...gone
David Wilshire, the Tory MP facing expenses allegations, has announced that he will not fight the next election. His decision follows what are being described as a series of "lengthy conversations" with the Conservative chief whip.
Mr Wilshire insists that he's done nothing wrong and will fight to clear his name... and so on and so forth.
However, he becomes the latest victim of the expenses saga and the latest scalp claimed by the Daily Telegraph. His going also presents another in a long line of opportunities for those hungry to enter the Commons (yes, really, there are some).
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Not exactly gone then. He's still hanging on until the election. No doubt to continue feeding at the trough for as long as he can.
Complain about this comment
There you are Nick - as the sun sets on the same day the news broke, David Cameron has got it sorted. What a Leader - what a contrast to Brown.
Complain about this comment
The next Parliament should be very interesting - how many new, first time MPs will we have?
On the other hand probably a lot more boring - I suspect that 99.9% of the new MPs will be professional politicians who don't know what real work is.
Complain about this comment
overclaiming expenses should be classed as theft of public funds and should have a serious charge attached to help stop those foolish enough to think they can abuse the post they were elected to.
banning from public office should be a must and their crimes widely reported to shame them.
even if they repay any overpayment if the overpayment could have been avoided then they should also pay interest on the ammount.
Complain about this comment
1 day - MP gone - WELL DONE Tories - now what has happened to that awful ex Home Secretary Smith - how much did she manage - £116,000 - still, she apologised and thats OK by Nu Labour standards.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the Chief Whip showed him what the Green Book says...?
I'm not a great fan of Cameron but he does seem to be showing a tad more leadership on this than Brown and Clegg, or at least to be acting more decisively (not necessarily the same thing, of course).
When are the Labour whips going to have a little chat with Jacqui Smith, and hand her the metaphorical pear-handled revolver?
Complain about this comment
If the average bloke in the street robs his local bank, then repays all the money the following week, he'll still go to jail. Presumably MP's wouldn't - why is that ? Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Half the number of MPs, give the rest a 50% salary increase, and add genuine penalties for future abuses (eg. immediate by-election and reduction in pensions). Like most businesses, getting rid of job squatters increases productivity. Less is more.
"long line of opportunities for those hungry to enter the Commons (yes, really, there are some)."
I assume it is not the same as genuinely eager to serve Queen, country and people. Perhaps it is eager for networking and doing-the-right-thing-for-the-right-people in exchange for post-political rewards???
Complain about this comment
*4 delminster
Absolutely right.
Before the next Parliament, new laws must be in place making politicians equally answerable in law to those they claim to serve. Let's have a proper set of legally enforcable rules for expenses.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Have any MP's decalired or paid Tax on their aditional second homes allounaces amounts that were not nesasuarry inclued as their role as an MP ie duck houses, damp profing then husbands house, mock tudar beams etc
Complain about this comment
6. At 8:21pm on 15 Oct 2009, badgercourage wrote:
When are the Labour whips going to have a little chat with Jacqui Smith, and hand her the metaphorical pear-handled revolver?
**************
They're more likely to hand her an ermine cloak, a la Gorbals Mick.
Complain about this comment
Good riddance! Sleazers out!
What about Gordon Brown - 12K trough fest on gardening and his mortgage arrangements 'hushed up' - Why doesn't he resign too!
They just don't get it!
Complain about this comment
I know this is off topic and deliberately so but why
are the same old banks
paying out the same old bonuses
to the same old people
who were most responsible for this financial crisis
and yet are still ignored by the same old government
and the same old regulators who continue to look away?
What exactly has changed since the G20 met in London and Philadelphia?
Absolutely nothing!
What we need are actions, not words. Gordon? Dave? Anyone?
What about AD's and GB's rhetoric which suggested that they had called time on big bank bonuses and that the government and regulator would come down on them like a ton of bricks?
Absolutely nothing!
I may be a Tory but that doesn't stop me from wanting a windfall tax to repay the kind and generous tax payers who bailed them out from certain bankruptcy.
Back on topic.....
Well done DW, you did the right thing; not by setting up a bogus company but by falling (or being pushed) onto your sword.
