ForumGarden

First of all, I cant believe not much has been commented on about this absolute outrage from the members of the UK here!



I stopped smoking just because the the Darling chancellor raised the price of fags 7p a pack! Now I know why!!!



The British government is making me pay for their 2nd homes!(and their first ones....and their plasma tv's and tennis courts, swimming pools etc..) see

MPs' expenses - Telegraph



I think we are looking at history here folks. This is all the BNP needs. The parliament in Britain is in deep deep doodoo.



I wonder just how far and deep it goes? Local Borough Councils too perhaps? Britain is bankrupt folks. And now we know why.



Time for the people of Great Britain to have 1776 party. Time to write a Declaration of Independence again for the people of Great Britain this time.

The cost of running Westminster and paying the MPs, expenses included, is peanuts compared to whether they run the economy effectively or not. I'd still rather trust this outfit than hand the Tories the levers of power again.

Oh gawd dont start me off on this subject.All I know is if anybody would fiddle their tax....vat....claim benefits while working and all the other things we all can get done for it ....and rightly so.These upper class twits dont give a damn that theres people out there frightened even to put their heating on or are having their homes taken away from them.....na as long as they can buy manure for their horses and pretty flowers and dont have to dig into their wages so they can get even richer and to hell with it......they need to get the sack the ones that have obused their position and I dont care if thats just by a penny....the countrys in a state and there nicking from me/us the tax payer and yet we dont have a say what happens to the crooks....and yes thats what they are....bloody crooks.Watching more about this at the mo on the news.....claiming for a mortgage that didnt even exist....as I have said.....crooks.

Rubbish, Carolly. There was a system in place and they stuck to the rules of it. The rules turned out to be shocking. They're not crooks in the slightest, they're public-spirited people who devote their lives to the good of the country.

Theres been quite a few threads on the subject. Its set to run a while yet. Maybe, hopefully a few heads will roll. They should be shown a dictionary and told to look up the word "integrity ". It seems many of the have forgotten the meaning.

While we're at it, maybe the BBC should be next for expenses scrutiny. Its public money afterall

spot;1188467 wrote: Rubbish, Carolly. There was a system in place and they stuck to the rules of it. The rules turned out to be shocking. They're not crooks in the slightest, they're public-spirited people who devote their lives to the good of the country.Ye course Spot:rolleyes:

Snowfire;1188469 wrote: Theres been quite a few threads on the subject. Its set to run a while yet. Maybe, hopefully a few heads will roll. They should be shown a dictionary and told to look up the word "integrity ". It seems many of the have forgotten the meaning.

While we're at it, maybe the BBC should be next for expenses scrutiny. Its public money afterall
I doubt they even know what the word means Snowfire.

spot;1188462 wrote: The cost of running Westminster and paying the MPs, expenses included, is peanuts compared to whether they run the economy effectively or not. I'd still rather trust this outfit than hand the Tories the levers of power again.


Sorry I dont buy that argument anymore. The system itself is corrupt. Doesnt matter who it is. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem. They are out for themselves, not the country. People are LOSING THEIR JOBS, HOMES, AND EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!!And they sit like fat cats in their multi million dollar homes.



These people sicken me.



A country is made up of people, not prime realestate.

spot;1188467 wrote: Rubbish, Carolly. There was a system in place and they stuck to the rules of it. The rules turned out to be shocking. They're not crooks in the slightest, they're public-spirited people who devote their lives to the good of the country.


Do they? They are the very fools who made the rules to rob the COUNTRY!!



To use a very english term....BOLLO(KS!!

Raven;1188472 wrote: Sorry I dont buy that argument anymore. The system itself is corrupt. Doesnt matter who it is. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem. They are out for themselves, not the country. People are LOSING THEIR JOBS, HOMES, AND EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!!And they sit like fat cats in their multi million dollar homes.



These people sicken me.



