What's Eating Me Today?

More news on the trough-feeders formerly known as MPs, who today are demanding that their annual expense allowance of £23k is given as a no-questions asked, no receipts supplied lump sum. In the same stipulation, they are also asking that their miserable £61,000 annual salary is reviewed (i.e. increased) to bring them in line with private sector remuneration.

However, that flies in the face of the first statement, as those of us who do real work have to justify every penny we spend on expenses and we have reasonable limits that do not extend to paying for plasma TVs or buying a 2nd home, which can later be sold for personal profit.

If MPs really want to be rewarded for a job well done, they should sign up to contracts and annual reviews that compensate for results. Of course this will never happen, as MPs are rarely in a position for long enough to effect change, and those that do bring about a shift in policy are usually kicked into a different department before the effects of their changes are felt. But the primary reason for not wanting to change their terms and conditions is that most politicians and ministers fail so spectacularly to deliver on their promises that they would end up owing us money.

Time for the honourable members to shut up about their pay and allowances, since the amounts they currently receive far exceed the national average wage and being able to buy a new sofa or flat on expenses is a good enough perk for anybody.
 

Why do some people feel compelled to wear sunglasses when indoors? If I had a pound for every person I see each day wearing shades in a building or on a plane, I would make about a fiver.
 

But there are some exceptions...


 
Available to buy from the world's favourite online auction site.
 

The Red Rag is really piling on the pressure on our downtrodden binmen with the news today that residents are expected to empty their own bins if they are too heavy. Maybe if the rubbish was collected more often, the bins wouldn’t get so heavy? Whoops, that must have been a bit of logic being brought to bear on government policy, and we know that logic and politics don’t mix.

Since we need to divide our rubbish into separate refuse, recycling or garden bins, and we are now expected to help the delicate flowers, previously known as binmen, to tip the stuff into their truck, can we expect a council tax rebate for doing most of the job ourselves? Answers on a recycled postcard, please.
 

There was a piece on the BBC News this morning from the Eden Project (mind you don’t trip over those disgruntled fashion models), showcasing a new breed of “sexy”, “green” cars.

They were sexy because they don’t look like the stereotypical eco-car, most of which share their design with those light blue invalid carriages. Indeed, the first example shown appeared to be an orange version of the infamous blue meanie. The next model was a Saab, which looked so similar to the new Mini that I could hear the sound of litigious German lawyers sharpening their quills. The gushing reporter was bowled over by the Swede’s exterior and interior looks, but being a typical BBC journalist, doesn’t realise that prototype and production vehicles rarely look the same. What looks stunning and cool in the salon at Geneva , actually costs several million euros to design and build, which is not exactly commercially viable at Dagenham Motors. So the sexy prototype ends up being a dumpy production car.

And the cars at Eden were green because they ran on bio-fuels or electricity, neither of which are particularly green to produce. But why let the facts get in the way of a jolly to Cornwall ?

Also on the subject of verdant automobiles, The Times published an article this week questioning the fuel consumption and emissions claims of several popular eco-friendly vehicles. The Honda Civic hybrid is alleged to emit 109 grams of CO2 per kilometre. According to the test, it is more like 171 grams. This means that the Honda is unfairly benefiting from a lower tax band. Similarly, a Lexus hybrid uses 33% more fuel than the manufacturers claim, meaning that the car produces more carbons and is no more fuel efficient than a diesel car. It also benefits from lower taxes, both in annual duty and congestion charging, because it is supposedly good for the planet.

Here’s my manifesto: forget green cars for now. Compared to a normal petrol or diesel vehicle, they cost more to buy, cost just as much to run, do as much, if not more harm to the planet and are as much fun as watching Eastenders. Buy a normal car, but switch off unused lights around the home, drop the central heating by a degree or two, and don’t leave the TV on standby. That is carbon offsetting I can believe in and is far more realistic than letting the ecomentalists ruin our lives through boring motors and higher taxes that are used to prop up the government’s pension scheme, rather than planting trees.
 

Now that I've worked out how to embed pictures into a blog, there will be no stopping me.

M'lud, I would like to call my first offendant:


Not content with earning a million quid for the muck rakings recently published in her "autobiography" - why anyone would want to read her thoughts is beyond me - but she still prances around like a court dandy pretending to be involved in the legal world.
 

Fat Sue – but that’s not my name.
 
 

A report in the Daily Mail (so it must be true) that the Anti-fraud Squad are to investigate the alleged rigging of telephone polls on ITV programmes such as GM:TV and the Comedy Awards.

In my opinion, anyone dumb enough to call a premium rate number to vote for any of these numbskulls gets exactly what they deserve. If ITV rip them off even more for being such idiots as to call after voting has closed, then I could care even less.

What beggars belief is that all of this is being disclosed to a House of Commons committee, who are investigating whether there is a question of corporate compliance to be answered. And this from a group of individuals who think it is normal, fair and right for their homes to be bought and furnished by the taxpayer.
 

There was a lot of hand-wringing in the press and media last week about the “excessive” profits that were reported by BP and Shell (£3.3bn and £3.9bn, respectively). There were calls for a cut in the price of petrol and diesel, as well as a windfall tax to be imposed on the two companies.

Of the £1.10 for a litre of unleaded, or £1.20 for diesel, the oil company gets between 33p and 35p, whilst the Chancellor gets 66p to 70p. The oil company gets 30% of the cost of fuel for exploring, discovering, drilling, refining and shipping a product that is very much in demand. The government gets 65%, more than twice the amount, for doing what precisely? Underwriting failing banks; investing in the NHS and education for little return; fighting unpopular wars; subsidising 4m unemployed; paying MPs to buy new tellies; not building new roads or by-passes.

I know who I would rather give the money to.