Complain about this comment
May the members of this parliament, of all shades, be remembered for one thing.
By bringing the Mother of Parliaments into such disrepute by their venal, mendacious, squalid behaviour, they have allowed neo-fascists a voice and a constituency in mainstream British politics.
May we all learn from this.
Complain about this comment
"1. At 8:03pm on 15 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
Not exactly gone then. He's still hanging on until the election. No doubt to continue feeding at the trough for as long as he can."
Of course like all MPs that havent done the honourable thing, he will get at least 30k loss of seat allounces and the inflated pension for surving till then end of a parlimnet. IF the like all the other honerable members caught with their noses in the trough or members who failed to declair their ecpenses that were not nessusarly required for their role as MPs ACTUALU resignend then tax payer would save millions.
Complain about this comment
Gone and goodbye forever!
Never to be seen in The Commons chamber,along with most of
the other till-dippers,who are waiting for their multi £
payoff in May ! Spotted Andrew McKay in the Defence debate !
Remember Cameron,red-faced,protesting,wanting to be seen to be
macho tough,setting up a special to vet Tory expenses !!!
Cameron et al, MISSED ALL THE BIG FIDDLES.
What's the Central Office spin ???
Maybe the answer will be on Question Time !!!
Complain about this comment
"12. At 8:47pm on 15 Oct 2009, nautonier wrote:
Good riddance! Sleazers out!
What about Gordon Brown - 12K trough fest on gardening and his mortgage arrangements 'hushed up' - Why doesn't he resign too!
They just don't get it!"
Just ask your self why the Tax Payer should pay for a new kitchen and cleaning for a flat that an MP has transfered the owner ship to is wife such that the tax athorities, probate athorities will exclude it from aly claims he rases? And she magaged to get a wholw of life mortage above the value of the property?
Complain about this comment
So he's gone, but Cameron doesn't want to talk about it, sets up a press conferance, then cancels it, what does he know that we dont?
It really doesn't matter, he is a party leader and should be leading, not hiding. Imagine the headlines and what the media would be saying if this was GB! The silence from the media on this, instead of the frenzy this would provoke if it was GB simply proves once again that the media are really running the country, they (with a little help from GB) effectivaly raised a coup against Tony Blair, now they are doing it again by selective reporting. So be honest nick, if this was a Labour MP and Gordon was cancelling news conferances, what would you be saying? a lot more than a few meaningless lines i bet!
Complain about this comment
These MPs still do not understand the public anger. Take Gordon Brown for example (any offers?). He has lived in Downing Street, since 1997. He still claimed for a flat in London as his 'main' home.
On moving into No.10., he then 'flipped' to his constituency home in Scotland. (details on Politics Show 13th October).
We still have the disgraceful story of Jacqui Smith. A begrudged "apology", courtesy of all Labour members of a committee. She gained the sum of £116,000-00, on the pretext that her sister's spare room was her main home.
She allegedly stated that she spent more time there, than in her constituency home but this did not accord with Protection Police log-books. We have to rely on what informtion we are given and then come to a conclusion.
I have no time for the SURREY Tory MP , who will not stand at the next election. I await the result of the outstanding enquiry into his dealings.
Complain about this comment
And what of the £100,000?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
when is Brown going to have a word in Jaqui Smiths ear?
Complain about this comment
Excellent! Clearly a dodgy MP. And no messing about!
Complain about this comment
So, here is another one who played by the rules ,so thats ok. What about the 'flippers' who have had their mortgages paid by us and profited to the tune of hundreds of thousends and there has so far been no mention of how that is to be redressed. The cleaning and gardening bills are small potatoes when you look at how much MPs have lined their pockets by buying property and flipping a lot of times in one of the fastest property asset growth periods. I don't care what the rules say, it is immoral, and nobody, except Clegg, wants to mention it and nail those involved. These people are dispicable.
Complain about this comment
#14 jwilkesnotbooth wrote:
May the members of this parliament, of all shades, be remembered for one thing.
