Someone had to to do it. Talk about pachyderms in the front room, blocking the view of the telly...
So? What to do?
Printable View
Someone had to to do it. Talk about pachyderms in the front room, blocking the view of the telly...
So? What to do?
Not a lot we can do, they seem to have followed the rules.
So all we can do is hope to change the rules... although mostly I am disgusted by the lack of remorse the MP's have shown. :whip:
this about?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6256702.eceQuote:
Under Inland Revenue rules, expenses are taxed unless they are “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” incurred in the course of employment. MPs, however, voted themselves a special tax break in the Income Tax Act 2003, which means they are exempted.
What are the current rules on publishing their expenses? Is it compulsory? Do any of the press actively look at MPs' expenses as a matter or course, in the way that The Times used to cover parliamentary proceedings in detail?
C'mon, this is isn't muck raking and it transcends party politics. Shame on you.
Tbh, I didn't know what you were talking about, and assumed you were talking about that minister whose expenses included some dodgy claims. In which case the solution would be to make publishing expenses compulsory, and let the press look it over.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
In the story you're talking about, you can lobby Cameron about this issue, as he's more than likely to be the next PM, and ask him to reverse the tax break when his party gains power. You can try Brown of course, but since his party is the one who voted for this tax break, and they're not likely to gain enough political credit from reversing it to make it worthwhile, he's not likely to do anything.
Gordon Brown, what to say. He indeed can't listen to critisim his brain simply can't register it, he's a sociopath, he has this weird narcistic personality disorder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_QvPAaxFw
good luck, that man is truly a disaster.
IA, I love the Freudian slip you made in the thread title. :laugh4:
:bow:
They state they've followed the rules they put in place. Considering how generous these are it's difficult to break them.
Freedom of Information Act was passed by Government, yet they are functionally exempt on this issue.
MPs should get certain things provided so they can do their job. I don't see their need for expenses. They're not "high fliers", not as a rule massively gifted. We've not payed loads to get the cream, we've got a class that has manage to increase their salary from nothing just over 100 years ago to managing to add to a generous salary / pension expenses which is often more than the average salary in this country.
~:smoking:
They bleat on about how they have to have the expenses in order to do their job. Hang on, 88p for a bath plug enables you to do your job? Then they start on about how much more they could earn outside Parliament. Good, resign and go and get that job. No one's forcing you to be an MP. I seriously doubt if any of these clowns could run a market stall, never mind get renumerated at over a hundred grand a year.
Well we can do something about it. Come the general election we just don't vote for the emcumbant. If they too start hogging then the next time we do the same until they get the message. It would concentrate minds wonderfully if they thought that they would only get five years at the most.
I'm starting to think that we should also push for recall laws like they have in the states. Then when we catch the buggers with their hand in the till, we can slam it shut. Now there's talk about all this favouring the BNP at the euro elections. Good. As much as I hate the BNP, it would shock the main three parties into actually listening to the electorate. They are to blame for this disconnect in the first instance. They need a bloody good shaking up. Wassocks.
We get that same BS here in Canada everytime the MP's vote themselves a raise; I totally agree with your solution => "Go get that job and keep your hands off the public purse"Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Here we can add in the fact that (on average) much less than half of those who voted, voted for the gov't in any case.
On the one hand, you have to admire some of the bare-faced cheek shown by the piggies in the trough. Claiming taxpayers money to clear one's moat demands the kind of sang-froid only available to the aristocracy (albeit rather arriviste).
More seriously, it looks as if this is rapidly escalating into a full-blown constitutional crisis for the UK.
The current Speaker is one of the most controversial figures to have occupied that august chair for 300 years. He has been implicated in fiddling expenses (some time before the current maelstrom) and allowing Mr Plod to ride roughshod over House of Commons privilege. Now, in an extraordinary outburst laced with venom directed not at the snouts in the trough, but at the media and MPs who despair at the porcine excess, he has embarrassed his office beyond compare.
