Just watched Norman Baker interviewed on SKY.
Normally I have much respect for his example and pronouncements, especially in the green arena, but he really was floundering here.
And I was intrigued by his bike purchase... 'to save us money... and the planet'.
I'll grant the latter but I was wondering if, on top of the purchase, there is any mileage on top as can be afforded certain council employees... at 20p per mile.
Also, has anyone actually checked if he uses the thing we have paid for, for this purpose?
I just got (oh, with my own money) a great second hand folding bike from a renovation charity for £100, but it will rarely be used for 'work'. Pottering around town, yes. Holiday, yes. So... is this vehicle his primary commuting resource?
And on a purely political note (more appropriate, usually, for El Burro Hotay), it is worth noting that it is noted that of all these folk who control our finances and the rules to which we are held, when confronted by claims and trotting out a raft of excuses, NOT ONE has mistakenly, or accidentally UNDER-claimed.
Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts
Saturday, June 20, 2009
In the black
Cuts are very much in the news at the moment.
In many forms. From government spending, to evidence of spending by those who seek to govern.
I am toddling off now to get my first hard copy of The Daily Telegraph in an age, as I think the redacted supplement might be worthy of keeping.
However, it's all out there in various places on line, too.
But having looked at these I do rather fear for the printers of Britain, as I suspect black ink will be getting lathered on page upon page.
Now I am just wondering why 'they', in anticipation of near inevitable printouts, cannot have just blotted out the redacted elements with a white box, as I can do with one click and drag on MS Word.
What we have seems bad for pockets and planet. Not to mention what is going on in Parliament.
No change there then.
In many forms. From government spending, to evidence of spending by those who seek to govern.
I am toddling off now to get my first hard copy of The Daily Telegraph in an age, as I think the redacted supplement might be worthy of keeping.
However, it's all out there in various places on line, too.
But having looked at these I do rather fear for the printers of Britain, as I suspect black ink will be getting lathered on page upon page.
Now I am just wondering why 'they', in anticipation of near inevitable printouts, cannot have just blotted out the redacted elements with a white box, as I can do with one click and drag on MS Word.
What we have seems bad for pockets and planet. Not to mention what is going on in Parliament.
No change there then.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
PETITION - ESTABLISHING ESTABLISHMENT STANDS
These days it seems a lot gets done in our names by our 'representatives' and other 'leaders'.
Fair enough. Often we are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, which is why we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to get up to stuff in our name. Approving and disapproving. Asking and taking to task.
However, often there seem these days to be powerful forces at work that can skew what happens in our name away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to the rather unattractive, if to some degree understandable notion that what might be right, specially for later on (when out of office and either in comfortable index-linked retirement or 6' under) might not attract votes, as such, now.
Worse still, I am sensing some voting on key issues is not so much on the issue themselves, to to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
Again, by the time all this happens those who instituted/scuppered the deal might well be long gone.
It might exist already, but I propose a simple chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads and even business leaders, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legalisation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
At the very least I want these fine chaps and chapesses to be confronted with the consequences of their actions and, even if they are long gone, in an archived way their descendants can appreciate their legacies (good... and bad).
Perhaps it could be called 'The Parapet Post'? And for some, maybe it become, with cause, a pillory?
ADDENDUM - Bit of fun: as there seemed to be nothing like it, I have submitted a petition:
'The Parapet Post' – a simple online, constantly updated, archived chart/record of our leaders’ voting records on topics, with possible and actual outcomes listed.
We are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, so we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to act in our name. Approving/disapproving. Asking/taking to task.
However, these days powerful forces can skew away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to vote-driven self interest.
Voting on key issues can not be so much on the issues themselves, but to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
I request a simple online chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legislation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
BBC - Poll finds AMs back more powers
Guardian - NEW - How many MPs are climate change sceptics? - LED burning crosses at the ready?
Addendum - 17/07/08 - Oh, wo..e is me. And boy, was it quick:
I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.
Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel
Further information: Sites containing this requested
information already exist e.g. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TheParapetPost/BCfF51CgkEwAEDq1PTALogg
You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your
petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.
Hmn. While the cited site is very good, it really doesn't do what I was asking, at least in the easy to assess, tabular, evolving manner I was suggesting.
Still, I still have Pols Porkies or the Wall of sLime to develop.
Fair enough. Often we are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, which is why we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to get up to stuff in our name. Approving and disapproving. Asking and taking to task.
However, often there seem these days to be powerful forces at work that can skew what happens in our name away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to the rather unattractive, if to some degree understandable notion that what might be right, specially for later on (when out of office and either in comfortable index-linked retirement or 6' under) might not attract votes, as such, now.
Worse still, I am sensing some voting on key issues is not so much on the issue themselves, to to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
Again, by the time all this happens those who instituted/scuppered the deal might well be long gone.
It might exist already, but I propose a simple chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads and even business leaders, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legalisation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
At the very least I want these fine chaps and chapesses to be confronted with the consequences of their actions and, even if they are long gone, in an archived way their descendants can appreciate their legacies (good... and bad).
Perhaps it could be called 'The Parapet Post'? And for some, maybe it become, with cause, a pillory?
ADDENDUM - Bit of fun: as there seemed to be nothing like it, I have submitted a petition:
'The Parapet Post' – a simple online, constantly updated, archived chart/record of our leaders’ voting records on topics, with possible and actual outcomes listed.
We are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, so we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to act in our name. Approving/disapproving. Asking/taking to task.
However, these days powerful forces can skew away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to vote-driven self interest.
Voting on key issues can not be so much on the issues themselves, but to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
I request a simple online chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legislation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
BBC - Poll finds AMs back more powers
Guardian - NEW - How many MPs are climate change sceptics? - LED burning crosses at the ready?
Addendum - 17/07/08 - Oh, wo..e is me. And boy, was it quick:
I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.
Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel
Further information: Sites containing this requested
information already exist e.g. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TheParapetPost/BCfF51CgkEwAEDq1PTALogg
You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your
petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.
Hmn. While the cited site is very good, it really doesn't do what I was asking, at least in the easy to assess, tabular, evolving manner I was suggesting.
Still, I still have Pols Porkies or the Wall of sLime to develop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)