By bringing the Mother of Parliaments into such disrepute by their venal, mendacious, squalid behaviour, they have allowed neo-fascists a voice and a constituency in mainstream British politics.
May we all learn from this.
==========
If you are talking about the BNP and the truth be known, this lot of so called 'neo-fascists' are actually far closer to the left of left wing than they are to the right.
In the European Parliament, they got around the circular seating problem which separated the leftest party and the BNP by a cigarette paper; they put both parties at the beginning and the end of the spectrum as if they were sitting at either end.
However if you join both ends to make a circle as they do in Europe, the obnoxious two sit next to each other in yet another bit of Euro jiggery pokery.
Don't get me wrong. I am a Tory who wants the UK to be part of Europe, but let's tell it as it is, not what we look it to be.
And Wilko, it's not just the right; both ends of the political spectrum are growing unhealthily stronger which is why our MPs and political class have got to stop thinking of themselves but instead start serving the population.
Complain about this comment
Quite right you are Nick. This idiot of an MP has done nothing wrong, - - - but hey,---he quits! What a hypocrite!
Why does he not resign now and let us have a by-election?
One anticipates to be hearing a lot from certain multi millionaires who are milking our taxes to pay for their interests on their massive loans to buy mansions.
One wonders who this next idiot is going to be!
Any idea who Nick?
Good night Nick.
Complain about this comment
Is there really no way that this present Parliament can be terminated?
Is there not some obscure emergency law that can be brought to bear to put everyone out of their misery.
Is there no external constitutional body that can call a halt to proceedings.
There is no-one in the House that is honest or honourable enough to do it.
Are we expected to go for another seven months with incompetent Government and a whole house of MPs whose major priority is how to hang on to what they've got and how to get as much more out of the system as they can before being kicked out.
The public deserves better!
Complain about this comment
There is a suggestion that if there is an early election, that the MPs will be given a 'Get out of Gaol' card and not be chased up for the cash.
It would appear that there is going to be an election before Christmas. The Defence utter debacle (WW1 shell crisis). Eddie Mair was in great form on PM interviewing Lord Raston (? apologies) as he was blaming the system. Even though he had been in charge for 4 years.
Secondly, the paralysation of Parliament with the expenses handle. We could see a genuine backbencher revolt, but for the wrong reasons to save their skins.
Hmmm. Wonder if Gordon's health is going to stand the strain?
Complain about this comment
So OK today some hapless old Tory Grandee fell on his sword. It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal. I had to laugh though, all sorts of high jinks going on left, right and centre, and the civil servant Brown picks focuses only on a single liberty of which Gordon was the chief taker!Priceless!
Complain about this comment
Only in the Cloud Cuckoo Land that is this Fraudsters' Parliament would the activities of this... yes another one... MP, NOT SOUND FRAUDULENT!
I have written to the Metropolitan Police, as a taxpaying citizen voter making an official complaint about two earlier examples of senior MPs trousering public funds. Please feel free to cut, edit and use if you want to;
Subject: Alleged misappropriation of public funds by an MP (Insert name of MP there are hundreds to choose from!!!! )
Dear Sir,
As a tax paying UK citizen, I am writing to make a formal complaint and demand that a formal police investigation into the recent allegations of alleged fraudulent claims paid out of public funds by the above MP be initiated.
Please consider this to be a formal complaint by a UK citizen reporting an alleged crime.
I would suggest that the Fraud Act 2006 which came into force on January 1st 2007 be used. The following text from the Act may cover the situation;
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are-
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of-
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
The explanatory notes accompanying the Act include the following text;
Section 2: Fraud by false representation
10. Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
The many and various attempts by MPs to change, obscure, conceal and ignore attempts to 'flush out ' these practices must be held as evidence that those concerned were aware that there actions were dishonest and that their behaviour would be regarded by dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
I note that this case fulfills at least two of the common public interest factors contained in Section 5.9 of the current Prosecution Manual namely:-
5.9
a a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;e the defendant was in a position of trust;
o there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct;
Yours faithfully,
Complain about this comment
The details of MP's expenses will continue to come out... but the response from some MPs has been extraordinary. One sitting said on Radio 5Live recently that he was claiming for - amongst other items - a shaver. And he genuinely seemed peeved that he had to pay that back...