For those not aware, the Speaker of the House of Commons is not like the party animal found in the United States, but upholds the highest standards and aspirations of British democracy. To sully the office must be the ugliest stain any person can bring onto himself. Yet Michael Martin has dragged the Speaker's chair into the foulest of mud - and the supine, cowardly Prime Minister has done nothing to change the situation.
Now we have the unedifying prospect of the first vote of no confidence in the Speaker being tabled for 300 years. Latest reports have the Cabinet going to Brown to demand the Speaker resigns.
I cannot think that the United Kingdom has been in greater peril constitutionally since the days of the Protectorate. Another year of this? How can Dishonourable Members live with themselves and not force this damnable parliament to dissolve itself?
Brenda should step in and dissolve parliament.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkvEeKnTb2Q
M-O-N-E-YQuote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Those that are honest will rightly not see the need to resign. The vast majority who are adhering to the letter of the rules - that they made for themselves - are understandable concerned that they'll loose contributions to their generous pension, salary and perks for the coming months. The recession is still here, so best hand on for a further year until the job market is a bit more buoyant.
Doctors have not only severe guidelines but also an ethical code they have to follow. I think that lawyers have something similar (the ethics section must be interesting). Doctors also are independently overseen. Why shouldn't MPs have a similar independent oversight? A bad doctor can only kill a few people, a bad MP can do vastly more damage.
But this sidetracks the main change: Scrap expenses. Flat salary from about £50 to 100k depending on seniority / job. Some flats might be suitable for the time spent in London. Personally I'd like these to be the same standards that Junior Doctors have, but I doubt this would come to pass.
~:smoking:
Good news no, probably new elections if Brown doesn't call out a national state of emergency (I definately see him doing that)
edit; lol they even declarated dog food is there no end to their shamelesness, tars and feathers.
That is ridiculous. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Unbelievable. If a French politician would get caught with his snout in a trough stealing bathplugs, he'd commit suicide in despair and shame. No French politician could stand the disgrace. :no:
I mean, 88p. Who wants to look that amateurish? Our hardened political class doesn't even get up in the morning for less than 100 million. There is no difference between public and private money in France in the first place.
The UK thinks it is on the brink of a constitutional crisis. The people are continually outraged about the gap between the people and the lofty, out-of-touch political elite. Me, I see it all not as a sign of deteriorating political norms in Britian, but as a sign of growing British democratic maturity.
Try Belgium. France. Italy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I see the sense in expenenses - an MP living in Scotland or Northern Ireland will spent much more on work than an MP living in London.
What it needs is proper, independent supervision, MP's voting on their own pay and pay structure is ridiculous.
I am uneasy about ethical contracts, as they are subjective - MP's pay should be as transparent as possible, so why not make all expenses/pay public and attempt to minimize the legal loopholes (very few MP's have actually broken the rules - making it hard to punish them for blatant money-grabbing)
Also Michael Martin should be removed as speaker, it would be a useful scapegoating/symbol of change, and he seems to be hugely unpopular among MP's, not just over this issue, but others aswell.
:2thumbsup:
That particular mechanic of UK politics has always fascinated me. A single individual, with the snap of a finger, could implement a "do-over" of an entire government.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
How does it work, in practice? PM requests and she assents? Can she just do it of her own volition? Must she formally announce the dissolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I was a bit surprised to read that - aren't speakers supposed to renounce party ties when they're chosen, anyway?
Lesson one on the British Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Right, pay attention at the back. The government is Her Majestys government. As is the treasury, the navy, the police, in fact anything that helps defend/protect/run the country. Except of course in a constitutional monarchy, it's really the voters who decide. Brenda's just a figurehead. She does have some powers though.
She can declare war. She can dissolve parliament. She can give small silver coins out to pensiones as alms. As it's nominally Her government, she can, in theory, dissolve parliament and trigger a general election. However if she were to do so, it would bring about a genuine constitutional crises. How this may pan out is anybodys guess. As the police/army/navy/airforce make an oath of allegience to her, you might think she had all the top cards. She might well have given the buffoons in control at the moment.
