranters – couldn’t quite get a handle on your latest rant. Maybe do another one and put the point near the top?

AnonyMouse – I don’t really see how taking issue with what I felt was a flippant tone from an MP is denigrating that MP. If I made a personal comment about Lynne’s capabilities, then you’d have a point. I was irritated by her tone, and by a sort of ‘don’t forget I’m a saint!’ crawling. I settled down a bit on that one when I read her point about having to mention the expenses scandal one way or another.

I do think some of this anger at MPs is justified – and not just because the Telegraph has told me to think that. I do not generally listen to the Telegraph as a matter of course. We do elect MPs, they do administer our money and they do make the policy decisions that affect us all – here and around the world. We are right to criticise and comment. They are in power, and a democracy may hold that power to account.

My irritation with the current crop began well before the expenses scandal – the killing of half a million Iraqis certainly got on my nerves, and the erosion of public services – which began well before the current economic crises – was another point of concern. You seem to be suggesting that disillusion wasn’t well underway before the expenses scandal, and that the Telegraph has told us that scandal justifies anger, so we’re letting ourselves feel angry as a result.

Thanks, RantersParadise. It does strike me that too many people on the left fail to understand that denegration of the political process only contributes to (a) the triamph of the right and (b) apathy.

Left-wing goals, to my mind, require a strong role for the state. This requires us to have some degree of trust/faith etc in those [be they ministers or civil servants] in some authority in it and accept they have more legitimacy than businessmen, lawyers etc. The denigration of them only strengthens the right-wing argument that the state should not have power and that the market should instead.

It also strikes me that the problem facing MPs is that they have to face voters with contradictory views. None of the people on this blog who slag off MPs have explained how they would deal with – say – the criticisms voiced by the Daily Mail of left-wing policies or voters who go to their surgeries who want a problem sorted or people who rant about immigrants or people who call for the death penalty or people who call for lower taxes on ther small business. Why I respect the difficult pos’n MPs are in [even if I don;t agree with them] is that they at least have to face the electorate and convince people with inconsistent and contradictory and confused views. I don’t think armchair commentators do. For that reason, strange as it might sound, although I am not a Tory, I have marginally more respect for Tory MPs who [when they come to power, which sadly they will in 2010 as Labour have presided over a nasty recession] will actually make the tough decisions and face criticism for cutting services when compared with the right-wing journalists, commentators and Taxpayers Alliance think-tankers who call for cuts but are not prepared to face those whose services they are cutting at the ballot box.

Richard…

Like Kate I agree with this anger..

So WHAT are you doing about it?? Come on?

I jus don’t get why we b*tch but don’t DO more progressive stuff re MP’s…?

Yes, it’s depressing that Lynn is seeing as a ‘saint’ when she is serving the public. but what changes do you suggest?

@ 45

MPs have the power vested in them to do something about that pay – if they so choose to.

If those MPs allow it to carry on then no matter which spectrum of political media matters – they are still allowing it to carry on unabated.

And then we have to look at who it is that is saying to keep MPs out of private business – all’s fine – until private business then needs public funds to keep them afloat – another missed opportunity by MPs and government.

NuLab and their Conservative sisters are in the pocket, I would suspect, of banks and big business – hence why nothing was done with that opportunity.

Will, you say:

A member they are and are subject to the same or similar criticism. No one is saying public service is a piece of piss.

Fair enough point. But I do wonder whether you would be willing to stand for eleciton and face the electorate. Or are you happy sniping from the sidelines?

I do think that journos/bloggers/commentators do fall into this trap – of slagging of politicians but not being prepared to do the same work, campaigning, putting up with rude voters etc. That’s why – strange as it is to say – i actually dislike Boris slightly less now he actually has faced voters and got some of them to vote for him than when he was just a nauseating right-wing dandy on the Spectator.

Kate..

lol! You rant, I rant! No hard feelings eh….

But within that muddled-ness….

I’m interested in hearing your propositions…

Richard – you may find it impossible to believe – but what I have said is the case. But I do agree with you – that there is nothing special in having been honest and not abused expenses and that is simply what should be expected of any MP. But in the climate that surrounds the expenses scandal, I am ashamed of the behaviour of some MPs and do want to say to people that we are not all the same.