A country is made up of people, not prime realestate.Totally agree as so does everybody I know in the RW.I know somebody who is about to lose their home due to losing their job and can you imagine what they feel when they watch the news fgs.

Carolly;1188471 wrote: I doubt they even know what the word means Snowfire.
We would go to prison if we pulled the same stunt! Doubt they will tho.

Raven;1188475 wrote: We would go to prison if we pulled the same stunt! Doubt they will tho.Again totally agree ....and what are we the public whose money was used going to do about it.....sweet FA as normal....except show our feelings when we vote.

spot;1188467 wrote: Rubbish, Carolly. There was a system in place and they stuck to the rules of it. The rules turned out to be shocking. They're not crooks in the slightest, they're public-spirited people who devote their lives to the good of the country. How very true and as subjects of this wonderful government, i believe we should line the streets to give them a cheery wave on the way and be far more grateful for all their hard work.

spot;1188467 wrote: Rubbish, Carolly. There was a system in place and they stuck to the rules of it. The rules turned out to be shocking. They're not crooks in the slightest, they're public-spirited people who devote their lives to the good of the country.


Claiming for mortgage payments after the mortgage is paid off, is hardly public spirited. Its fraud, pure and simple. The majority of this scandalous use of tax payers money was manipulating the rules at best. "Flipping" your propery 3 times in a year doesnt strike me as "devoting their lives for the good of the country" Its self-serving greed and they know it.

The idea of a second home is for MPs to attend Parliament while still maintaining the consituency, not to make money, by claiming the expense of running a second home and then renting it out. Scandalous.

How any of these claims were ever passed by the relevant office is also a scandal.

We should be concentrating on those members who didnt dig their noses in the trough. There is a little hope at least

WalesOnline - News - Wales News - ‘It’ll take more than Cameron earnestness to clean things up’

Carolly;1188476 wrote: Again totally agree ....and what are we the public whose money was used going to do about it.....sweet FA as normal....except show our feelings when we vote.


I think the vote is a myth to keep the population under the delusion that they live under a democracy. Same with America which is turning into NAZI Germany by the way. (National Socialists) Ever wonder what would happen if NOBODY voted at all?

And Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been trying to sweep this under the carpet for a year now and he STILL complains that it has been made public. Sack him !

Snowfire;1188478 wrote: Claiming for mortgage payments after the mortgage is paid off, is hardly public spirited. Its fraud, pure and simple. The majority of this scandalous use of tax payers money was manipulating the rules at best. "Flipping" your propery 3 times in a year doesnt strike me as "devoting their lives for the good of the country" Its self-serving greed and they know it.



The idea of a second home is for MPs to attend Parliament while still maintaining the consituency, not to make money, by claiming the expense of running a second home and then renting it out. Scandalous.



How any of these claims were ever passed by the relevant office is also a scandal.



We should be concentrating on those members who didnt dig their noses in the trough. There is a little hope at least


Why arent WE allowed to claim mortgage interest payments on our house?

What about the poor sods who are losing their homes? Why cant they get a break? Yet those hypocrits actually MAKE money on the sale of the homes and then flip to avoid paying capitol gains? Thats TAX EVASION!! Carries a nice little prison sentence!! (if you arent an MP that is.)

spot;1188467 wrote: There was a system in place and they stuck to the rules of it. The rules turned out to be shocking. They're not crooks in the slightest, they're public-spirited people who devote their lives to the good of the country.


Just because the expenses rules allow MPs to claim things, it does not follow that MPs with integrity and principle should claim. Some of these people *are* crooks, for doing what they have done. Some have had to resign because of it.

Snowfire;1188481 wrote: And Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been trying to sweep this under the carpet for a year now and he STILL complains that it has been made public. Sack him !


He is just a sorry joke that makes Gordon Brown look even worse than he already does. Do any of them retain any credibility anymore? Not that Britain has to worry. All the important stuff is decided for them in Brussels.

Snowfire;1188481 wrote: And Michael Martin ... Sack him !