However, one of her great-grandads thought the same and got on a bit of a sticky wicket on that one.
It could be interesting if madge did exercise her constitutional right. In the current climate the majority of voters would probably give a sigh of relief. One could argue that it's not democratic but it's often claimed that we live under a elective dictatorship anyway.
Certainly interesting times we live in.
I would like to see slightly more power in the hands of the Monarchy for times such as these when the elected ministers almost to a person are basically on the same side. Oh, platitudes and apologies are pouring out - but not the hundreds of thousands of pounds they've taken.
Better the monarch can say "oi, you lot - out" and get another lot in.
Would the next lot be any different? Possibly if they thought they too could be removed; if oversight was not via parliment but by the monarchy this again would help reduce the poachers acting as the gamekeepers.
~:smoking:
The joy of an unwritten constitution is that one gets even more leeway to interpret than the wording of an 18th century document. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
In fact, you are incorrect in the above analysis. The monarch has (to quote Bagehot) only three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn. In theory, she has the right under the Royal Prerogative to dismiss ministers including the Prime Minister, but dissolution of Parliament can only be done at the request of the Prime Minister (it used to be the whole Cabinet until around 1916).
Unhappily, the Royal Prerogative (which encompasses the powers you ascribe above such as declaring war) is entirely wielded by the Prime Minister.
George V is the ancestor you referred to, and it is commonly believed that he was the last monarch to dissolve Parliament and suffered for it. In fact, he refused to dissolve Parliament in 1923 at Stanley Baldwin's request, instead inviting Ramsay McDonald to form a government after dismissing Baldwin. It is still debated whether this was at all constitutional.
British Prime Ministers effectively have all the monarchial powers deprived from the Crown in 1689.
A scathing but accurate view of the Speaker and his conduct.
His solution – "an Operational Assurance Unit" – is the worst sort of bureaucratic complication. A privatised Fees Office that will end up stooging for the political class.
Cameron's solution is the best. Just put every expense claim online and the problem will solve itself.
We don't need people with an honours degree in accountancy, just people with a degree of honour. Failing that, a degree of shame would do perfectly well.
Hear, hear.
As abused as the current form of MPs expenses are its still probably batter that they are there than if there were not. As we may have a parliament filled of the privately wealthy or people sponsored by trade unions etc. And I think having MPs in the pocket of some privet interest group like a trade union would be worse than the current fiddling of expenses.
Also how ever much it seems unfair, to be an MP they should be working in two places London and where ever there constituency is and as parliament can keep MPs in London antill late at night or early in the morning some times. They need somewhere to live in London be it a hotel, house or something else it will still cost money. So the system needs to be reformed but there still needs to be something there else we may end up with a government of the wealthy or people in the pocket of trade unions.
I thought that the Blair government decided they should knock off about tea time. :inquisitive:
It was partly the result of the relatively massive influx of women MPs, that parliamentary sessions were rescheduled to end earlier. The previous state of affairs made it practically impossible for anyone with families to attend to to engage in parliamentary politics, which ended late, and had after-session discussions that went on even later. From accounts I've read, the timings of parliamentary matters also encouraged alcoholism, as the MPs would hang around in the bar afterward to "socialise" into ungodly hours. The earlier parliamentary sessions were meant to break up this old boys culture, and make it at conform at least a little with the wider world.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
So.......
Is it time for you to accept viking rule now?
Please invade, I'll let you use my home :grin:
Guess where this is from?
:laugh4:Quote:
QUESTION TIME AUDIENCE MARCHES ON LONDON
THE audience from BBC1's Question Time was marching on London last night, parading the severed head of housing minister Margaret Beckett on a pike, like some kind of ghoulish mascot.
Amid growing signs that things might be about to kick off, the audience spilled out of the Grimsby Institute at 11.20pm and immediately headed for Market Rasen via the A46.
They then carried on for about 15 miles before taking the Lincoln bypass and finally joining up with the A1 just south of Newark.