It always goes down like a lead balloon – so I really should learn to just keep my mouth shut and head below the parapet.

This is my last post tonight – but thanks to all who engaged.

AnonyMouse – how is taking issue with flagrant abuses of expenses during an economic crises denigrating the process?

There is a danger in your argument – you’re implying that strong criticism of politicians and a political system necessarily undermines it. That’s not true. I believe robust argument, and close scrutiny of the political system, strengthens that system.

The greatest threat to democracy at the moment in my view is the apathy – or, at least, the total disengagement – from politics by large numbers of people. It is possible to criticise without denigrating. I have thought this site has been quite successful thus far at robust argument and criticism of the political process – all the while trying to answer the ‘where do we go next?’ question.

Will, I think there is a difference between having a go at someone because they are a member of a particular group of people, of which a large proportion did wrong, than expressing to them that you are angry with that large proportion but the criticism isn’t particularly directed at them personally.

As for Richard and others making claims about what Lynne did or did not know, I think that’s a bit unfair – I don’t understand how she, or any other MP, would know the extent or detail of what other MPs were up to, unless those MPs were bragging about it or unsubtle in some other way. How would she know, for example, about the duck house, the moat cleaning, or the failed claim* for a four figure home entertainment system? Do MPs go around comparing their most piss-taking claims?

* This is my personal favourite because the MP claimed that the rejection was proof that the system worked – he didn’t seem to question why he himself made that claim in the first place, which says it all.

@21: “There’s little different from the ‘jokey’ article above and Boris’s comment about being paid ‘chicken feed’ for outside work. It’s the same arrogant dismissal of genuine concerns.”

I don’t read the above article as “arrogant” or “dismissive”, merely informative and light-hearted. If the MP wanted to be arrogant or dismissive, surely the simplest course of action would be to not bother writing this article in the first place? I understand that “All MPs must die” is a popular attitude right now, but I try to take every case on its merits.

Basically, Kate, I think it is completely disproprtionate how the £20k additional costs allowance abuse by MPs seems to have got far more headlines than the 100x greater sums made by city boys for the deals that caused this economic crisis.

I have to say, I do disagree with you about where the line between criticism and denigration is. I think, the trouble is that there has been too much denigration of politics which has contributed to apathy and to the rise of the BNP.

On a separate point, and one which I think the left needs to take more attention of, I think that the average voter does not recognise the need for more taxes to pay for better public services. As such, we need to win that argument. Otherwise, the denegration of politics will contribute to the ascendency of the market.

@ AMouse

“Fair enough point. But I do wonder whether you would be willing to stand for eleciton and face the electorate. Or are you happy sniping from the sidelines?”

Exactly! Thank you!

I’ve literally had the most left leaning friends, who read the Guardian and travel to SAmerica to help the poor, tell me to back off with political emails I sent them! I wasn’t even being personal!??

It really angers me because I’ve finally clued up to the recession etc, instead of being some idealistic lefty due to my obsession with socialism but not looking at ‘EVERYONE’ and seeing them ALL as the enemy…

They are not.

I mean surely, Socialist language is about understanding our people? Cognitively?? Or not?

Should we not understand/care the culture MP’s exist within? Should we not feel sorry for the rich kid etonian who’s Dad is a coke head and is looked after by nannies and was told before he could speak he’d be an MP??

‘On a separate point, and one which I think the left needs to take more attention of, I think that the average voter does not recognise the need for more taxes to pay for better public services. As such, we need to win that argument. Otherwise, the denegration of politics will contribute to the ascendency of the market.’

I think that’s the best point I’ve read for a while. That is exactly right. The only way to keep public services functioning in this climate is to raise taxes for those at the top end.

Great point, and beautifully put.

@ 53

But I do wonder whether you would be willing to stand for eleciton and face the electorate.

