Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie_Zoom on 16 May 2009, 16:43:00
-
Well we may see justice yet, with a police panel being set up to investigate all the wrong doings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8052709.stm
or will we once more hear the so frequent expression eventually from the CPS that "it is not in the public interest to pursue a prosecution"??? >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Still perhaps the checking of MP's claims partially worked as I read in The Telegraph today that Sir Gerald Kaufman tried to claim £8,865 for a 40" Bang and Olufsen television, and was only reimbursed £750....................but the claim for an antiques rug imported from New Year for £1,851 and £15,329 for refurbishment of his London flat, out of the original claim for £28,834, as he stated he was "living in a slum", was paid!!!!! :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
It just gets worse and worse!!
To think one of the many ingredients of the peasants and middle class revolt that started the French Revolution in 1789 was over the excesses and abuses exercised by the aristocracy, along with the monarch, King Louis XVI, who lived in the very expensive splendor of the Versailles Palace whilst the poor got poorer, without any power to change anything! :( :( :(
David Cameron has said these are dangerous times; they certainly are! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Politics is about to become very radical to reflect public anger. :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-? Time for change!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
Well we may see justice yet, with a police panel being set up to investigate all the wrong doings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8052709.stm
or will we once more hear the so frequent expression eventually from the CPS that "it is not in the public interest to pursue a prosecution"??? >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Still perhaps the checking of MP's claims partially worked as I read in The Telegraph today that Sir Gerald Kaufman tried to claim £8,865 for a 40" Bang and Olufsen television, and was only reimbursed £750....................but the claim for an antiques rug imported from New Year for £1,851 and £15,329 for refurbishment of his London flat, out of the original claim for £28,834, as he stated he was "living in a slum", was paid!!!!! :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
It just gets worse and worse!!
To think one of the many ingredients of the peasants and middle class revolt that started the French Revolution in 1789 was over the excesses and abuses exercised by the aristocracy, along with the monarch, King Louis XVI, who lived in the very expensive splendor of the Versailles Palace whilst the poor got poorer, without any power to change anything! :( :( :(
David Cameron has said these are dangerous times; they certainly are! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Politics is about to become very radical to reflect public anger. :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-? Time for change!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
Which brings me back to Cromwell Ms Zoom! ;D ;D
-
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-?
I'm afraid that notion is as transient as the wind Ms. Zoom ::) ::)
-
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-?
I'm afraid that notion is as transient as the wind Ms. Zoom ::) ::)
We will see what happens at the next General Election. ;)
Although 60% of voters are purely spectators, with 34% not participating, there are 6% who are the 'gladitors' of our democratic system will no doubt fight for change. 8-) 8-)
-
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-?
I'm afraid that notion is as transient as the wind Ms. Zoom ::) ::)
We will see what happens at the next General Election. ;)
I hope your optimism is well placed Ms. Zoom. I think many in the Palace of Westminster (not only the elected representatives) would need to set off on the road to Damascus in the hope that the essential moment arrives to guide them into good standing once more ;) ;)
-
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-?
I'm afraid that notion is as transient as the wind Ms. Zoom ::) ::)
We will see what happens at the next General Election. ;)
I hope your optimism is well placed Ms. Zoom. I think many in the Palace of Westminster (not only the elected representatives) would need to set off on the road to Damascus in the hope that the essential moment arrives to guide them into good standing once more ;) ;)
Once all the revelation has finished I reckon (hope!) that many will either be ousted from Westminster, in prison, or both! 8-) 8-) 8-)
We will then need a new generation of 'puritanical' MPs Zulu! 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-?
I'm afraid that notion is as transient as the wind Ms. Zoom ::) ::)
We will see what happens at the next General Election. ;)
I hope your optimism is well placed Ms. Zoom. I think many in the Palace of Westminster (not only the elected representatives) would need to set off on the road to Damascus in the hope that the essential moment arrives to guide them into good standing once more ;) ;)
Once all the revelation has finished I reckon (hope!) that many will either be ousted from Westminster, in prison, or both! 8-) 8-) 8-)
We will then need a new generation of 'puritanical' MPs Zulu! 8-) 8-) 8-)
;D ;D ;D You are right, of course. I look forward to having my faith in the basic goodness of those in authority restored. I can't be that difficult can it? :-/ :-/
-
Will the citizens of this country ever get true justice, equality and pure democracy?? :-? :-?