Earlier they had stormed the stage, grabbing presenter David Dimbleby and locking him in the ladies' toilet before beheading Mrs Beckett and firing senior Tory MP Teresa May through a stained glass window using a makeshift catapult.
Their fellow panellist, the former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, has been stripped naked and is being transported to London in a tiny cage made from bamboo.
As of 8am this morning the Question Time audience had stopped at a service station near Biggleswade for refreshments, a toilet break and a chance to wipe some of the gunk from Mrs Beckett's head.
The audience is being led by Grimsby loud-mouth Roy Hobbs, mainly because it's his pike.
Mr Hobbs said: "I went to the trouble of bringing a pike to Question Time so I think it's only fair. And obviously when we get to London they are going to want to talk to whoever's carrying the severed head."
So politicians have been caught defrauding us, what will happen?
Not a thing, some may resign but they'll be back in a year when their boss thinks the uproar has died down.
I'm a civil servant and I know for a fact that if I done anything like this, and yes I do have all my receipts for expenses claims, I'd be sacked within the week.
So uh, would you like to disclose your expenses to your fellow Orgahs before the papers do? :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Dunno, the onion maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Haha, look at that fat orange muppet. :laugh4: Who the hell does that guy think he is? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I'm speechless. I really am. Talk about 'not getting it'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8062284.stmQuote:
A Devon MP standing down at the next election after a row about his expenses says the public should not have been allowed to see what he claimed.
Totnes Conservative MP Anthony Steen was alleged by the Daily Telegraph to have claimed more than £87,000 over four years for his country home.
Mr Steen said the public had no right to interfere with his private life.
He insisted his behaviour had been "impeccable" and that all his claims had been transparent.
Former barrister Mr Steen, 69, claimed ministers had "mucked up the system" by introducing the Freedom of Information Act.
He also suggested his critics were "jealous" because he lived in a large house that resembled Royal residence Balmoral, and had trees in the grounds that needed lopping.
My flabbers been ghasted no end these last couple of weeks. But this one really takes the biscuit*.
*On expenses naturally. :whip:
Quote:
"We have a wretched government here which has completely mucked up the system and caused the resignation of me and many others, because it was this government that introduced the Freedom of Information Act, and it is this government that insisted on the things which caught me on the wrong foot."
:wall:Quote:
"As far as I am concerned, and as of this day, I don't know what the fuss is about."
Slightly Alice through the Looking Glass...
Criminals having a go at the police for collecting evidence and the Judge for wasting his time...
Possibly dementia settling in early for this poor confused parasite.
The abscess has been lanced, but I hope they do a proper job of draining and irrigating, else it'll just reform over time.
~:smoking:
This is just a symptom of our inefficient quasi-democracy. The whole system needs to be destroyed then rebuilt from scratch.
Obviously that sounds more drastic than what it would be like in practise. In practise, it would be working on the status quo while people work on drawing up an operational structure then simply move onto it.
As for the matter of hand, Local Councils should own the property, not the MP's themselves and the MP's are basically non-paying tenants. Failing that, they simply build a big apartment complex for the MP's to stay in near the commons. Either way, the MPs don't have the money themselves.
Be a little bit more like the French, storm the Bastille. Right yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Louis, how high does this chap rate in terms of French politics?
Blimey if it carries on like this there will only be a choice of the greens or the BNP. Neither of which is palatable. So who is there left to vote for on the 4th? I want to exercise my civic duty but all these rascals have effectively taken away my vote. I'm seriosly beginning to despise the lot of them. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
EDIT: Let's rephrase: is it legitimate for him to be using the money to fund his campaign? If he doesn't keep it for himself, is it OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What were the grounds for getting the money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The EU spends vast amounts trying to get their message out that contrary to all evidence and the wishes of most it would work if only we give up all sovereign powers, democratic rights and wait 100 years...
~:smoking:
oops nvm, so is ukip
disgusting
Bloody amateur, mate. Two million pounds? That's mayor of a small town stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Incompetent plonkers your politicians, says I. When you manage to elbow your way up front for your turn at the through, get a snout full, sheesh.
