OK then.....MPs expensives....

[Fragony]

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.

Sounds flashy but the double standard is there, nobody would have given a crap had it been used to further 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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sounds flashy but the double standard is there, nobody would have given a crap had it been used to further 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.

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?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

[InsaneApache]

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. :)

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[KukriKhan]

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. :)

"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.

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. :)

[Furunculus]

it was an interesting article, which very rarely can i ever say for him, but i agree with Kukri fundamentally.

we'll do ok.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not sure how this fits in with expensive MPs though. :)

The article is relevant because it touches on:

-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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Fall from the House of Ussher.

Sorry, but the opportunity was too good to miss.

[InsaneApache]

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 ) well it's bumcheekery at it's finest.

Election now!