Either some of them still don't get it - ie, that they still don't understand that expenses should be 'absolutely' necessary for them to do their jobs representing their constituencies... or, that repayment for such unnecessary items is somehow a sleight on their character and therefore must be countered...
I must say, that MP's constant barracking of Clegg (and I'm not a Lib-Dem supporter) during PMQs (this time apparently after saying that the enquiry should be widened) is something of a disgrace, but it is a further indication of the stance that many MPs are taking on this... and all this with many of the people of the country in dire straits financially, and unemployment at 2.5m and still rising...
Complain about this comment
Pigs. Trough. Snout. Out!
Next....................
Complain about this comment
No 28: "It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal."
You are saying this on the day a TORY MP has resigned for taking over £100k.
You don't get it, do you?!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
25 olnywayup:
You can bet the next MP to step down will not be a Labour one. Simply because it means they either stand down themselves (and they NEVER do this) or Brown would have to have sacked them (and he's not going to do that, despite what his fabled Moral Compass might be telling him)
Complain about this comment
18 laughingdevil:
Huh? Do my eyes deceive me? An obvious Labour supporter having the bare-faced cheek to accuse Cameron of hiding and not answering questions?
I could give you a list of all the topics that Gordon Brown has kept quiet on rather than answer any questions, but I'd run out of space to post.
I'm sure we all get that Gordon's byline is "better to keep quiet and have people think you're a {insert Jeremy Clarkson's phrase here} than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". But to have a Nu Labour apologist say that about Cameron strikes me as being a little hypocritical.
Complain about this comment
Will these people ever get the message, I wonder?
Complain about this comment
#32
I guess what "downwiththerest" means is that we have a labour government,
(albeit one who are doing their damnest to ruin this country)and a self
nominated Labour P.M.
As for the Tory M.P.who is "reluctantly" going to stand down,good riddance.Fair play to Cameron for that.
Now,whens Gordon going to do likewise with Jackie Smith?
Complain about this comment
Willy:
"Simply because it means they either stand down themselves (and they NEVER do this)."
Are you certain about your facts here or do you need to do MOREly research, old CHAPman?
Complain about this comment
No messing about, Cameron acted quickly.
Why do Jacqui Smith, Tony McNulty et al getting appear to be getting away with it though. What is Brown doing?
The only way to clear this mess up is to have an election now!
Complain about this comment
so ... Cameron throws another of his people to the wolves
a bit rich when you bear in mind his own Home Loan shenanigans, isn't it?
no moral authority
(which is a great pity because he has qualities)
Complain about this comment
I do wonder if Brown has resigned to losing the next election, marginal seats like Jaqui Smiths in Redditch Labour need to win but they have no chance with her still standing, or is he hoping she is going to do the honourable thing and stand down.
Complain about this comment
Mr Wilshire was my MP, although I am a not a Tory voter I admired his support for the expansion of Heathrow where many of his electorate work. I fear that the expenses saga has turned into a witch hunt of those MP's who do not follow the Cameron line.
Complain about this comment
"David Wilshire, the Tory MP facing expenses allegations, has announced that he will not fight the next election. His decision follows what are being described as a series of "lengthy conversations" with the Conservative chief whip."
------------------------------------------
Whatever you may think of this mans previous actions and he obviously isn't the only mp talking the mick, at least he did the right thing for his party, and the reputation of the house in general.
Cameron seems to be somewhat less of a ditherer than that coward brown doesn't he?
I wonder what a labour mp has to do for Brown to get his moral compass out of his pocket and take action.
Complain about this comment
The MPs still don't get it. Still less do the party leaders. Sacrificing one or more of their 'pals' will not solve the problem, indeed each one may be magnifying the problem!
The people want MPs to pass legislation that REDUCES inequality in the whole Nation - not just in Westminster. I think the people may never again accept these 'jobs for the boys' parties who legislate for the benefit of the friends and claim that they are doing it for the benefit of the Nation - what rot!