Legitimate can mean two things here:Quote:
Let's rephrase: is it legitimate for him to be using the money to fund his campaign? If he doesn't keep it for himself, is it OK?
Legally allowed? If I'm not mistaken, most of the claimed expenses of the current scandal were perfectly legal.
Morally justified? Is that even a serious consideration for you? Me, I don't care whether a politician frauds to fund either a pro or a contra EU message. I only care about the fraud. He can not steal my money and then be smug about it too. Insufferable boor, our Nigel, representative of the standards of the UKIP:
Nigel Farage, who is calling on voters to punish "greedy Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem MPs" at the European elections on 4 June, boasted of his personal expenses haul at a meeting with foreign journalists in London last week.
:no:
Could just as easily be that he was pointing out how easy it is to get a lot of money from the EU and that this story gets an Orwellian spin. The word 'boasting' is a bit suspect to say the least, he's no idiot. Full transcript or it didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yes, that is plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Think about this. The European Union uses a fortune of our money to fund a pro-Europe message, which is somehow perfectly OK - and yet the second some of that money is used to fund a eurosceptic viewpoint...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I'm sick of that double standard. If our money is going to be used to fund a pro-Europe vision, it had better also be used to fund an anti-Europe vision. That basically brings up the question if it was legitimate as he was not using it for personal expenses, but regardless, Fragony's point is also a good one.
agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
if they are going to use our money then by god they will reflect our will.
*Thinks frozen spherical object in a locker next to a blast furnace.*
on the subject of British corruption.................... compared to that of our neighbours:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...bad-.-.-..html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flt-...layer_embedded
Just pull the plug.
Maniac, Fragony, Furunculus - are you lot serious? ~:confused:
Politicians can steal your money? You don't mind? You actually applaude this corruption when 'your side' does it?
No wonder Nigel Farage can get away with lambasting the corruption of other politicians while simultanously boasting about his own enormous haul. :wall:
Why don't you give Nigel the number of your bank account? That he may just help himself, seeing as you don't mind his theft.
i don't see how i come into this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If you put it like that it is almost as if I didn't just post a video about ukip-hypocracy :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Frag - I did indeed miss that video. Oopsy.
Furunculus - I added your name because of your post above (#49). Which I may have misunderstood then.
we aren't angry just a little dissapointed
You misunderstand me. I am saying that one group is essentially stealing my money and using it for their own gain, and though this does not excuse Farage, it shows the blatant hypocrisy and double standards in the European Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yeah, I know. When the government steals my money to further their goals, they call it taxes. When I take my neighbours money to serve my cause, they call it theft. Hypocrit bastards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Sounds flashy but the double standard is there, nobody would have given a crap had it been used to further :daisy: us the EU. He used EU-money to campaign against the machine and pays the price. I am terribly dissapointed in ukip and it's members, glad we have our goldenboy, doesn't need to campaign the EU including the ukip does it for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If I were the Spirit of Britain, I'd do two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Simplify and limit the expenses system for MP's.
Get a new British press. Enough of this continual whipping the public into frenzied hysteria. Into mass outrages. What does it all lead to? To nine-year old boys being tried like adults. To beatification of kindergarten teachers with all the public merits of Paris Hilton if they marry right and die young in a car accident in Paris. To the widely held misconception that Britain's entire political clas is composed of liars, cheats and scum.
Once the UK was admired for its capacity for sober reflection. For moderation in public debate.
i give you some quotes from walter bagehot:
"An element of exaggeration clings to the popular judgment: great vices are made greater, great virtues greater also; interesting incidents are made more interesting, softer legends more soft."
"Dullness in matters of government is a good sign, and not a bad one - in particular, dullness in parliamentary government is a test of its excellence, an indication of its success. "
Yes, but that was when gentlemen ran the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
When trade is placed into power, one ends up with mercantile vices. :toff:
When the Japanese monarchy were placed back into power they were given sufficient monies so they would be above mercantile matters.
