And another thing…

“I agree unreservedly to have my behaviour as a Member of Parliament, both inside and outside this house, scrutinised independently for its adherence to the principle of absolute honesty.”

A lot of bloody nonsense. The honest will be honest anyway, the self-justifying, ‘it’s within the rules’ moral relativists will find their way around any oath, and crooks will say anything and not give a damn.

A lot of good oaths do in courts of law. Better to rely on laws of perjury. Oaths should be avoided like The Pledge.

“I will not use political correctness to break up society by creating a pecking order of ‘rights’. I will, instead, be guided by what is fair and right and not interfere in matters of conscience.”

I hate to agree with the Chaplain there, but I do. Seems a good place to start from.
Maybe something specific about a willingness to divulge anything of interest to the voter that should be divulged, for transparency’s sake, but other than that seems good to me.

Shouldn’t *need* to be one. A (wo)man’s honour should be enough. I consider myself to have a good sense of honour.
I try to do the “right” thing, and if I have made an error, either by purpose or accident, I will say so. I will not lie, cheat or steal to get ahead, for by doing so I’m not getting ahead, I’m getting behind.
I will bend where needed, but I would not act dishonourably, for such is wrong, and would reflect badly upon my honour. My honour is the only thing I intrinsically have, for no-one can take my word or honour away but I. My word is my bond.

Surely I’m not alone in this respect.

I will not deliberately mislead the public or fellow MPs nor utter any statement which knowingly contains untruths or unfounded allegations.

That should make most MPs’ blogs empty. most speeches 30 seconds long and PMQs as quiet as a monastery whose inhabitants are sworn to silence.

So any action taken by MPs is likely to be an improvemnet.

As for saying “sorry” , here I disagree. Actions not words. Since no MP has resigned but all the guilty continue to draw salaries and expenses.. NONE are really sorry.

Lets face it Tom, most voters think MPs are the lowest of the low. (Confirmed on Politics Home by polling..).

Which religion were you brought up in, Tom?

Do not do anything you would not be happy to publish on line.

If you need a contract with someone then they’re not worth doing businees with.

Comments like Madasafish’s always make me laugh.

So most voters think MPs are the lowest of the low do they?

Er. Who elects them?

Perhaps the first part of the BCP baptismal promises might be more apposite:

“Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?”

At this point the candidate for public office should signify their assent or return to their moat/third home/duck island/forest (delete as appropriate).

What should it say ? I’m with you on the prayer.

Every time I read this blog, as a Tory, I like what you say more and more: if Labour wants to stay in power you are doomed with Brown. Blairites: well, everyone loves you, you can’t go wrong.

Keep Brown though. Please.

In the Book of Common Prayer, the collect for the Queen asks that ‘under her we may be godly and quietly governed.

In the turbulent climate of the 17th Century , ‘quietly’ had really meaning. But todasy it would be a welcome change not to have fresh iniatives every morning on the Today programme from hyper-active politicians.

So some reference to ‘I will get on with the boring job in hand and not be distracted attention seeking initiatives’?

“I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.”

As much as I am against prayers, I happen to think that portion is very well written and thought out.

I wish more MP’s would realise that while they are there to represent us they are also looking out for our best interests and so be less reactionary to the whims of public opinion.

I may be in the minority with that opinion, but I’m still right. See ‘Sarah’s law’ for a perfect example – the one time I have thought that the House Of Lords justified their existence.

@Indy (assuming it gets published…)

It is said we get the leaders we deserve.

Although most of the current MPs do not deserve the title of leaders…

Indy

You may laugh but here is the poll…
(unlike politicians I try to be honest)

http://page.politicshome.com/uk/public_impression_of_parliament_slumps_to_new_recorded_low.html

Commentators have planks in their eyes.

In Defence of Nadine Dorries MP – or Let’s Take this Slowly

Politically I have little in common with Nadine Dorries MP, and I do think she sometimes misses logical connections, but I am also much less hostile to her than a lot of condescending commentators on the left (who seem shocked a mere *nurse* should be in parliament).