I'm afraid that notion is as transient as the wind Ms. Zoom ::) ::)
We will see what happens at the next General Election. ;)
I hope your optimism is well placed Ms. Zoom. I think many in the Palace of Westminster (not only the elected representatives) would need to set off on the road to Damascus in the hope that the essential moment arrives to guide them into good standing once more ;) ;)
Once all the revelation has finished I reckon (hope!) that many will either be ousted from Westminster, in prison, or both! 8-) 8-) 8-)
We will then need a new generation of 'puritanical' MPs Zulu! 8-) 8-) 8-)
;D ;D ;D You are right, of course. I look forward to having my faith in the basic goodness of those in authority restored. I can't be that difficult can it? :-/ :-/
Trouble is I believe in Hobbes preaching; man is born greedy. ::) ::) ::) ::) And so history has proved! :( :( :(
-
Trouble is I believe in Hobbes preaching; man is born greedy. ::) ::) ::) ::) And so history has proved! :( :( :(
In the first part many would say that we are sinners from the get go :(
In the second, proved time out of number.
It isn't hard being open minded, decent and an asset to society :y - is it?
-
'I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.'
That might well be where the pointer now rests Ms Zoom :-/ :-/
-
Cromwell had his moments -- he wasn't so great himself (but I am biased !)
-
Cromwell had his moments -- he wasn't so great himself (but I am biased !)
You're not wrong there HC ;D ;D
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
-
I reckon the general election will be a bloodbath for the current lot(albeit with a low turnout) then it will be "meet the new boss,the same as the old boss" ;)
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
Could not agree more Nick! :y :y :y :y
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
A lot of tactical voting for UKIP could be a very good thing imo,hopefully frighten the Tories back to the right where they belong,rather than chasing the fluffy lefty new labour route as they have done for some years now.
-
i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv's, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.
hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldnt claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?
and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money
i'm completely in 2 minds :-/ :-/ :-/
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
A lot of tactical voting for UKIP could be a very good thing imo,hopefully frighten the Tories back to the right where they belong,rather than chasing the fluffy lefty new labour route as they have done for some years now.
Quite right, Albs. :y
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
That could well be the case Nick, but it could be a poison chalice for the new body politic. The risk is that no party will be in a position to hold a working majority without the assistance of one or more of the smaller groups. This can lead to confused government, which is as undesirable as corrupt or incompetent government. :y
-
i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv's, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.
hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldnt claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?
and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money
i'm completely in 2 minds :-/ :-/ :-/
Me !!! (can't find a smily with a halo !) In my current line of work I can claim the princley sum of "up to" £6 for a meal while out on official business ... yes, some in the office routinely claim the £6, I claim whatever it cost up to £6 (as it's usually roadside burger bar fayre) --- if and when I bother to claim at all!
That apart -- yes, the system is blatantly wrong and open to abuse -- however, some of the stories we have heard are bordering on fraud, or criminal negligence.
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
That could well be the case Nick, but it could be a poison chalice for the new body politic. The risk is that no party will be in a position to hold a working majority without the assistance of one or more of the smaller groups. This can lead to confused government, which is as undesirable as corrupt or incompetent government. :y
True, but the upcoming elections won't affect Westminster per se. However, it should, with a bit of luck, prompt the major parties to rethink their policies in time for the General Election.
-
i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.
hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?
and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money
i'm completely in 2 minds :-/ :-/ :-/
I can quite understand what you are saying. But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent! ::) ::) ::) This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)
Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action? :-X :-X :-X
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years :y
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
Nay, fair Count - you are but from the Bard descended!
