AlanHo Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Anyopne care to argue with the views expressed in this article in The Guardian....?Click here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Isn't it about time that a deal was done with a hotel near to Westminster, and overnight rooms provided for M.P's who live more than say fifty miles away? These would NOT of course be at places like the Savoy, but a reasonable two or three star establishment. There would no NO claims for repair items, barbeque's, porn films etc, just room only. Everyone has to eat, whether in London or otherwise, and we all buy our own food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rong Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 A Tory paper I see, and to a point I agree with andsome (I must be getting old) they should have modest two bedroom flats supplied in a block close to parliament, and pay their own expenses, food electricity e.t.c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted May 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I fear that this subject will have lost momentum and subsided into the background by the time the election takes place. I agree with the idea about providing reasonable accommodation for MP's in central London and limiting their expenses to "business" items but am not optimistic that it will happen.Perhaps the monarchy should recognise the corruption of our "leaders" and dissolve this pox of a parliament now and force an early general election.I feel that the only real redress is to ensure that we vote into parliament MP's with better morals and shorter snouts. This can only be done at constituency level. I hope that the media are still motivated to ensure that in each and every constituency, the expenses claimed by MP's seeking re-election are brought to the voters attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catgate Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 It looks to me as though there could be a few in line for court appearances, judging by some of the stuff on Guido this morning.http://www.order-order.com/This one, evem though it is from the Mail, looks as though it could be very damaging. It explains a lot.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...lification.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I fear that this subject will have lost momentum and subsided into the background by the time the election takes place. I agree with the idea about providing reasonable accommodation for MP's in central London and limiting their expenses to "business" items but am not optimistic that it will happen.Perhaps the monarchy should recognise the corruption of our "leaders" and dissolve this pox of a parliament now and force an early general election.I feel that the only real redress is to ensure that we vote into parliament MP's with better morals and shorter snouts. This can only be done at constituency level. I hope that the media are still motivated to ensure that in each and every constituency, the expenses claimed by MP's seeking re-election are brought to the voters attention.'Er indoors at Buck House has no say in the matter. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan2273 Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 The headline in the Sunday Express is that the MP's have just voted to push up there expenses to the tune of £16 million, which equates to an extra £25,000 for each MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dencandy Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 MPs (all Parties) chose to pay themselves a relatively low salary of 65K p.a. - which is about the same as the head of a medium sized secondary school. They did this to create the impression they were frugal & weren't in politics for the money. Then they decided to have this absurdly lax expenses system so they could get something extra without being seen, so to speak. Who do they think they were kidding?Oliver Cromwell's words to the Rump Parliament in 1653:"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"(Though living abroad, I am a UK taxpayer & voter, by the way). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 MPs (all Parties) chose to pay themselves a relatively low salary of 65K p.a. - which is about the same as the head of a medium sized secondary school. They did this to create the impression they were frugal & weren't in politics for the money. Then they decided to have this absurdly lax expenses system so they could get something extra without being seen, so to speak. Who do they think they were kidding?Oliver Cromwell's words to the Rump Parliament in 1653:"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"(Though living abroad, I am a UK taxpayer & voter, by the way).For the damage that they have done to the country, £65,000 is MORE than enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted May 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Click here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catgate Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZLVU3Z_iohs/SgdJ...320/pigsnog.jpgAn MP kissing a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belatucadrus Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZLVU3Z_iohs/SgdJ...320/pigsnog.jpgAn MP kissing a child.That is disgusting how could you bring yourself to compare a perfectly respectable pig with an MP, it's defamation of character and I fully support the pig if it choses to take legal action for this appalling slander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted May 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 You obviously have a poor opinion of pigs by comparing them with MP's - Mr Porky would not be as happy as a big in ..............?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 This is an interesting argument by Stephen Fry - I wonder if it is one of his subtle jokes.Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Trough or moat?Tory former minister Douglas Hogg denied asking for £2,000 to cover the cost of clearing a moat on his estate.As reported in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044998.