Nadine’s comments that seem true to me are:

1. At least until 2005 ACA (Additional Costs Allowance) was regarded as part of salary and its primary purpose was to increase MP’s compensation. Turning this into an “expenses” scandal is not an accurate account of the system’s history.

2. There continued to be that perception even after 2005, and new MPs such as her (and Malik come to that) asked how to interact with the system and were mislead by the Fees office. I don’t think that Fees office officials can be attacked for being deferential to MPs, and what we see here is the persistence and evolution of a never intended system.

3. (What no one will say but Nadine implies) Many MPs would never dream of voluntarily living in their constituency, so any home rented their constitutes an “additional” cost *whatever the other housing arrangements.

4. She is correct about the Daily Telegraph deliberately causing political damage by slowly dripping this story

Question Time last night, and The Guardian over the past two days have been calling for a “change everything now” agenda.

I think many things do need to change in this country, but the change needs to come through some consideration, not through newspaper rabble-rousing, and not through some ludicrous effort to emulate the United States.

http://englisheclectic.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-defence-of-nadine-dorries-mp-or-lets.html

Pledges are pretty useless, as no one thinks about them. I remember quoting the Brownie-Guide pledge every week for year about “doing my duty to God” and it was only as a teenager I thought about it long enough to realise I didn’t believe in God.

It’s not about pledges, but individuals believing in, and doing, the right thing, and that comes down to their own moral code. Everyone will bend the rules a bit, but most people know when to stop. Too much money distorts this though, because it brings in people who’re greedy rather than moral. Both banking and politics have had this problem over the past few years – they’re just too well paid, and being immoral pays best. That’s why the rest of us have ended up screwed.

As to the “desire to please” part, I suppose the point is that pleasing one person or group (eg bankers, Rupert Murdoch, George Bush) might be abanding or letting down someone weaker or with less voice. And if you’re “pleasing” people because they can scratch your back, or make you richer, you’re always going to be screwing somoene weaker or poorer.

Madasafish I’m not arguing with the premise that the House of Commons is bottom placed of the institutions people were asked to rank – just pointing out that since it is the voters who elected MPs in the first place they also bear some responsibility for the way the House of Commons has operated.

@ Paul

I completely disagree.

As for Nadine, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. (That’s Shakespeare by the way).

You’re a new MP and some beery-breathed, 15 stone yob from the Whip’s office corners you in your office and says, ‘Additional Costs Allowance, dahlin’ milk it’. Anyone who takes that as a green light to go on the fiddle is bonkers.

Cameron’s suggestion that the test should be, ‘How would it look on the front page of the Daily Mail?’, is weak in the extreme. The real question should have been, ‘Is this the right thing to do?’, not, ‘How stupid will I look if I’m found out?’.

Any MP that asked themselves the question, ‘Is this the right thing to do?’ would have nothing to fear from the Daily Telegraph, the ‘Star Chamber’, or anyone else. They wouldn’t have flipped, they wouldn’t have phantom mortgages, they wouldn’t have lied about which was their main residence, they wouldn’t have collected double because they’re married to another MP.

The honest MP has nothing to fear, nothing whatsoever.

There is no point in Nadine attacking the Telegraph for drip-feeding; any MP can put all their expenses on line whenever they want, rather than sitting there wetting themselves hoping the Telegraph goes bust before it gets round to them.

Pretending that the Barclay Brothers have an ‘agenda’ is just silly.

And comparing it to McCarthyism which was the state hounding innocent people is nothing but an insult to the victims of McCarthyism.

Paul: “1. At least until 2005 ACA (Additional Costs Allowance) was regarded as part of salary and its primary purpose was to increase MP’s compensation.”

Fair enough. Can we assume, in that case, that it was declared as such for tax purposes?

I don’t think that you could better the use of the prayer – it should remind MPs that they’re appealing to a higher being than themselves. That they have been exposed as acting immorally and with an arrogance and contempt for the people with whose money they’ve been so profligate suggests that the prayer is seldom heard or really reflected upon.