Of course there are a few people who do genuinely put others before themselves, but more usually one gets socialists like the ex-speaker who are after all they can get.
To be a politician is a career that one enters as a political advisor and moves up into power. It used to be either something to do after a career elsewhere or something for the landed gentry. Sure, both these other groups being a whole list of other problems, but as the reason for getting the place wasn't to amass money this is not usually such a problem.
~:smoking:
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Louis, it is the same money. The only difference between the money that the EU uses to campaign for the goals it has and what Nigel Farage uses for his is the purpose behind it.
If the government is using taxes to fund the party that it finds most favourable, what do we call that?
The Guardian runs a great article today. It touches on several issues that I've summat hinted at in these expenses/corruption threads, yet have been blisteringly incapable of either expressing or understanding well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-banks-reform
It's a good article. I sometines like to read Monbiot, when he writes like this it's almost a pleasure.
I remember when I was a bairn watching some famine or other in Bangladesh asking my grandad why they were so poor. His reply was that the British Empire and stolen all of their wealth. I'd asked him because he spent over a decade on the sub-continent in the army. Of course at that age I'd imagined ships full of gold and rubys etc. sailing back to blighty. As I got older I realised it was the exploitation that sucked them dry, not lack of treasure. The Brits saw what had happened to the Spanish and the debasing of it's currency with all that gold sloshing about. They not only saw but came up with a better wheeze altogether.
Not sure how this fits in with expensive MPs though. :)
Living on a floodplain had nothing to do with it then?
Self Rule by the Indians was a massive success pre and post British rule with the land almost a Utopia? No poverty no there, eh?
Just took, took, took. Didn't do anything whatsoever for the area.
European ships just happened to find masses of people on the Shores of West Africa. The locals had nothing to do with the trade.
To turn matters on their head, the UK's infrastructure was ruined as the markets were flooded with cheaper imports in an uncontrolled manner; Germany did not have this Empire and so did not collapse in a similar manner.
~:smoking:
"Old sins making long shadows". Monbiot asks: "Why is it different?", and compiles a longish list of scandals, and how they were survived by the forced labour & treasure exchange with colonies and ex-colonies, and later, investment in drugs trades - and that those economic crutches are no longer available, therefore the doddering old UK, who should have withered away 100 years ago, will now fall on his face in the gutter - because yet another politics scandal has hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
His unspoken underlying assumption is: the Brits are not up to the challenge, as they've been shielded from real hardship (as experienced by their 3rd world victims) for so long.
Rubbish. The sky is not falling, and the Brits are not gonna all just curl up and die. They'll find their way through, as they always have, fix what's broken, suffer a bit, and come out the other side stronger, and more self-aware and self-reliant than before. Don't let a perfectly good crisis go to waste. :)
it was an interesting article, which very rarely can i ever say for him, but i agree with Kukri fundamentally.
we'll do ok.
The Guardian would like nothing more than the destruction of the Western World, and appears to gloat at anything that appears to make this more likely. If there is a possibility the UK will disintegrate that is not only a good thing, but is self inflicted (debts of post WW2 never got mentioned) and well deserved.
I try to find a paper that has some sort of editorial balance. Articles such as this are the main reason why I don't bother with the telegraph, the Guardian, or any of the tabloid papers as all are far more focused at pushing their agenda than anything resembling the news.
~:smoking:
The article is relevant because it touches on:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
-Why, of all the scandals that have plagued Westminster in recent years, it should be this relatively small beer that leads to a crisis.
-The organisation of plunder in the UK.
-Corruption as the abuse, or even plain use, of public power for private gain.
-A theory of everything. By combining several events, connecting everything with everybody and applying a sinister tone, the article sounds mighty impressive upon first reading and this in turn makes me look smart for posting it thereby giving the impression of great insight when there is actually none.
-In Italy, garbage rots in the streets of Naples for months, because the camorra wants more money to collect it. In Sicily, protection money is still paid to the mafia. The government is powerless.
In the UK, the City can plunder Britain indefinately. Taxes are evaded in tax havens. Shoud their schemes fail, the tax payer will bleed, not the City.