The answer to that is yes, I would. I may add to that; that I did campaign in the first ’97 election for New Labour, knocked on doors got spat at – the usual. But, as you may or may not see from my posts I have always been seen a “Bolshi” and as such I just cannot see any political party picking me as their candidate. How long I would last in the house calling the PM, or any other minister a twat, c*&t or f*cking liar for talking bollox – well, that would be another story.

rantersparadise – what “progressive stuff” did you have in mind?

AnonyMouse – “Left-wing goals, to my mind, require a strong role for the state.” depends how left wing, doesn’t it? “This requires us to have some degree of trust/faith etc in those [be they ministers or civil servants] in some authority.” I don’t have any respect for such people. They have conspired to wage a war in Iraq on the basis of lies, used the fear of terrorism to expand the power of the state at the expense of the rights of the individual, presided over an economic debacle then financially rewarded those responsible, defrauded the people they claim to represent and that’s just the recent stuff. How many MPs also receive “consultancy” fees from companies of various kinds? How many MPs and Senior Civil Servants leave their “vocation” in “Public Service” for Directorships?

Richard….

Lots of progressive stuff!

Why don’t we start with an end to ‘free market policies?’ and instead look into behavioural economics?

Why instead of empirically assuming my next door neighbours are victims because they are poor and actually ask them why??

Why not stop, presuming what people want without asking them?

So by progression, I suggest actually..

1) looking at people, more qualitative research..
2) More cuts in benefits and in exchange have better mentoring plus exchange communities
3) With the money left from the cuts, spend on re-designing communities with a say by the community

I could go on but you get the picture..

@ 59,

I think that the average voter does not recognise the need for more taxes to pay for better public services.

I think the general consensus is that people are OK about paying taxes provided they believe they get something out of it / it is worthwhile.

When we hear about waste at all levels of government, MPs expenses etc, it is no surprise there is anger and less willingness to pay tax.

To All…

If we’re to believe ‘Animal Farm’ by Orwell…

Shurely, New Labour exists as such ‘group’??

You believed and you thought it’d be all good and then, they did more or less the same…non?

So who’s to blame?

Or do we have to blame?

Oh, and spending money on evidence-free policies.

@67 yep – they’re certainly good at that.

Richard, I actually disagree with you on Iraq. I think that the end of the Ba’athist dicatorship in Iraq was good news for the Kurds and the Shi’ites – although it has also led to more terrorism as Sunni and Shi’ite groups fight for supremecy. I still think, on balance, its better than Sunni minority rule, though.

In terms of your criticisms, I would say that – the trouble with saying that MPs and senior officials should not be trusted to make big decisions – is that it then means that those decisions are made by the market. That, to my mind, is a worse situation.

Ukliberty, yes, I am sure some public spending is wasted. But MPs expenses (at £20k each for 600 of them, which is the max it could be) is £12m. This is a drop in the ocean of public spending of £500bn. The fact is, the public are inconsistent. They want more public spending but less taxes. It is because of this that politicians are scared to tell people the truth that there’s a trade-off. Labour tried to tell people the truth – that taxes will have to go up to improve public services – at 4 consecutive elections (1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992) and they lost. The problem is not with politicians but with the electorate. And, to be honest, that’s the way it should be – since it is better that the electorate get the government they deserve than that left-wing politicians impose their views on the public before the public is ready for it.

“Ukliberty, yes, I am sure some public spending is wasted. But MPs expenses (at £20k each for 600 of them, which is the max it could be) is £12m. This is a drop in the ocean of public spending of £500bn. The fact is, the public are inconsistent. They want more public spending but less taxes. It is because of this that politicians are scared to tell people the truth that there’s a trade-off. Labour tried to tell people the truth – that taxes will have to go up to improve public services – at 4 consecutive elections (1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992) and they lost. The problem is not with politicians but with the electorate. And, to be honest, that’s the way it should be – since it is better that the electorate get the government they deserve than that left-wing politicians impose their views on the public before the public is ready for it.”

Oh my god, can I marry you!!

“The problem is not with politicians but with the electorate. And, to be honest, that’s the way it should be – since it is better that the electorate get the government they deserve than that left-wing politicians impose their views on the public before the public is ready for it.””

I’ve jus had had the biggest argument with my closest friend, who we grew together and loved problem solving issues but when I questioned the ‘left’, which I was..she became the most dogmatic person…

I just asked questions..