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catgate Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 This is an interesting argument by Stephen Fry - I wonder if it is one of his subtle jokes.Click HereHe is probably a closet Brownite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Trough or moat?Tory former minister Douglas Hogg denied asking for £2,000 to cover the cost of clearing a moat on his estate.As reported in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044998.stmMore obscenities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dencandy Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 This is an interesting argument by Stephen Fry - I wonder if it is one of his subtle jokes.Click HereHe is probably a closet Brownite.He looks and sounds half-sozzled. The issue is important, in my view, because it gives an insight into how MPs make judgements and their personal honesty, and they are the people who we elected to run the country, unlike actors or you or me. Would I put my trust, say, in a doctor who had grossly abused his or her expenses but who told others they shouldn't do it? No, and I'd go to another honest one if I could find an alternative. We have that choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catgate Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Dencandy...and they are the people who we elected to run the country..,Sadly this is not true. The bulk of the people who are elected are chosen as prospectives by the ruling clique in the party that they represent, and we then vote on the basis of the party we despise the least.They are chosen by that ruling clique for their willingness to adhere to and support the agenda of that clique, even though they have no idea what all that agenda is or where it will lead. In order to maintain this arse licking subservience they are given "rewards" out of our pocket. They are also given rewards by those mentioned in the last sentence below, in the form of directorships, consultancies etc.There will be no honest government in this country until all the decisions are made directly by the people, and party politics (in fact all politics) is a distant bad memory.The decisions that have been made over the last 50 years have not been made for the benefit of the people but for the benefit of those funding the parties (either directly or indirectly). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I'm not sure putting all the MP's in one hotel is the answer it would be a security nightmare and a prime target for terrorists (remember the Grand hotel in Brighton) I don't have any objection to MP's getting a house within a certain price range and the maitenance for it paid by us the taxpayer, but the moment that MP stops becoming a MP, the house is sold and the money and any profit doesn't go to the MP but back to us the taxpayer and any other goods bought by us, TV's etc if not included in the sale can be sold to the MP at a discounted price if they wish or auctioned off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I'm not sure putting all the MP's in one hotel is the answer it would be a security nightmare and a prime target for terrorists (remember the Grand hotel in Brighton) I don't have any objection to MP's getting a house within a certain price range and the maitenance for it paid by us the taxpayer, but the moment that MP stops becoming a MP, the house is sold and the money and any profit doesn't go to the MP but back to us the taxpayer and any other goods bought by us, TV's etc if not included in the sale can be sold to the MP at a discounted price if they wish or auctioned offThe way this lot behave this wouldn't be a bad thing. :lol: :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catgate Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 The thought that occured to me, just after I had written my above response to Dencandy, was why do not all MPs have there real home in their constituency. They would then only need overnight accommodation when they attended the H o P. They should all be very long term residents of that constituency before they are selected as prospectives. It should be pretty obvious that the people representing those constituent should be one of them (rather that "one-of-them" as most of them seem to be). How can a person not born and brought up in a constituency know anything about its real needs and be familiar with its outlook.The answer, as we all know, is that these "imports" are self seeking, carpet bagging, loyal "yes persons" shoe horned in by the party mafia, and providing they toe the line and got through the "correct" lobby, they can do much as the wish and will eventually be suitably rewarded.This is yet another proof, if another were needed, that the entire current system of suffrage and representation is as bent as a pig ring and should be totally destroyed ASAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 MPs (all Parties) chose to pay themselves a relatively low salary of 65K p.a. - which is about the same as the head of a medium sized secondary school. They did this to create the impression they were frugal & weren't in politics for the money. Then they decided to have this absurdly lax expenses system so they could get something extra without being seen, so to speak. Who do they think they were kidding?Oliver Cromwell's words to the Rump Parliament in 1653:"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"(Though living abroad, I am a UK taxpayer & voter, by the way).For the damage that they have done to the country, £65,000 is MORE than enough. Agreed.Also as around 75% of Uk legislation comes from Brussels, they have much less work to do which probably explains how they have such generous holidays!I also believe that the number of MP's should be reduced from the current 646 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dencandy Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 A friend sent me these pictures of his MP trying to calculate her expenses: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 A friend sent me these pictures of his MP trying to calculate her expenses: :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.