You have probably all seen the clip of Stephen Fry being interviewed on MPs expenses by now. In it he brought some much needed and previously absent common sense to the whole furore. Well today the controversial character of Piers Morgan has waded in saying that Mr. Fry’s views are “extremely stupid” and “naive”. Morgan continues to patronise:

So let me spell out the difference for him in simple, easy-to-understand language: Taxpayers do not pay journalists’ expenses.  Very rich people like Rupert Murdoch … do.
…
By dismissing this whole repulsive business as ‘not important’, and trying to claim some sort of moral equivalence between expenses met publicly by the taxpayer and those met privately by media tycoons, Fry is guilty of pathetically pompous grandstanding, and a staggering lack of understanding of both the issue and the very genuine anger felt by the cheated, thieved public. Shame on you, Stephen. I thought you were smarter than that.

Now this reply immediately strikes me as coming from someone who has not taken in the underlying points of the Fry interview. Comparisons were indeed made between MPs’ and Journalists’ and Morgan is right that the two are different, however that completely misses the point that was made, i.e. one of human flaw right across the spectrum.
I agree with Fry that “everyone has fiddled things”, one way or another. Surely most people have done things such as taking extra stationary from the office, kept quiet when undercharged or submitted claims that were liberal with the truth? Of course they may not be on the same scale, but the point is that we all all humanly flawed; we are all naturally programmed to take advantage of situations to the limit, and journalists are some of the worst for that. MPs are just as human, sympathetic, corrupt, morally correct or incorrect as the rest of us.

Another, major, point that has to be considered when deciding just how serious MPs have pushed the rules to the limit is that of their overall pay, and why this system exists in the first place. It is clear, to anyone that has followed the history of this or politics in general, that this additional expenses system was used effectively as a top-up to MPs’ salaries. They have done this because they are reluctant to increase their standard salaries for fear of being seen to profit, when in actual fact they do need a considerable wage to do their jobs and to attract the right people to the job. Ironically in the end it has completely ruined the reputation of MPs that they were trying to preserve.

I believe Mr. Fry was right in his passionate stance that “this is not important… it is not what we are fighting for.” When you step back and look at this, and when you look at others, ‘Sachsgate’; the Russell Brand phone calls etc., yes they are totally undesirable but really are not  important relative to the wars we are engaged in, and to the genocide in Africa; to matters of life and death. Whilst there was uproar at expenses this week, four more soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

Whilst we should be very concerned and annoyed that some of our elected officials are abusing an amount of taxpayers’ money, we must not let it take precedent over the everything else, and thus be ‘disaffected’ by politics. We should vote. Our votes can enact change in, and the direction of, the great country in which we live. Let’s hold our MPs’ to account, but let us not lose the understanding that human flaws are ever-present, and that what is really important is the big decisions our MPs make that change lives.

Morgan, like so many others, appears to have been blinded by what he wants to hear, rather than what is the most important in grand reality. Poor Stephen Fry has been branded “the MPs’ friend'” when all he was doing was widening the debate into a sensible perspective. Shame on you Piers. I thought you were smarter than that. Well actually, I didn’t!

WATCH: Stephen Fry’s interview on expenses.
READ: Piers Morgan's Blog

• PS. It seems to me that the simple and best solution to this problem is to scrap the allowances and dramatically increase MPs salaries from the current £60K to around £80K. Yes, that is a lot of money, and many people would be horrified by it, but it is the right thing to do. The people who run the country; burdened with all the pressure and responsibility that comes with that task, deserve a high salary which is proportionate to the job. It is the current insufficient salary which has caused this whole problem.

This is an issue which has struck me in the last few years, and it is ever present in all walks of life. I’m talking about too much say from too many people in too many areas.

What do I mean by that? Well the continued ‘politically correct’ submission to the lowest common denominator in decision making; be it planning, politics or public service. Why can we not trust the experts in their respective fields? The submission comes as a direct result of a flood of public opinion which is often not aware of even half the facts in any case.