However different both systems, the answer to why their corruption can carry on is the same for Italy and the UK. Just what the answer is, I do not know exactly. (Not 42)
I must figure the answer out and the article has given me new food for thought.
The Fall from the House of Ussher.
Sorry, but the opportunity was too good to miss. :embarassed:
I see that the commons has released Mps expenses. Except they havn't have they? Reminiscent of Pravda the whole bloody lot has been 'reducted' by a bloody great big permanent marker pen. I always thought that politicians were shifty bumwipes but it's worse than that. They are moronic.
Whoever thought that releasing this drivel to the public was a good idea had obviously spent too much time on nurse Ratchetts' ward. To think that these people pass laws for the rest of us is.....is, (I'm looking for the right word that won't get me a mention in the mods despatches :sweatdrop:) well it's bumcheekery at it's finest.
Election now!
just provided more grist for the Telegraph mill by allowing them to compare what MP's wanted to hide against the full shooting-match as leaked to the Telegraph.
you thought last month was embarrassing!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...hey-claim.htmlQuote:
Recent precedent is a wonderful tool for enabling us to learn from our mistakes and so avoid repeating them, but the converse is that its absence will inevitably lead now and again to unforeseeable embarrassment.
Take this business of MPs renting out flats they own, in several cases to each other, while reclaiming the rent they pay on properties they lease. Technically, this breaches no rules, which is spiffing. One might point out that calling a policeman a pleb equally breaks no formal rule, although it may do little for the career prospects of anyone allegedly overheard saying it. Appearances can be at least as important as the rigorous observation of the rule book, in other words, and this does not look pretty.
Cheating, thieving bastards are at it again!
They wonder why we loath them so much.
Excellent thread necromancy - I don't want to be tart but Bercow is another Labour-anointed Speaker.
Just abolish expenses - I'd rather be ruled by the rich than thieving "common" men who use politics to make themselves rich. The end result is the same, so why involve the tax-payer?
Mr. Denis Matyjaszek seems to be in a spot of bother.
Thieving bastard.
Why don't we just give them mess rooms in Army barracks in London, then they can Pay as You Dine the same as the Army, it's a win win for everyone, they get a bed and some good food, we save a fortune. Security costs go down as Army camps are already guarded, they get a dose of realism, and best of all the GSM can stop them from getting involved in drunken brawls.
Sounds like a good idea. Except I'd just put the lot in gaol.
Fraud, I think thats what they call it.Quote:
Former Labour minister Denis MacShane is facing suspension from the Commons for 12-months.
A Parliamentary committee found he had submitted 19 false invoices which were "plainly intended to deceive" Parliament's expenses authority.
The committee said it was the "gravest case" which has come to them for adjudication.
Mr MacShane, who has been suspended from the Labour Party, said he was "shocked and saddened" by the move.
The MP for Rotherham had been suspended from the Labour party while police investigated his expenses claims, but he had the whip reinstated when the criminal inquiry was dropped.
The committee's report described Mr MacShane's false claims as "far from what would be acceptable in any walk of life" and "fell far below the standards of integrity and probity expected of every member of the House".
The false invoices related to work Mr MacShane carried out in Europe and he was particularly criticised for his use of public money for European travel.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said the "real mischief" of Mr MacShane's actions was submitting invoices that bypassed the "checks and controls" of the House and "enabled Mr MacShane to spend public money as he thought fit".
In a statement on his website, Mr MacShane said: "Clearly I deeply regret that the way I chose to be reimbursed for costs related to my work in Europe and in combating anti-semitism, including being the prime minister's personal envoy, has been judged so harshly.
"I remain committed to work for progressive values, for Britain playing a full part in Europe, and for combating anti-semitism even though I can no longer undertake this work as a Labour MP.
"I am consulting family and friends as I consider my position and study the full implications of the report.
"I am obviously desperately sorry for any embarrassment I have caused my beloved Labour Party and its leader Ed Miliband whom I greatly admire."