Meaningless jargon alert (item 123,456 and counting)

Do you understand what this new post (at "Scotland's national parks" - geddit?) is going to achieve? Do even those behind this 'make work' scheme (using money we don't have at present) have any idea what they are going to achieve when someone involved can say, as David Green of the Cairngorms National Park Authority is reported to have said, that the post was about "bringing to life" outdoor learning?

And is this one post, or one at each of the three national parks mentioned?

Highland Councillors 'feed their faces' at council-tax payers expense

The Inverness Courier writes again about the long-standing practice of Highland Councillors of feeding themselves at our expense, seemingly considering that their festive meals on us are theirs by right. Possibly it wouldn't matter so much if Highland Council wasn't so heavily-indebted and planning for service-cuts in certain much less essential areas (sic) of expenditure such as old people's day centres, schools, sports centres and libraries. It's not only at Westminster and at Holyrood that our elected officials need to remember who their masters are, the Councillors at Glenurquhart Road in Inverness need to be reminded of this, too!

Dodgy expenses claims infect academia, too

We've been hearing a lot in recent months about the, ahem, 'padding' of expenses by certain MPs, now I come across what seems to be questionnable claims by an academic.

Professor Peter Gregson is vice-chancellor at Queen's University. For anyone who doesn't, by chance, know it this is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It seems the university is funding his membership of the Athenaeum, an exclusive private member club in London; it has bedroom accommodation bookable by members, just like an hotel, when rooms are not already booked.

Anyway, accepting for a moment that Professor Gregson requires to visit London on a reasonably frequent basis in connection with his university employment, perhaps the membership is justified, given that room costs in a private club tend to be more reasonable in cost, particularly when compared with hotels in similar parts of London's clubland. Some clubs [traditionally] have mediocre dining arrangements, but others maintain fine tables and from all that I have ever heard, the Athenaeum is certainly amongst the latter. Passing on, though.

This matter has come to light as a result of a 'freedom of information' inquiry by the Irish News newspaper. Professor Gregson has, according to the information revealed about his expenses, however, also made claims for 'at least two out of five recent visits to the capital city when he stayed in a[n] hotel'. And not just any old hotel either. No sirree! Professor Gregson likes to do things in style. For example on 23rd October last he claimed for a night at the 5-star Mayfair Hotel (part of the Radisson Hotels group). I certainly don't begrudge the man his 'perks' within reason, but it does look a little as if he is going slightly over the top - I think there are perfectly comfortable, but somewhat less epxensive, hotels in that part of London where he could stay should the Athenaeum not have a room available when he needs to be there for professional purposes - but on that point his expenses claim seem to be silent, making one wonder just what is the necessity for these regular visits; do they not have telephones or video-conference facilities at Queen's? Or are these visits, in reality, purely 'social' in that they permit him and other academics to swan around the swankier parts of the capital city at public expense, whilst enjoying fine dinners together? Just asking ...

MSP expenses - and 'right and proper claims'

So far in the expenses 'crisis'/'witch-hunt', MPs have been in the firing line, whereas MEPs (subject to an election next week, curiously enough) and MSPs have been curiously immune from criticism.

As far as our MSPs are concerned, it's not because they are any 'better' or even that they are less 'venal' than MPs. No, it's nothing like that at all. Really it's because their own grubby expense-claim habits were brought under some kind of control a few years back, after some unsavoury episodes became public and were subsequently subjected to the disinfectant qualities of having sunlight shone upon their expenses by having them published in detail in the Scottish Parliament website.

So far, so good, but as teachers sometimes said to certain fellow-pupils in my youth - "don't take your books to the top of the class, because you'll soon be heading back to the bottom soon enough"! For there remains room, ample room it seems, for 'grubby' claims by MSPs whenever they think it will pass unnoticed. Such is the case for 15 MSPs who thought it was appropriate to claim as expenses the cost of wreaths they purchased to lay on behalf of the Scottish Parliament at Remembrance Day. Apparently these claims were 'within the rules' so legally they have done nothing wrong.

Why do I find their claims noisome though, and why, now that their claims have become public knowledge, have the 15 so readily 'caved' and agreed to pay back the money? For the latter it's no doubt at least partly because in the current 'witch-hunt' climate over expenses at Westminster a spotlight is being shone upon many who have done nothing, or very little, wrong. It's not the money in these cases that bothers me - for I assume the amounts involved are pretty minor. No, it's the very idea that these quite well-paid folks should consider it worth their while to claim back such minor sums, rather than simply consider it a privilege to be able to lay a wreath on such a solemn occasion. The MSPs claiming seem to think that their every move can be chargeable back to the tax-payer. They seem to have the jobsworth mentality that the State (i.e. the tax-payer) should pay for everything they do when, to be brutally frank about it, it is they as partisan politicians who gain the public 'kudos' of appearing on a solemn occasion. It is significant that it is MSPs from political parties which tend to believe that the State should play a greater, rather than a lesser, role in public life who are implicated in this particular 'grubbiness'.

Now I would consider it quite normal that certain wreaths laid genuinely on behalf of the public, or corporate bodies (public or private) should be paid for out of public or corporate funds. For example the wreath which our Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen, lays on behalf of the whole nation should certainly come out of public funds. So should those laid by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leaders of other political parties represented in Parliament. So far as Scotland is concerned I would consider it perfectly normal that the wreaths laid by the First Minister and the Leaders of the other political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament should similarly come out of public funds. Similar considerations should also apply to wreaths laid by the heads of local government around the country - Mayors, Provosts, Conveners and the like. But I see no reason why individual MPs, MSPs, Councillors and the like should consider it their right to claim back for such expenses - if they don't want to pay for their wreaths, and don't consider it a privilege and an honour enough to be permitted to lay them and again to be brutally frank that the 'political kudos' they gain as individuals is reward enough, then they really shouldn't bother laying them in the first place.

'Halls of Residence' one of possibilities in MPs expenses review

(Please see UPDATE at end)

This amused me greatly when I read it! About six months ago I wrote a post, picking up on a Green Party suggestion for a similar arrangement to be considered from MSPs in Edinburgh - and was mocked with all sorts of spurious arguments against it (see the comments to that post) by a completely disinterested party [not], i.e. someone who will be a candidate at the next Scottish Parliament elections (note: I was reminded - see comments - that he wil in fact be a candidate at the next Westminster elections).

Although the linked article considers that the possibility of the country acquiring a suitably large premises to accommoddate all the MPs who need to travel a significant time/distance to get to Westminster from their constituencies is somewhat remote, if only because of the sheer cost of land/buildings in London, I am pleased that it has not been ruled out completely; perhaps those on the committee felt that, in the current climate of critisism of parliamentary expenses, they just had to look at every option, even those which might perhaps be less attractive to some of our [aspiring] representatives.

UPDATE: (Thursday 3APR08 08.45 RST+1) Guido has taken up the call for Halls of Residence for MPs; some of the comments to that post are quite pertinent.