Quite obviously the poor have been robbed to finance the rich bankers and it is outrageous and will remain outrageous until the situation is redressed.....
(Firing MPs is not a substitute for dramatically curtailing inequality in the whole Nation. You could fire all 650 odd and the problem would remain!)
Complain about this comment
Eminating from the scourge of the expenses scandal comes the purge of the MP's.
Good name for Cantata or Oratorio that "The Purge of the MPs".
I reiterate, as a woman, I find this all a bit alarming and frightening (nervous disposition I have). I cannot help but notice that those who are most enraged, phoning in radio stations to splutter out their anger etc., are men.
I have concluded that men are intensely jealous. Far more so than women actually. Insecure. They are incensed if another man makes money, especially if audaciously right under their noses.
It highlight the inability of this stinky government who could not organise a ... up in a brewery. Despite the best brains and expertise available to them they cannot bring about a satisfactory resolution to the problem.
I cannot help but think the MD or Chief Exec. of a highly successful business such as Virgin or Tesco with legal back up could have done it without this fuss.
Government is too cloistered. Too out of touch. Too incompetent for this enigma - or anything.
Complain about this comment
39. At 10:18pm on 15 Oct 2009, telecasterdave wrote:
...Why do Jacqui Smith, Tony McNulty et al getting appear to be getting away with it though. What is Brown doing?
***************
Exactly - what is he doing?
no moral authority
(Which is not a pity as he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever)
Complain about this comment
So, David Wilshire is clear he was well within Parliamentary rules in
his huge allowances claims; I note one political web-site examining his voting record states, "Has never voted on laws to stop climate change". Presumably that includes NOT changing the climate of corruption and
sleaze which were the hallmarks of the latter days of the last
Conservative administration ten years after he arrived in the house...
Complain about this comment
#40
"Camerons Home Loan shenanigans"? You mean like Jackie Smiths,Tony McNultys,Balls/Coopers et al?
You really are getting more than a teensy bit obsessed with Cameron,I think deep down,really deep you like him!
Complain about this comment
32. At 9:43pm on 15 Oct 2009, Iwilltellyouthis wrote:
No 28: "It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal."
You are saying this on the day a TORY MP has resigned for taking over £100k.
You don't get it, do you?!
--------------------------
You're right it isn't a labour party scandal - they were all at it.
Unfortunately what stands out a mile is that the conservatives and labour are handling this issue very differently.
Cameron is taking action unlike gordon who hasn't the guts to actually force any of his mps to do anything, and considering that Labour is the party of fairness, its somewhat ironic that none of them have the integrity to do anything other than cling to their ill-gotten gains and hope this all blows over.
Complain about this comment
45. At 10:26pm on 15 Oct 2009, flamepatricia wrote:
Eminating from the scourge of the expenses scandal comes the purge of the MP's.
Good name for Cantata or Oratorio that "The Purge of the MPs"....
**********************
I was thinking more on the lines of a Swansong 8-)
Complain about this comment
I appreciate the Wiltshire case looks bad but is any wrong doing proven?
Politically Cameron has done the right thing for the Tories, he is appearing decisive however I would like to be certain that expediency has not trod roughshod over natural justice. Even a hardened criminal has his day in court.
Complain about this comment
Says it all really, Wilshire rightly kicked out, Smith up for a peerage.
How much more grotesque can Zanulabour become?
Complain about this comment
Its a bit rich (sorry) saying Cameron has taken the moral high ground when with £30M in assets he claims for a second mortgage on a house he could have bought outright.
I will believe he is truly better than Labour when he pays back all his second mortgage payments. Until then he's just another grubby Politician looking forward to a few years in power, being treated like Royalty, grabbing every perk he can and then getting half a dozen non-executive directorships from his mates in the CBI.
Same as the old boss.
Complain about this comment
40 saggyminx:
Detail one thing that DC has done that's against the rules, either now or in the past, to back up your 'home loan shennanegins' comment.
Nope? Thought not.
Nice try, but wrong.
Complain about this comment
40 sagamix
There you go again (yawn!).