From personal experience however I would caution against the proportional representational/coalition option. It has made a right balls of the system over here. You need an administration with a clear majority to drive through sensible legislation. :y :y
-
i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.
hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?
and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money
i'm completely in 2 minds :-/ :-/ :-/
I can quite understand what you are saying. But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent! ::) ::) ::) This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)
Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action? :-X :-X :-X
i think the main problem is that MP's feel they should be paid more for the job they do (who doesn't) and they use the expenses system as a way of topping up their salary - some of it i can understand - they do need to claim for a 2nd home if they live outside London - but some claims are, like you say, completely fraudulent - flipping between main homes and 2nd homes to milk the system, claiming mortgage payments back when the mortgage has been paid - some of these bandits should be slapped in jail - a lot of it tho is not fraudulent - just cheap and grubby
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years :y
Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.
Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent >:(
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
That could well be the case Nick, but it could be a poison chalice for the new body politic. The risk is that no party will be in a position to hold a working majority without the assistance of one or more of the smaller groups. This can lead to confused government, which is as undesirable as corrupt or incompetent government. :y
True, but the upcoming elections won't affect Westminster per se. However, it should, with a bit of luck, prompt the major parties to rethink their policies in time for the General Election.
I sincerely hope so Nick :-/ :-/
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
Nay, fair Count - you are but from the Bard descended!
From personal experience however I would caution against the proportional representational/coalition option. It has made a right balls of the system over here. You need an administration with a clear majority to drive through sensible legislation. :y :y
I will have to check -- but the Bard might be one of the few whose blood does not flow in my veins ;)
As for PR --- I can see your point Zulu --- however, this lot over here aren't doing so well either !!!!!!
-
I think we're heading for a welcome sea-change in British politics, and this expenses furore has provided the right catalyst. This change will, I think, be signalled by a much higher vote for smaller parties and independents (UKIP, Libertarian, BNP, etc.) at the June elections.
There will be some who are attracted by the more extremist groups, but the main beneficiaries are likely to be UKIP.
The three major parties, with their patronage and whip system, need to recognise that, at the end of the day, each individual MP is sent to Westminster to represent his or her constituents...not to back the party-line, come what may.
That could well be the case Nick, but it could be a poison chalice for the new body politic. The risk is that no party will be in a position to hold a working majority without the assistance of one or more of the smaller groups. This can lead to confused government, which is as undesirable as corrupt or incompetent government. :y
True, but the upcoming elections won't affect Westminster per se. However, it should, with a bit of luck, prompt the major parties to rethink their policies in time for the General Election.
It would greatly assist if they came back and visited our planet every now and again !!!!!
-
i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.
hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?
and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money
i'm completely in 2 minds :-/ :-/ :-/
I can quite understand what you are saying. But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent! ::) ::) ::) This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)
Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action? :-X :-X :-X
Back to Hobbes Ms Zoom - they can't help it ::) ::)
But we should not let the inhabitants of the Fees and Expenses office off the hook, they were signing off on all of this ;)
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years :y
Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.
Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent >:(
yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote :o
-
i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.
hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?
and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money
i'm completely in 2 minds :-/ :-/ :-/
I can quite understand what you are saying. But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent! ::) ::) ::) This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)
Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action? :-X :-X :-X
i think the main problem is that MP's feel they should be paid more for the job they do (who doesn't) and they use the expenses system as a way of topping up their salary - some of it i can understand - they do need to claim for a 2nd home if they live outside London - but some claims are, like you say, completely fraudulent - flipping between main homes and 2nd homes to milk the system, claiming mortgage payments back when the mortgage has been paid - some of these bandits should be slapped in jail - a lot of it tho is not fraudulent - just cheap and grubby
Apparently (I don't have a source for these figures):
Since 1997 the average UK salary is reported to have risen by 26%
In 1997 an MP’s salary was £43860. Today it’s £64766. An increase of 68%
Add to this there is the increase in the Additional Costs Allowance.
In 1997 the ACA was “just” £12287. Today it’s £23083 (for the year 2007/08). An increase of 88%
If MPs salaries and allowances had increased in line with the rest of the country then they would currently be earning £55264 and have an allowance of £15482
£64,766 and they want to top up because it's not enough?
:o :o :(
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years :y
Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.
Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent >:(
yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote :o
You've kicked ass with that one bannjaxx :y :y (please feel free to replenish gum)
-
Maybe they should make the vote the remuneration in a contract between the incoming party and the electorate. For that vote the party contracts to deliver on it's manifesto promises ... and MP's can be held accountable in law for failure to deliver.
Totally unworkable ... but hey
-
i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.
hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?
and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money
i'm completely in 2 minds :-/ :-/ :-/
I can quite understand what you are saying. But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent! ::) ::) ::) This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)
Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action? :-X :-X :-X
i think the main problem is that MP's feel they should be paid more for the job they do (who doesn't) and they use the expenses system as a way of topping up their salary - some of it i can understand - they do need to claim for a 2nd home if they live outside London - but some claims are, like you say, completely fraudulent - flipping between main homes and 2nd homes to milk the system, claiming mortgage payments back when the mortgage has been paid - some of these bandits should be slapped in jail - a lot of it tho is not fraudulent - just cheap and grubby
Apparently (I don't have a source for these figures):
Since 1997 the average UK salary is reported to have risen by 26%
In 1997 an MP’s salary was £43860. Today it’s £64766. An increase of 68%
Add to this there is the increase in the Additional Costs Allowance.
In 1997 the ACA was “just” £12287. Today it’s £23083 (for the year 2007/08). An increase of 88%
If MPs salaries and allowances had increased in line with the rest of the country then they would currently be earning £55264 and have an allowance of £15482
£64,766 and they want to top up because it's not enough?
:o :o :(
believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years :y
Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.
Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent >:(
yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote :o
You've kicked ass with that one bannjaxx :y :y (please feel free to replenish gum)
thank you kindly ;D
-
Maybe they should make the vote the remuneration in a contract between the incoming party and the electorate. For that vote the party contracts to deliver on it's manifesto promises ... and MP's can be held accountable in law for failure to deliver.
Totally unworkable ... but hey
;D ;D Yep you're right there HC, with the way law is applied through the court system we have at the moment it would be a bloody pantomime ;) ;)
-
WHAT? ........ it's a quarter to seven, I'm away to put the dinner on ;D ;D
-
believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!
A vastly-inflated ego is a mandatory requirement.
I think that MPs should be selected from those who are highly capable but do not want the job. They should be press-ganged.
After all, do you want to be ruled by someone whose overarching ambition is to rule you? ;)
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years :y
Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.
Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent >:(
yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote :o
Voter turnouts are mostly the same amoungst the main western democracies. All surveys have underlined the main reason as a feeling amoungst the voters that no matter who they vote for nothing will change! ::) ::) ::)
This is of course short sighted and a threat to democracy, but that is how it is at the moment. In authoritarian states voting runs at high levels up to 99%, but when there is a theat behind the decision to vote or not.................
-
believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!
A vastly-inflated ego is a mandatory requirement.
I think that MPs should be selected from those who are highly capable but do not want the job. They should be press-ganged.
After all, do you want to be ruled by someone whose overarching ambition is to rule you? ;)
one of lifes great ironies - people who seek power are almost always the last ones who should be given it, catch 22 m8 :(
-
Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!! Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!
I apologise for my lack of eloquence :(
aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years :y
Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.
Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent >:(
yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote :o
Voter turnouts are mostly the same amoungst the main western democracies. All surveys have underlined the main reason as a feeling amoungst the voters that no matter who they vote for nothing will change! ::) ::) ::)
This is of course short sighted and a threat to democracy, but that is how it is at the moment. In authoritarian states voting runs at high levels up to 99%, but when there is a theat behind the decision to vote or not.................
yep - in Iraq - Saddam's 'elections' had over 99% voter turnout - the ballot paper went something like
a) Vote Saddam..........please tick [ ]
b) bullet in the head....please tick [ ]
c) see a)
-
believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!
A vastly-inflated ego is a mandatory requirement.
I think that MPs should be selected from those who are highly capable but do not want the job. They should be press-ganged.
After all, do you want to be ruled by someone whose overarching ambition is to rule you? ;)
Forget Hobbes -- go Groucho, "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."