Thanks for the comment, Rantersparadise! I think that we on the left [and, for all my cynicism and my sympathy for Blairism I still think I am on the left or, at the very least, not a Tory!] do need to recognise that the public do have a lot of inconsistent and/or conservative views. This should shape our view of what it is realistic to demand from our politicians/government.

I agree we need to question the cliches of some left-wing thought. For e.g., on Iraq, it does seem that the WMD stuff was a lie. At the same time, this lie did lead to the end of Sunni minority rule in Iraq and a better deal for the Kurds.

Anonymouse,

Ukliberty, yes, I am sure some public spending is wasted. But MPs expenses (at £20k each for 600 of them, which is the max it could be) is £12m. This is a drop in the ocean of public spending of £500bn.

Of course it is. I think the anger about MPs’ expenses has at least the following aspects:

1. the deception;

2. the war against openness and transparency (e.g. ignoring and refusing FOIA requests, battling it out in the courts);

3. the profligacy, particularly in recession;

4. that some MPs seem to feel entitled to be profligate with our money.

The fact is, the public are inconsistent. They want more public spending but less taxes.

That’s not what the polls seem to say.

Anonymouse – sorry, on reflection, you’re absolutely right. Iraq is in a much better state now than it was pre – invasion. What on earth was I thinking? There was simply no alternative but to invade, was there? But, wait a minute, aren’t there a load of dodgy regimes around the world which are similarly (or more) corrupt and despotic? Saudi Arabia, actually all of the gulf states, Iran, China, North Korea, Burma etc etc Maybe we should invade them too. It doesn’t seem fair to confine all the joy to those lucky Iraquis, does it?

Seriously, though, what exactly is it you disagree with in my statement on Iraq? I said that “they conspired to wage a war in Iraq on the basis of lies.” Do you think that the whole WMD thing was true? Are you expecting them to turn up at some point soon? I didn’t mention Kurds or Shi’ites. And I’m curious to know why you think the war and it’s follow up are “on balance” better than Sunni minority rule. Would it be the numerous casualities, military and civillian, during and subsequent to the invasion or the complete breakdown of pretty much all basic services (admittedly just minor stuff like electricity, water, schools, health services etc)?

I don’t quite follow the logic which leads you to conclude that criticising those in power leads to big decisions being made by the market. Is this an unexpected new liberal – left interpretation of V.I. Lenin’s doctrine of Democratic Centralism?

uklib, 72 –

You can add to that the waste that the public have seen, the ID card scheme that is going to cost billions – and for what? The criminalisation of people just for being citizens of the UK, especially the poor. The working-class, Labours once stronghold are turning to extreme parties because they feel so left out of the political process.

When a government spends so much money on nothing – or worse something that only half-arsed works and costs 3 times as much, people get pissed off. Poor people vote, working-class people vote – and there are a lot of them – ignoring them can be fatal to a party, and this time it looks like it is going to be fatal to NuLab – yet I have to ask if that is a bad thing.

NuLab are worse than the Tories – and I never, ever believed I would repeat that. This is why the LibDems are getting my vote – I hope that millions of others feel the same. NuLab needs to die a complete and utter death. Then we can look to getting a left-wing party to challenge and give people what they really want.

The one thing this discussion shows is the vast, vast need for reform. Politicians (in general) have managed to push our politics in one direction, and the media have solidified some kind of American system ideal in the public’s mind. It’s disheartening to see so many people a) attacking someone that (whether she was attempting to be or not) has a right to be “holier than thou” against the voices that are haphazardly condemning all MPs and b) completely misunderstanding the entire purpose of the job an MP is elected to do.

It’s an indictment of the political system we live in, where we trot out every four years or so and pretend that we’re voting for a prime minister, or a party in marginally better terms, and then complain about the MPs we get for such short sightedness, poor judgement, or (much more likely) the lack of options or power we have to make any change in that situation happen.