If there was something in your Cameron mortgage story, someone respectable, somewhere in the massive media industry, would have picked up on it. But they haven't. So there isn't.
It's a total canard (my word of the day!).
Complain about this comment
There are a lot of posts saying things along the lines of ' they must legislate against this sort of thing etc.' . Just who is going to do the legislating - why those who have trousered what they can from using their positions as legislators!! . It's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas - or just asking turkeys to vote.
Complain about this comment
Time to stop the witch hunt, even Harriet Harman can at last see the damage this is doing.
Complain about this comment
57. At 11:14pm on 15 Oct 2009, ChrisCornwall wrote:
Time to stop the witch hunt, even Harriet Harman can at last see the damage this is doing.
*******************
Let them get away with it in other words. Yeah Right!
Complain about this comment
Another one bites the dust!!!
Stop the witch hunt from Harriet Harman !
Over the years,she has added to the mess.
Get the police in,charge a few till-dippers,
with theft,deceit etc and the remaining
200 to 300 dishonourable will be filling
the coffers !
That will stop the witch hunt.
Make Wilshire repay £100k.
If Jacqui Smith repay £116k and then she can go to the Lords.
But that would be CASH FOR HONOURS !!!
Complain about this comment
MP's have enjoyed these expenses for years. Telegraph only published them when they did not only to cause maximum havoc to a weak timid Labour government but mainly because it knew the public in recession would simply compare their own financial wellbeing and expense claims etc with the MP's rather than appreciating that the whole issue obscures far more fundamental defects of the system. Similar to the bankers bonuses such extravagent allowances have all been a bribe to ensure that no mainstream party rocks the boat or challenges the role of the markets!
This Wiltshire chap's claims and how he fed them into his company is the most poignant example of how the House of Commons is merely a mouthpiece of big business not a representative mouthpiece of society as a whole!
Complain about this comment
Still the same witless arguments back and forth: Tory this, Labour that, Tory this, Labour that. When will the electorate of this country realise Westminster is corrupt and rotten to the core? Neither of these parties care a fig for our people. We are oppressed, taxed to oblivion, voiceless and swamped with unwanted ethnic imports. Our national identity is being deliberately erased to make way for the Superstate in which we will all be serfs.
Unless a new way is found, I feel we may be sliding towards eventual civil war.
Complain about this comment
@ 48
I think deep down you like him!
like Cameron? ... yep, no secrets on here ... I do
which is why I'd have preferred it if he'd retained at least a vestige of the Moral Authority which a Prime Minister in waiting needs in order to be credible
Complain about this comment
Is it ludicrous how MP's are portrayed as "victims" of the expenses scandal, I think it most certainly is.
I imagine there are some MP's who have little or nothing to worry about. Well done to them although my hat won't be coming off.
As for the likes of David Wilshire who have obviously used the expenses system for profit and personal gain, words like, victim, angry, dissatisfied, annoyed ect ect are not word they are "entitled too"
Only the taxpayer has that privilege right now..
Complain about this comment
#55 what our massive media industry of overwhelmingly Tory supporting newspapers and their owners television stations, plus The Guardian (which did break the story) and the politically neutral (despite the tory central office guff you read in the comments here) BBC?
Complain about this comment
jrp @ 55
it's a total canard
I think you'd be surprised, JR, if you knew how much damage this "Canard" has done and is doing and will do to Conservative prospects for 2010
oh, and how come a retrospective cap for trivial things like gardening but no action on mortgages?
bit odd, don't you think? ... seems to let certain people off the hook
Complain about this comment
29 johnlbell
My local postmaster recently got sent down for 3 months for borrowing eight and a half thousand pounds from the post office to bolster the general store that the post office was within.Wrong but understandable. If the store failed ,no post office. He was in the middle of selling the business.
He never had any intention of keeping the money and repaid it in full but was prosecuted for fraud by misrepresentation, not theft.
Like yourself I am incensed that MPs appear to be getting off scot free.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to hear Alan Johnson on Question Time tonight saying that at least three MPs are the subject of police investigations.