I agree with this post.

oscar;1188477 wrote: How very true and as subjects of this wonderful government, i believe we should line the streets to give them a cheery wave on the way and be far more grateful for all their hard work.Ahhhh yer in love again thats nice:)

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... day-i.html

Bill Sikes;1188487 wrote: I agree with this post.


What would be the point of that now?

Raven;1188489 wrote: What would be the point of that now?


What?

Bill Sikes;1188491 wrote: What?


Giving Michael Martin the sack? Whats the point? Isnt there supposed to be a general election soon anyway?

Raven;1188489 wrote: What would be the point of that now?


As the Speaker he has responsibilty for the good name of the House. He monitors the house and its rules and punishes those who break them . He is complicit in his refusal to make the whole issue of expenses transparant. He wanted to keep it all hidden.

Lord Tonypandy would be turning in his grave to see his Chair abused to such a degree

Snowfire;1188494 wrote: As the Speaker he has responsibilty for the good name of the House. He monitors the house and its rules and punishes those who break them . He is complicit in his refusal to make the whole issue of expenses transparant. He wanted to keep it all hidden.



Lord Tonypandy would be turning in his grave to see his Chair abused to such a degree


So would Oliver Cromwell!

I say let the Queen dissolve it and start over.

Raven;1188492 wrote: Giving Michael Martin the sack? Whats the point? Isnt there supposed to be a general election soon anyway?


a) He could "go up". That would not be a desirable thing *at all*.

b) Just because an election will occur in the forseeable future, as if that makes any difference to the holder of this office, does not mean that someone in his position, who has attracted the criticism he has, should be allowed to stay on.

Carolly;1188488 wrote: Ahhhh yer in love again thats nice:)

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... day-i.html
Did you think i was being serious?

oscar;1188503 wrote: Did you think i was being serious? Did you think I was?:wah:;)

Snowfire;1188494 wrote: Lord Tonypandy would be turning in his grave to see his Chair abused to such a degree


I could never bring myself to like George Thomas, much as I tried. I know he was a saint but even so.

One of the few days I stayed riveted to the parliament channel was when Ted Heath took the chair for the day in electing Tony Martin and refused to let MPs vote for him until all the other dozen contenders had spoken. Gwyneth Dunwoody knew she couldn't get it but my goodness she made the speech of her life that day. She would have been so good instead of the Buggins we ended up with.

Carolly;1188505 wrote: Did you think I was?:wah:;) :yh_rotfl

Bill Sikes;1188499 wrote: a) He could "go up". That would not be a desirable thing *at all*.

b) Just because an election will occur in the forseeable future, as if that makes any difference to the holder of this office, does not mean that someone in his position, who has attracted the criticism he has, should be allowed to stay on.


The grande Dame of Institutions has been so tarnished that a complete purge of her should begin. Parliament needs a SERIOUS phosphate enema to clear out all the old SH*T that currently is giving her constipation!

Whatever happened to parliamentarians being from the working public? Since when did being a MP become a full time occupation?

Raven;1188511 wrote: Whatever happened to parliamentarians being from the working public? Since when did being a MP become a full time occupation?About a hundred years ago MPs started being paid. Up until then if you didn't have independent means then you simply couldn't afford to run for office. The whole point of paying MPs was to enable working class participation in government. It's entirely reasonable that their pay should be comparable with top-level civil servants or business leaders and at the moment it isn't, they get maybe £65k a year. That's perhaps why an assumption on their part that ekeing out their income with the widespread overgenerous application of expenses was a built-in compensation for the lack of appropriate pay. You won't give them what they deserve and now you're complaining that the compensatory system has failed too. The answer's simple - give them a comparable salary to start with.

spot;1188532 wrote: About a hundred years ago MPs started being paid. Up until then if you didn't have independent means then you simply couldn't afford to run for office. The whole point of paying MPs was to enable working class participation in government. It's entirely reasonable that their pay should be comparable with top-level civil servants or business leaders and at the moment it isn't, they get maybe £65k a year. That's perhaps why an assumption on their part that ekeing out their income with the widespread overgenerous application of expenses was a built-in compensation for the lack of appropriate pay. You won't give them what they deserve and now you're complaining that the compensatory system has failed too. The answer's simple - give them a comparable salary to start with. I totaly agree Spot.