One example is that of the UK’s planning process. Everyone is allowed a say, rightfully, but this process can last months, sometimes years, and then is given arguable too much weight in the final decision. Terminal 5 was one victim of this, and many of the proposed towers in London have been too. Is it right, as the current system dictates, that everyone is allowed a legal opinion on the aesthetics of a structure, or complain about more people moving into an area? These views form part of the planning application and are sometimes fundamental in whether a building is actually built – and of course it is only those who bare a strong opposing view that actually make the time to submit a comment, resulting in an apparent swathe of negativity. To increase our chances bold and beautiful things to be proud of, instead of being negative in the form of complaints and intervention we should be empowering the people that show an inclination for creating beauty in the first place.

Living or working somewhere does not give us the right to dictate how others may enjoy that same environ. We buy a stake in the land of our homes and the rest is public domain. The current, if misguided, capitalist view is that somehow when you purchase a place to live, you are buying a piece of an area, including its appearance and feel, even though this is constantly changing and generated by the sweat and tears of past generations. Surely we do not suddenly have a right to halt this process and 'purchase' something that is the result not of mass production but of the evolution of civilization?

This problem is not just manifest in planning but also in organisations such as the BBC where everyone seems to want to add their opinion to every problem (presenters pay, Sachsgate, Golliwogs and all sorts of others), instead of leaving those who have studied and gained experience over many years in this specific field to sort out any problems and deal with them appropriately. I understand that it is a publicly owned body, but that does not mean an everyday man in the street knows best any more than they would be best qualified to be the Prime Minister. Besides by doing this we weaken the BBC to the  point at which is it scared to broadcast anything remotely daring or risky. That can only be a bad thing as far as I am concerned.

Another more recent example is the situation of the Bankers. Yes they messed up, but it is easy to forget the tremendous wealth and prosperity they brought everyone over a period of 30 years. Now everyone thinks they know what to do with them – punish them all, anything from huge fines to execution, with new regulations left, right and centre. Perhaps though, we should stand back, bring the experts around the table, identify the problems calmly, rectify; move on and rebuild the system to its very strongest potential.

I believe our idea of a democratic system needs streamlining. What are our key objectives? In planning, one that would be most important is the long-term investment in beauty. Even though this can mean many things, it doesn’t seem to appear in many people’s arguments, even as a theory. Shouldn’t this actually be a central point in any planning argument? After all that’s what we need a planning department for; we could all put up a jumble of shacks that we could live perfectly well in, if considerably depressed..

Of course this problem only comes about because everything thinks that their view is the correct one. Winston Churchill’s famous quotation sums that one up:

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

Everyone has their own career path and expertise – perhaps we should concentrate a little more on the area in which we have talent, rather than lambasting other fields.

You do have to worry occasionally about Gordon.

The possibilities are endless!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

The above links to a petition to prompt the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to resign, via his own website. Quite ironic really but because it’s so simple I think this may actually take off. The amount of signatures is going up by several hundred people per hour and if this rate continues for just a week it will be the largest petition on the site – that could cause some political waves.

I personally believe that it is important to have an election and to introduce a new government, better off a Tory one at the moment, but even a Labour one under new leadership would be able to effectively wipe the slate clean and thus exposing all problems and allowing a solution to be found that will not be tangled up political manoeuvring relating to past decisions and promises.

Thus whatever your political allegiance this could be an important thing to support, if you want what’s best for the country’s economic future.

Hmm, I have to say that I am not impressed with the protestors at today’s G20 demonstrations in the City.

“Money is for losers”, “Property is theft”, people hailing the death of Canary Wharf and the rise of Power to the People. Are these people deluded? I understand that many of the people protesting aren’t anarchists etc but there are a lot who are and it’s a real shame that they are so confused with reality. Although the banking system has collapsed now for many, many years it has helped lift people out of poverty, has made us all wealthier, has regained Britain’s power status and brought much talent and investment to the UK. OK it’s had a problem, but we can solve it. Their alternative I doubt they would even want if it happened in reality.

Plus what is it with stupid protestors violently smashing windows at the Royal Bank of Scotland?! That back is majority owned by the tax payer now and thus effectively they will have to pay for their own damage through higher taxes!

I wouldn’t say this is Financial Fool’s Day – more like Protesting Fool’s Day.

Yes, you heard it right, take a look for yourself…

The laughter is delightfully like a sitcom.