Was he speaking out of turn, or is this a carefully planted tactic to make us think something is actually being done?
Complain about this comment
A lot of short sighted comments here. Yes I am angry that this happened but what do you think wastes more money. The expenses scandal or bureaucracy. If the MPs have to tell someone everytime the spend how much time do they spend working. Similarly if a Policeman has to fill in forms how much does policing does he do ??
Its off the point but at the end of the day it's small change when we could be talking about real ways of saving money. (EH hem, Trident) Either way the damage it has done to British politics is immeasurable. The future holds a third horse ...
Complain about this comment
#43
"I wonder what a labour mp has to do for Brown to get his moral compass out of his pocket and take action."
I think that maybe because he has his moral compass in his pocket, Brown can't find pocket without the moral compass in his hand...
Complain about this comment
Cameron is displaying his leadership qualiities by using this scandal to ruthlessly eliminate the old guard. Brown ... well, let's move on, why waste time on Labour's response ? The important thing is that the Conservatives get the mandate they need to do what is necessary.
Roll on the election !
Complain about this comment
#70secret
Think about it? Cameron asked his MP's to be honest(about expenses) way back in july, he simply didn't want to have this type of dealing in the run up to a general election.
What it also proves is young Cameron doesn't have control over his party.
JRP, wouldn't even argue that point!. (fairly- ruthless might?.)
Complain about this comment
Mr Wilshire insists that he's done nothing wrong and will fight to clear his name... and so on and so forth.
Any word about Chancellor Darling's flipping, then, Nick?
Any concern that a report revealing the extent of the waste in the MoD procurement processes could be a significant story?
I have no idea who thought that the HoC had any "rules" that any company would recognise.
An MP goes? So what? Happens every 5 years. Ministers being implicated in this stuff is just a disgrace. (Sorry, seems that the Head Honcho is in the pack. You know - the guy who said he would be tough and forced through a completely useless bit of legislation before the guy HE appointed could come up with a different approach.) Makes you weep.
#29, johnlbell wrote:
John,
I think you are right. If a soccer, golf or knitting club, or any other association created rules that are so far away from "conformity" with the normal legal processes, they would be taken to pieces in the courts.
I still have no idea how MPs were allowed to simply "flip" the primary or secondary designation of their homes, without incurring the wrath of the HMRC people.
I still can't work out how Balls and Cooper live in a "second" home - therefore "expenses" attracting - in London. They both work in London. (Fairly well paid.) Their children go to school in London. Far as I can tell, the school terms would mean they would have to be in London for the majority of a year. But we help them to buy a London house?
When both worked in London, where did they choose to have a house? You know, Cooper as an MP (previously a journalist) and hubby as a SpAD?
Or do they take it in turns to go back to the "real" home in Yorkshire, so both can claim they spent more time there than in their "true" home in London?
If - maybe when - they lose Ministerial roles, does anybody really believe that either would go north to seek re-employment or re-establish themselves in their "nominated home"?
I'd be amazed.
Forget the previous Home Secretary. I try to. Just too embarassing to contemplate that the best the UK can offer was Smith - and now Johnson.
Where have all the good, socially involved brains gone?
Complain about this comment
This is the way it's going to be. Honesty, integrity and honour are back in fashion big time.
Best get used to it.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron RULES OK!
Complain about this comment
It is even more important that those Tory MPs who voted against us having a referendum on the treaty to establish a Greater European Reich should resign or be deselected.
Until that happens, "Dave" is just a useless, mouthy scrimshanker.
Complain about this comment
Nick:
That's sad news, but, he is making his own decision after considerations...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
#peterbuss
I assume you are writing tongue in cheek. David Cameron did nothing, it was the Tory Chief Whip (who himself is waiting to hear how much he is likely to have to repay after submitting further information) who fixed it for him. DC was all over the place yesterday, calling the media in for a statement, then keeping them hanging around for hours, then dismissing them. As DC,too, supported Section 28, he probably did not want to get too close to this one. What a leader? What a nasty, bigoted chameleon more like. When did he have his Damascean moment? When his PR instincts told him right thinking people were not interested in bashing people because of their sexual orientation, not because his views had changed. Once a nasty party, always a nasty party, from the top down.