For anyone who has had their own business or studied accountancy..... come on??? What did you claim for? Because i know that i claimed for anything i could if i was honest.

spot;1188532 wrote: About a hundred years ago MPs started being paid. Up until then if you didn't have independent means then you simply couldn't afford to run for office. The whole point of paying MPs was to enable working class participation in government. It's entirely reasonable that their pay should be comparable with top-level civil servants or business leaders and at the moment it isn't, they get maybe £65k a year. That's perhaps why an assumption on their part that ekeing out their income with the widespread overgenerous application of expenses was a built-in compensation for the lack of appropriate pay. You won't give them what they deserve and now you're complaining that the compensatory system has failed too. The answer's simple - give them a comparable salary to start with.


Do you hear what you are saying??? 65k a year doesnt sound too bad to me!!! Fully qualified professional, I wont make but a mere 30k!! My husband, who has worked his entire life, only makes 16k a year! And how many unemployed do we currently have in this country??

oscar;1188535 wrote: I totaly agree Spot.



For anyone who has had their own business or studied accountancy..... come on??? What did you claim for? Because i know that i claimed for anything i could if i was honest.


I think the whole system is corrupt. People are asking what an MP is worth. Well how much should I charge for saving your life? What perks should your average NHS A&E nurse get? Just asking to make a point to be sure, but still. Why should we tolerate a culture of 'whats in it for me'? It's not a very attractive system of governing if you ask me.

Raven;1188541 wrote: I think the whole system is corrupt. People are asking what an MP is worth. Well how much should I charge for saving your life? What perks should your average NHS A&E nurse get? You have my utmost empathy as i have staff nurses in my family also. There is no doubt that nurses should be rewarded far greater than they have ever been and i would like to see them paid what they deserve. I think the expenses claimed by MP's is fair PROVIDING they do not take advantage. They have no choice but to live in another world to us where they need to travel and have security etc.

oscar;1188543 wrote: You have my utmost empathy as i have staff nurses in my family also. There is no doubt that nurses should be rewarded far greater than they have ever been and i would like to see them paid what they deserve. I think the expenses claimed by MP's is fair PROVIDING they do not take advantage. They have no choice but to live in another world to us where they need to travel and have security etc.
Oh dont get me wrong! I am quite happy with my pay actually! It pays my bills with a little left over! No problems.

I just think people have lost the concept of how much money they are ACTUALLY talking about! I think that could be down to the fact that we constantly hear BILLIONS and TRILLIONS bandied about all the time, but do we REALLY appreciate how much that actually is?

I could live like a queen on 65k a year! What are these old farts having a problem with? Their portfolios might not be what they once were but oh boohoo!

spot;1188532 wrote: It's entirely reasonable that their pay should be comparable with top-level civil servants or business leaders and at the moment it isn't, they get maybe £65k a year.


Why is it "entirely reasonable" they get the same as "top-level civil servants or business leaders"?

Why isn't £65,000 reasonable, not forgetting *legitimate* and reasonable expenses do come on top of that?

Bill Sikes;1188574 wrote: Why is it "entirely reasonable" they get the same as "top-level civil servants or business leaders"?

Why isn't £65,000 reasonable, not forgetting *legitimate* and reasonable expenses do come on top of that?