UKLiberty, as I mentioned in an earlier post – the electorate have shown – at 4 consecutive elections – 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 that they didn’t like Labour’s msg of paying more taxes for better public services. This is _why_ Labour moved to the right [in all the critiques of NewLabour people have launched, I have never seen a convincing explanation of why they think this happened]. People might claim in polls that they favour more spending but, when it comes to their vote in the secrecy of the ballot box, it seems not.

Richard, I wasn’t intending this to turn into a debate on Iraq, but it does strike me many of those on the left are too keen to condemn all of what happened. I remember reading a quote from, I think, Martin Amis’ Saturday that was once quoted by Harry’s Place. He wondered why the anti-war protestors seemed so jovial. Remember, not having a war would have left Iraq under the Ba’athist dictatorship. Either situation has negative consequences – be it war or leaving the Ba’athists in power. I am not sure why you think the status quo ante was necessarily the best situation. In terms of the actual WMD issue, it seems pretty clear there weren’t any. This doesn’t mean that the _consequences_ of the war were necessarily worse than the consequences of the peace. Iraq does now have an elected government and the Kurdish community does have autonomy. You seem to be ignoring this outcomes. In terms of the decline of basic services, yes, there has been a lot of that. But this was not something new. It had been happening since 1980. Since then, the Iran-Iraq war, sanctions and then the chaos post-invasion had been damaging Iraqi infrastructure. You can’t just blame the West for that. I think you should also be blaming the Ba’athist regime which, after all, invaded Iran and so turned the country into one of the most militarised in the Middle East and so neglected basic services.

The argument that the US, UK shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because there are other equally bad regimes seems a rather odd one. It’s a bit like saying that, because the police can’t catch all criminals, then they shouldn’t bother catching any. What I am concerned about is whether the _outcome_ in Iraq was good or bad. I have given reasons – in terms of greater civil rights and rights for national minorities – why there might have been positive effects. You can disagree, but then you also need to explain why leaving the status quo in place and leaving Shi’ites and Kurds under an repressive Sunni minority government was better for them.

On Richard’s last point, re why I think too much cynicism about politics plays into the hands of the right, its really simple. If people feel disengaged from politics, then they are hardly going to be in favour of a positive role for the state.

If you have contempt for the people elected to represent you then, for e.g., you are hardly going to support it when they raise taxes or when they nationalise industries. The logical corrollery of that is that, if you don’t trust the state to do something – be it healthcare, be it the postal service – then you won’t have the political will to resist the process of privatisation and moving things into the realm of the market. After all, people would say “If you don’t like those in political power, then why do you want the state to take a bigger role in the economy”. The current distrust and disengagement from politics plays straight into the hands of the anti-state, libertarian right.

Anonymouse

UKLiberty, as I mentioned in an earlier post – the electorate have shown – at 4 consecutive elections – 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 that they didn’t like Labour’s msg of paying more taxes for better public services

I’m not sure that’s true. I think it’s more fair to say that they trusted Labour less on the most important issues (including spending public money) than they trusted the Tories.

People might claim in polls that they favour more spending but, when it comes to their vote in the secrecy of the ballot box, it seems not.

You seem to have a dim view of the public. It seems to me rather that people do not want to see their hard-earned money wasted once the taxman has his hands on it. At various times (e.g. elections) they trust one group of people more on this than others.

On Richard’s last point, re why I think too much cynicism about politics plays into the hands of the right, its really simple. If people feel disengaged from politics, then they are hardly going to be in favour of a positive role for the state.

People do seem to believe the state has a role – what matters here is the efficiency of the state, what it does with the money we hand over to it, particularly in a time of recession when we are all having to tighten our belts. And we do not want to see politicians taking advantage and being dishonest. Some MPs really don’t seem to comprehend the level of, and justification for, public anger. It is they who are fuelling disengagement from mainstream politics, through dishonesty and profligacy.

@49 “Ranters – couldn’t quite get a handle on your latest rant. Maybe do another one and put the point near the top?”

Kate, this is very silly and unworthy of you – and you complain about people being dismissive?? When Rantersparadise said, @44:

“Kate, why did New Labour carry on with were the Tories left? Why is Alan Sugear a Sir? What about the Houdini brothers?”

