Sunday, May 17, 2009
Dream time
Back in dream time. Woke up this morning with a religion flavoured dream - Christian and Muslim but not Jewish - which seemed to involve doing something a bit dodgy on the 14th of each month. But that is about all I can remember. Odd how such fragments can be so firmly lodged in a vacuum. Yesterday, memory in rather better shape. Woke up in the middle of a building project in Bangkok. It seemed that I was very keen and in a great hurry to build a new office block there. It was to be a single storey affair built out of a number of identical garden sheds, arranged in a flat C. That is to say most of them lined up like a set of beach huts, but with a short projecting wing at each end. Not sure how one does that with beach huts without major modification. There was a man from the council trying to be helpful who had three problems with what I was trying to do. Firstly, I wanted to start erecting my sheds more or less immediately and I only had outline planning permission. There was always the possibility that the council would insist on demolition after the event. Secondly, the proposed office block was very old style. Very cellular with one person per garden shed with very little communication between the sheds, short of walking out into the front court yard. Third, I think was about the services to be supplied - or not supplied - to the sheds.
Now several people with whom I am acquainted, either directly or indirectly, are, or were recently, in Bangkok. So that might account for that bit. But no idea of where the rest of it comes from.
Then to vary the diet got to pondering about the expenses scandal, which like many British media events has become something of a circus. Blown out of proportion to the matter in hand. But as my contribution to the circus, I advance some observations.
Observation 1, in the US they do things on a rather more generous scale. And it is quite easy to find out about it. See for example http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/RL30064.pdf. From which I learn that while a congressman has a big salary and a big expenses pot, when compared with what we do, personal expenses are excluded. Which presumably means that the US press is not adorned with tales of the confectionery and sanitary purchases of their representives.
Observation 2, MPs appear to have been advised to treat to treat maximum expenses as part of salary. Some MPs appear to have done just that and claimed up to the maximum every year. A rather tacky way of bumping up their salaries, particularly when the expenses rules have been worked over to deliver the maximum. By, for example, the device of the wobbling second home designation.
Observation 3, MPs are not paid that much. Their basic salary is said to be just three times the national average. Now while it is true that some of them would have trouble earning their salary as an MP in any other calling, it is also true that some of them could earn considerably more. Timing might be bad, but I would be in favour of paying them more in salary and less in personal expenses.
Observation 4, any receipts based system for claiming living expenses is going to look tacky when exposed to the full light of day. This MP bought a Mars bar, that one bought a luxury pair of shoes. That one bought some fancy underwear. I wonder if any of them claim for the extra cigarettes smoked as a result of the extra stress of having to live in their second, rather than their first, home?
Observation 5, some MPs have made fraudulent claims. But, to my mind, the penalty should bear in mind observation 2. Maybe deselection would suffice.
Observation 6, the MPs, in whose name skip loads of regulations to better regulate our lives are passed into law every week, ought to show more respect for the regulations governing their own lives. Since they have chosen to live in public off the public, they have to set an example.
Yesterday back to Epsom Common, to a part not visited by the ecobizzies, that is to say along the top of Newton Wood, towards the Star. Most impressed, as always, by the pollarded oaks, the relics of which have assumed the most bizarre shapes. Very easy to project all sorts of dubious animals onto them. Hard to see how some of the wrecked trunks can carry the burden of tree above. Towards the end of the stroll, we came across a clump of entire trees, the canopy of which was alive with chattering starlings. Must have been hundreds of them. Maybe even thousands... Something I have not seen for ages.
And to close, pleased to report the return of fish porriage. That is to say, soak five ounces of pearl barley in a pint or so of water. That is to say, by bringing it to the boil, turning off the heat and leaving for 10 hours. Add a modest amount of sliced celery, more for the colour it brings to the party than anything else. Bring back to the boil, add a chunk of fresh cod and a chunk of smoked haddock, skin up. After a few minutes remove the two peices of skin and stir the fish into the barley. Simmer for a bit. Drain off any excess fluid there may be and serve. One feels pleasantly full without feeling stuffed. Must be the low fat content.
Now several people with whom I am acquainted, either directly or indirectly, are, or were recently, in Bangkok. So that might account for that bit. But no idea of where the rest of it comes from.
Then to vary the diet got to pondering about the expenses scandal, which like many British media events has become something of a circus. Blown out of proportion to the matter in hand. But as my contribution to the circus, I advance some observations.
Observation 1, in the US they do things on a rather more generous scale. And it is quite easy to find out about it. See for example http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/RL30064.pdf. From which I learn that while a congressman has a big salary and a big expenses pot, when compared with what we do, personal expenses are excluded. Which presumably means that the US press is not adorned with tales of the confectionery and sanitary purchases of their representives.
Observation 2, MPs appear to have been advised to treat to treat maximum expenses as part of salary. Some MPs appear to have done just that and claimed up to the maximum every year. A rather tacky way of bumping up their salaries, particularly when the expenses rules have been worked over to deliver the maximum. By, for example, the device of the wobbling second home designation.
Observation 3, MPs are not paid that much. Their basic salary is said to be just three times the national average. Now while it is true that some of them would have trouble earning their salary as an MP in any other calling, it is also true that some of them could earn considerably more. Timing might be bad, but I would be in favour of paying them more in salary and less in personal expenses.
Observation 4, any receipts based system for claiming living expenses is going to look tacky when exposed to the full light of day. This MP bought a Mars bar, that one bought a luxury pair of shoes. That one bought some fancy underwear. I wonder if any of them claim for the extra cigarettes smoked as a result of the extra stress of having to live in their second, rather than their first, home?
Observation 5, some MPs have made fraudulent claims. But, to my mind, the penalty should bear in mind observation 2. Maybe deselection would suffice.
Observation 6, the MPs, in whose name skip loads of regulations to better regulate our lives are passed into law every week, ought to show more respect for the regulations governing their own lives. Since they have chosen to live in public off the public, they have to set an example.
Yesterday back to Epsom Common, to a part not visited by the ecobizzies, that is to say along the top of Newton Wood, towards the Star. Most impressed, as always, by the pollarded oaks, the relics of which have assumed the most bizarre shapes. Very easy to project all sorts of dubious animals onto them. Hard to see how some of the wrecked trunks can carry the burden of tree above. Towards the end of the stroll, we came across a clump of entire trees, the canopy of which was alive with chattering starlings. Must have been hundreds of them. Maybe even thousands... Something I have not seen for ages.
And to close, pleased to report the return of fish porriage. That is to say, soak five ounces of pearl barley in a pint or so of water. That is to say, by bringing it to the boil, turning off the heat and leaving for 10 hours. Add a modest amount of sliced celery, more for the colour it brings to the party than anything else. Bring back to the boil, add a chunk of fresh cod and a chunk of smoked haddock, skin up. After a few minutes remove the two peices of skin and stir the fish into the barley. Simmer for a bit. Drain off any excess fluid there may be and serve. One feels pleasantly full without feeling stuffed. Must be the low fat content.
# posted by Jim @ 8:45 PM 
