Why was the house price bubble allowed? Some MPs profited from it that’s why

That is ridiculous. The house price bubble was allowed because just about everyone who had a voice was cheering it on. Most people thought it was marvellous that they seemed to be making money doing nothing. Those who were losing out – the young and poor – don’t have anyone much speaking for them and are so disconnected from politics they mostly didn’t even think about it. The stupid, stupid left in British politics were far too busy on fringe issues like the Iraq war and Gaza to bother giving them a voice (and yes, if you are poor and badly housed, middle class poncing on some people the other side of the world, whose case is dubious because when they aren’t being killed they’re busy killing each other, IS a fringe issue).

It was just IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who wanted a political career to speak out against the housing bubble and to propose the sort of measures that would stop it. To say things like “stop giving out mortgages at such high multiples” would have one condemned by market ignoramuses (most people) as “stopping people from being able to buy housing”. To propose land value tax would have one held up on the charge of extreme cruelty to little old ladies. Etc etc. I know during the time I was actively involved in being a candidate I often had to hold my tongue (or my typing finger) for fear of the local newspaper headlines should I have said what I really thought on these issues.

Measured, you can influence by voting for Authoritarian parties. Most laws do not influence my behaviour. My upbringing influenced my behaviour to the extent that I naturally do not break the law (I do not defraud, steal, murder or coerce). I might not follow every statute or regulation, but they are a mockery of the Law. Don’t thing the apparatus you appear to think so important has such a great influence over me. Unlike MPs, I do not need blow by blow regulations and box ticking to moderate my behaviour.

My objection was your use of the term “controlled”. Society does not need “controlling” and I most certainly do NOT need controlling. Maybe some people do, but in typical Socialist/Authoritarian fashion, this administration seeks to control all for the errors of the few – typical enforced collectivisim. The only time the State needs to step in is when Laws have been or are about to be broken (as in clear and present danger, conspiracy etc). As we see, the State steps in when not needed as a form of “prevention”. It is pathetic and infantilising.

Yes of couse they do.

It’s illegal to share certain forms of music or art files with friends, or to sell them some other things such as some kindes drugs (did you know that 100 000 people died in the US because it was illegal to sell hypotensive drugs like propanolol), or certain machines (like guns) or provide certain services that they want (like a blow job). Or to trade unless I use certain weight and measures. Or if I don’t tell to goverment that I’m trading. Nor am I allowed to own the means of defending myself, or certain kinds of dog nor drive at certain speeds in certain locations…

Do you think this has something to do with morality?

“I hope morality at last features somewhere in there too”.

It should. But in practice … err… no.

The laws of the land as they stand today are not congruent with any moral framework I or anyone I know subscibes to.

To me, even when Jacqui Smith was exposed, it was about knowing the difference between what one could do and what one should do.

Talking about “the rules” is pointless, for MPs are there to repeal, modify and create law, so they must live and breathe right and wrong. It should be part of their very fibre.

I agree with Organepan, even dogfood is an outrage – more so in some ways – that they would waste their time and go out of their way to claim it?

Those who claimed in such a way as to show that they do not know this distinction should step down or be unceremoniously (or ceremoniously, if you want to) booted out.

p.s. @measured – “Society does have to be controlled.” Well, I am not “society”, I am an individual. Go off and control that thing you call “society” and leave law abiding people alone.

However, I share, with others here, some scepticism as to how sustainable this turning of the tables will be. Perhaps we need a recall law applicable to individual constituency MPs in order to keep them honest, in every sense?

Society does have to be controlled. If you do not like the people doing it, and do not agree with the reasons for it, you become resentful and disillusioned. That’s the starting point. Now we have learnt they did not seek to reform a system open to abuse which they were closely familiar with. It detracts from why we thought they wanted to do the job.

Politicians are elected to make changes for the good on our behalf. We judge them and then, by electing them, we are placing our trust in their capabilities and integrity to do as they have promised to do. MPs have known that this system of expenses was being abused for years and yet no one (not even a Lib Dem) stood up & highlighted it. That’s not doing their job. “It is shocking. It’s a mass of shattering illusions…..”

The only question now is will the Lib Dems be dragged into this mess as well…..