…they were parodying you when you were repeatedly demanding (@passim) that Lynne instantly offer solutions to all now and future problems faced by the UK or you wouldn’t give her the time of day. You know that’s what you were doing. It was an unreasonable set of demands because you were angry and you wanted to have an unreasonable go at someone vaguely culpable, and here is someone vaguely culpable (in that they’re an MP) who stuck their head above the parapet – and who, by the look of their last post, probably won’t bother next time.

In doing this, it’s true that you’re only accurately reflecting public anger, but there is such a thing as self-awareness. Rantersparadise saw what you were doing and called you out, quite rightly, so have the grace to admit to it.

UK Liberty, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think people say “I don’t want my money wasted by the state” when what they really mean is “I don’t want to pay more taxes, full stop”. When people bring up “waste” they normally are using it as an excuse to justify their political view that they think state spending should be cut.

A lot of “waste” is merely something that people don’t like. For e.g. people think ID cards or Trident are a waste of money but, to those who are pro-nuke and those who are anti-immigration, than Trident and ID cards might seem a good idea. Once again, people showed in 1983 that they don’t like parties that they think are too “pacifist” on defence. And, re ID cards, it always strikes me that people on the left fail to notice that lots of ordinary apolitical voters are actually quite hardline on crime issues. And are quite anti-immigration. If they thnk that ID cards will somehow reduce crime or somehow make it harder for illegal immigrants then they will support them. A worrying number of people read the Sun and the Daily Mail and seem to share the views expressed in their editorial line. I think the left should spend more time trying to challenge those views rather than bemoaning Labour and the Lib-Dems and talking to ourselves.

And on taxes, here is the latest:

Motoring taxes have been handled so badly that drivers no longer trust what ministers say the charges pay for, an MPs’ report says.

AnonyMouse, I’m not sure why you’re ignoring the evidence that suggests otherwise.

Never mind.

Anonymouse – “The argument that the US, UK shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because there are other equally bad regimes seems a rather odd one.” I didn’t put forward that argument. I didn’t actually argue that the invasion shouldn’t have happened, although it must be obvious to anyone who read my posts that I think exactly that. I made two points (admittedly with a lot of wholly unnecessary sarcasm):
1. The reasons presented by the Government for supporting the invasion were, for the most part, lies. Tony Blair lied. The Cabinet lied. There were no “WMDs” there was no evidence of any “WMDs” it wasn’t an honest mistake, the evidence presented was deliberately doctored.
2. There are a large number of immoral/corrupt/call them what you like regimes around the world who haven’t been invaded, even a little bit. Why, then, did we participate in an invasion of Iraq? To support the US objectives of controlling oil supplies and protecting Bush’s political position.

Waffling on about positive outcomes for the Kurds is, frankly, c r a p. If you seriously believe the people of Iraq are grateful for having their country invaded and subsequently turned into a disaster area then you are seriously deluded. None of it had anything to do with democracy (how could it, we didn’t ask them to vote on whether they wanted us to bomb the shit out of them), defeating the evil Ba’athist regime (no worse than, say the Burmese regime and probably marginally less oppressive than our allies the Saudis) or the human rights of the Kurds, Shi’ites or anyone else.

Finally, the Police comparison. Remind me who appointed the US to the position of World Policeman? I’ve seen a film with a similar title, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously …..

ukliberty and Anonymous. People need to see that there money is well spent. Funding multi generational welfare dependency and increased numbers of white collar and middle class government administators is unlikely to obtain the support of hard working and honest members of the working /lower middle class employed by private business, especially if they are self employed /SMEs; during the time of a recession.
Enough people know of those who spend their life on welfare, rather than work to be wary of Labour’s spending plans.

@83
“Enough people know of those who spend their life on welfare, rather than work to be wary of Labour’s spending plans.”

Except they don’t “know”, they’ve been “informed” by a press that’s practically salivating at the thought of a Tory government sticking it to the poor again.

The examples of true welfare dependency in the UK are actually relatively few – certainly fewer than the right-wing tabloids imply, but it suits the wealthy to turn the working poor and the welfare-dependent against each other while they make off with enough billions to have kept the welfare system solvent for the next century.