Did You Know? What do you think?
Should the public expect its Prime Minister salaries be reduced and limited to a fixed £100,000 salary plus benefits. It doesn’t seem fair that the public be used as a prop for the acceleration of an individual’s prosperity.
Other sources suggest that Mr Blair’s income since 2007 is as high as £60m. However, this is hotly disputed by Blair himself.
More importantly, should all Prime Ministers require election by the public rather than by their political party while that party is in office? It seems reasonable to suggest that because the office of Prime Minister is such a lucrative opportunity for any incumbent, the public deserve much more involvement in who occupies the post.
In the 20th century everyone knew that instances when a politician lied to the public were difficult to prove. Politicians did not want to be considered as a liar because their street cred would fall and ensure their career was prematurely cut short. Occasions when politicians were genuinely exposed as lying were few and far between and if it happened, they usually had the integrity of falling on their own sword.
So, what changed? Why in the 21st century are politicians so bent on lying to the public without any sign of remorse? Who provided them this mindset and what can it mean for the future?
Did Tony Blair lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) before joining the United States invade Iraq in 2003 start the rot? Are his peers today simply taking advantage of a situation generated by the political elite that allows them to behave how they wish. Abusing rules that do not attract legal remedies i.e. imprisonment. For example, stealing from the public purse via a claims form. The latest expose of the Energy Minister Claire Perry who claimed expenses of almost £10,000 for her adult children in further education. See: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/mps-claiming-expenses-for-dependent-adult-children
Two of the three children she claimed for are above the 18 years threshold. Five other ministers have also been identified as doing the same, two have agreed to return the money. Should anyone who completes an official form and blatantly misrepresents their situation be allowed to remain in public office?
When David Cameron was Prime Minister, he arguably epitomised how a shifty unbelievable political leader should appear. Within a very short time he was blatantly misleading his government’s intentions. Some of Cameron’s misleading claims are included elsewhere on this blog. What is extremely concerning is that he felt so free to mislead the public. A lack of accountability, and the fall-back of Parliamentary Privilege allows abuse of British law to which everyone else adheres and, significantly often to the detriment of the public. Why, in the 21st century are politicians still reliant on Parliamentary Privilege to protect them from being charged and imprisoned for wrongdoing? Why is lying to the public acceptable when on many occasions it attracts huge public spending? Surely, when politicians steer the public by misrepresenting the truth, in the same way as criminal fraudsters, the similarity is too close and the loss to the public too great to be ignored because of the damage huge financial losses have on the economy.
Politicians need to be trusted. If they cannot be trusted the public will lose faith in our democracy. This would prove to be a slippery slope with an undetermined future.
State Sponsored Inequality
Does our society agree with State-Sponsored Inequality? By that I mean should politicians and certain others be above the law of the land? I don’t think they should but am I alone?