Because there are sixty million people in the UK and our legislators are the thousand best in whom we entrust the development of the entire country. They can easily get a half million a year in other jobs, the only reason they put up with the appallingly low pay in comparative terms is because they feel called to serve. Persuading them into service with fairer recompense seems sensible to me, rather than having sixth rate alternative applicants get elected or appointed in their place.

spot;1188578 wrote: Because there are sixty million people in the UK and our legislators are the thousand best in whom we entrust the development of the entire country. They can easily get a half million a year in other jobs, the only reason they put up with the appallingly low pay in comparative terms is because they feel called to serve. Persuading them into service with fairer recompense seems sensible to me, rather than having sixth rate alternative applicants get elected or appointed in their place.


So why dont you run for office then?

I dont think those that are currently running the government ARE the thousand best! A few of them are most certainly worth it, but the vast majority are not.

Vince Cable is worth every penny and more. He would make a superb Chancellor. A man with integrity

Snowfire;1188595 wrote: Vince Cable is worth every penny and more. He would make a superb Chancellor. A man with integrity
Exactly. But he is only one person. Maybe the office of MP should be redefined. Maybe people forgot exactly what an MP is for. A new Magna Carta perhaps? The old one is a bit dusty.

Snowfire;1188595 wrote: Vince Cable is worth every penny and more. He would make a superb Chancellor. A man with integrity :wah: don't you just love him?

I must admit that he's not bad :sneaky:

spot;1188467 wrote: Rubbish, Carolly. There was a system in place and they stuck to the rules of it. The rules turned out to be shocking. They're not crooks in the slightest, they're public-spirited people who devote their lives to the good of the country.


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfleeeeee sopt i always knew you ahd a sense of humour:sneaky:

Now about their salary ,, 65K isnt a good wage? i know My brotehr in law gets a pretty good wage,, dunno if its near that mark ,, but he has to drive about 2 hours to work and back again every day,,, he might get a petrol allowance ,, not sure but her certainly does not get all the expenses they get ,, and im not just on about the second homes thing either,, ye he is expected to live on his wage,,, and he does! quite comfortably:D

and they are not all on 65k,, some are on 140k like blears for example:sneaky:the paper quoted one woman as a multi millionare!"! still claiming expenses!

spot;1188578 wrote: Because there are sixty million people in the UK and our legislators are the thousand best in whom we entrust the development of the entire country. They can easily get a half million a year in other jobs, the only reason they put up with the appallingly low pay in comparative terms is because they feel called to serve. Persuading them into service with fairer recompense seems sensible to me, rather than having sixth rate alternative applicants get elected or appointed in their place.


There must be many trustworthy and intelligent people in the UK who would do the job for £65,000 + legitimate and reasonable expenses on top, wouldn't you say?

If you believe that "our legislators are the thousand best" (best at *what*?), then I put it to you that you must be living on planet Zog.

If they can easily get a half million a year in other jobs, and the only reason they "put up with the appallingly low pay in comparative terms" is because they feel called to serve, why do so many of them *self-serve*?

Bill Sikes;1188660 wrote: There must be many trustworthy and intelligent people in the UK who would do the job for £65,000 + legitimate and reasonable expenses on top, wouldn't you say?

If you believe that "our legislators are the thousand best" (best at *what*?), then I put it to you that you must be living on planet Zog.

If they can easily get a half million a year in other jobs, and the only reason they "put up with the appallingly low pay in comparative terms" is because they feel called to serve, why do so many of them *self-serve*?


they feel called to serve themselves

they feel called to serve their ego's

they feel called to serve us a load of crap!

by the way i still think spot is playing with us here and laughing his head off:sneaky:

There's no doubt that £65k is a good wage, but many if not most would be able to earn at least twice that in business. I'd rather pay them £120k and no expenses, but the tabloids would see a chance for a good old rant to sell a few more of their rags, so no Parliament would risk it. Result - the current unsatisfactory system.

Clodhopper;1188706 wrote: There's no doubt that £65k is a good wage, but many if not most would be able to earn at least twice that in business. I'd rather pay them £120k and no expenses, but the tabloids would see a chance for a good old rant to sell a few more of their rags, so no Parliament would risk it. Result - the current unsatisfactory system.


Thank goodness someone else has told it like it is.