- or should that be:

"I'm all right" - Jack Straw

Last night, Channel 4's documentary series Dispatches investigated the shameful story of how our Parliamentarians not only award themselves vast and often unchecked expenses, but also waive the normal pension rules that apply to ordinary people to amass funds that we can only dream of, and also connive at preventing us - the taxpayers who fund them - from finding out what they are up to.

Peter Oborne, a political journalist, turned up lots of stones to find nasty slimy things lurking underneath. And there they will stay, since there seems to be little appetite for reform of the sleazy world of MPs' pensions, privileges, and expenses.

MPs of both left and right who complained about unethical, if not downright illegal, behaviour by their fellows were given the brush off or were reprimanded themselves by the Standards and Privileges Committee. (Low standards and undeserved privileges, one might think.)

Some of the chief architects of cover-up (including Leader of the House Jack Straw and Speaker George Martin) were not willing to account for their actions, and those that were, blustered and squirmed under Oborne's questioning, without actually answering the question.

The National Audit Office tones down its more damning reports, and its own high panjandrum has a snout in the taxpayer's trough; police investigations into cash for questions were hindered by parliamentary meddling; and Commons Standards Commissioner Elizabeth Filkin was bundled out of the door when she did her job too well.

And they wonder why most of the British public hold politicians in such contempt? A bouquet to Channel 4 for an incisive, but very enraging, programme. And brickbats to all those self-serving politicians and civil servants who spend our hard-earned money on their own comfortable lifestyles, as we struggle to pay our council and income tax.

You can read a bit about the attempt to amend the Freedom of Information bill to prevent MPs' expenses being published on this excellent page:

http://www.cfoi.org.uk/macleanbill.html

As I got hot under the collar about two items in the same prog yesterday, I split them into two slightly more digestible chunks! Read on...

Secondly: all this vague waffle from both main political parties about cutting down on car use, which goes largely unchallenged by the pundits.

As I have said before, the blindingly obvious (and very cheap to implement) way to discourage unnecessary mileage and fuel use is to load all the green tax on fuel. But no – they want to make an example of "the owners of Chelsea tractors and gas-guzzling cars" (to trot out a tired cliché or two) by putting up the purchase price. And of course Ken Livingstone has it in for drivers and parkers of same in London.

That has little effect on those of us who can't afford a new car, and certainly doesn't discourage us from making unnecessary journeys in our old bangers.

And it completely ignores the fact that some cars are used for a specific function rather than as a status symbol – at least where I live.

A Defender 110 in London is out of place – but in the country, it is an essential part of the farmer's kit, to drive in fields safely, to transport feed, fencing materials and small livestock, and all the rest. Why should my neighbours be penalised just because some silly woman in London chooses an inappropriate vehicle to take Sebastian and Tobes to their posh school?

However, politicians don't, generally, live in the same world as us ordinary mortals, and probably don't realise that cars can actually be driven after they are three years old, or carry bales of hay in the back.

I'm afraid it all smacks of Old Labour "if we can't all have one then no-one can" – much like the hunting ban was more about giving the toffs a bloody nose than animal welfare. I am very surprised that the Tories are following the same line though!

Two things caught my attention today on the Today programme.

First, a piece about Terry Leahy's allegation yesterday that it was not practical for Tesco to stop selling tungsten lightbulbs, since a significant number of their customers have fittings that require them.

Now, I am the last person to defend Tesco against their more obvious failings – but in this case, even a householder with a rudimentary understanding of lighting would probably defend them.

So, when some greenie was wheeled out to explain why Tesco was wrong, one might expect the interviewer (Sarah Montague) to have mugged up just for 5 minutes before questioning her. But no: just a "Why was Tesco wrong then?" and very little in the way of incisive questioning.

Point 1: low-energy bulbs are not commonly available in unusual sizes (e.g. candle, pygmy or for older spotlighters) either at all, or except at prohibitively high prices.

Point 2: At least until very recently, they couldn’t be used with dimmer switches. And the ones that can cost an arm and a leg (e.g. £12.95 vs about 35p).

Point 3: basically, despite what Ms Green said, they are not really anything like as bright as the tungsten "equivalent". 11W = 60W, and 15W = 100W – my arse, as Jim Royle would say.

We have low-energy bulbs in most fittings now, and an old house with small windows. As a result, our evenings and overcast days are spent in a dim religious light. For example, in the kitchen, we have two 60W equivalents over the table. For the first month or so they were about as bright as the old bulbs, even if they cast a ghastly pallor over all. But now, a year or two on, they are as dull as ditchwater, and not really up to the job of illuminating things brightly enough to do close work. Which is fine for those who sit slack-jawed in front of their TVs of an evening, but not for me if I need to sew a button on or do other such chores.

They touched on point number 2, but conveniently ignored the other points or skated round them.

If it's that hard to have a sensible discussion about something very easy – how hard would it be for them to discuss a complex issue? Too hard, is the answer.

The other thing I will save for tomorrow!

As you may know, Luciano Pavarotti has died, and as a tribute, the Today Programme played his performance of Nessun Dorma this morning. This oasis of serenity in a sea of argumentative voices and fatuous news was ruined by the voice of James Nauchtie muttering "It's almost the end now" towards the end of the piece. Obviously responding to some anxious producer over his earphones - but what a shame to spoil it for us all by sloppiness in production.

And another shame - that this glorious piece of music has been forever tainted by its association with football.

Only a week late in reporting this - but work gets in the way!

Still worth noting I think, for those who missed it.

Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman ("Paxo") used his MacTaggart lecture at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival to launch a scathing attack on the BBC, saying it's lost its sense of purpose in a welter of Stalinist 5-year plans, initiatives and missions, not to mention 'salami slicing' of programme budgets to accommodate the burgeoning non-broadcast spend (podcasts, web sites, phone in competitions, red buttons, email newsletters, blah blah blah).

He echoes what a lot of us feel - with some vehemence and force. I say well done - about time someone who will be listened to told it how it is. We pay our licence fee to watch 90% populist drivel; the remaining 10% would cost pennies of a cable subscription, not £135.50 per annum.

That's why I am going to cancel my TV licence when they turn off the analogue signal, and listen to radio and watch DVDs instead.

More reading:

Read a summary of his speech here:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2155874,00.html

and the full text (contains adult language - aka swearing) here (PDF):
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2007/08/24/MacTaggartLecture.pdf

And a bit more about the man here:
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/571500/

Mmmmmmm, Paxo stuffing:
http://www.rhmfoodservice.co.uk/brands/paxo/