Complain about this comment
Morning nick and fellow script-ors So the man has shown a bit of courage that in its self is recommendable Its a great pity a few more don't follow suit i/e my old favorite baroness Scotland and uddhi will do for starters
Secondly i notice on my msn front page a headline We are cracking down on benefit fraud so just because you've moved abroad don't think you can get away with it .
What hypocrites.
If they are going to start sorting out the scroungers what about starting at no 10 downing street,? Then traveling over to the house of lords And chatting to the above for starters?
Followed quickly by a few moat and mock-beam members etc etc.
The list is endless so when will we see a few more coming forward thats the question? Morning all. Olden.
Complain about this comment
This entry is not about David Cameron's morally questionable behaviour in being the largest claimer for additional housing costs when he does not have a mortgage on his London house.
There are two ways for a spiv to make serious money in Parliament.
1 taking out a massive mortgage preferably interest only which you then sell on or flip.
2 taking on other jobs - basically this is just pawning/porning your contacts in parliament, when you should be working for your constituents/ country.
What needs to happen now is a ban on all 2nd jobs / directorships / owning of businesses. They are supposed to be working for us not feathering their own nests.
Complain about this comment
Once more i notice that the truth is hard to bare mods?
Complain about this comment
I wrote the day after the Political Party conferences ended that not 1 of the 3 main Party Leaders had had the decency to even refer by way of apology in their conference speeches to 'error' or 'mistakes' in the Expenses scandal - - not only of their MPs but of themselves - - and it would seem that is because none of them are genuinely sorry.
Months ago I wrote that at least 500 of the 650 MPs should be considering resigning and that many of those should be presecuted: Nothing has altered my view of that situation.
Whether claiming for a bag of compost, a plasma television, a tree-pruning handyman, a relative as an assistant who plainly was not, the 'flipping' of houses for Tax avoidance/claims etc. any MP who inadvertently or deliberately misused or made inappropriate use of Public Funds (Taxation) should be gone from the Palace of Westminster. Those at the very steepest end of frauds should be charged, tried and where guilty they should be imprisoned. Indeed those who can be shown to have conned the system over minor amounts should be up before Magistrates who can impose a max 6 months sentence or make orders for appropriate restitution to the Exchequer irrespective of any 'claw-back' demand by Clegg's enquiry.
Those MPs found to have broken the law or to have circumvented Regulations are unfit for Public Office and should not be allowed to stand again: Amongst those I include Speaker Bercow (IMO one of the worst Expenses offenders) whose election as replacement for Martin in my view revealed the duplicitous and generally unrepentant nature of the 650 MPs.
To my mind this is not a Party Poltical issue and the posturing of Brown-Cameron-Clegg is frankly nauseating as certainly all 3 had been Leaders whilst this knavish, venal behaviour was being perpetrated by MPs from across the House. The 3, at the very least, should issue a joint declaration that all 3 Parties are guilty of gross misconduct with Public Funds.
As for the 'Reform of Parliament': It is quite clear that absolutely nothing has changed for the better since this whole debacle began.
Mr Robinson, some months ago you wrote about "..historic changes.." and "..Parliament never the same.." with the ".. Commons facing upto a new accountability.."
Hyperbolic stuff and nonsense!
The 650 MPs with very few exception are exactly the same this sitting as all those months ago, the responsiveness of MPs to Public calls for change is as deaf as it ever was, and the very idea of root and branch REFORM of the Democratic (I use the word under advisement) institution at the heart of the UK's Governance has not and is not to happen.
Brown-Cameron-Clegg-Bercow are guilty of perpetrating an imagery fraud upon the British Public: Frankly, if I could have my way, those 3 would be out too on their exorbitantly Pensioned rears as of this moment. The present Parliament is unrepresentative of the Public at a Political and Standards level: I am not a supporter of NuLab, however, what is almost as irksome as the MPs corruption is that the Conservatives will gain many seats at the next General Election due to Public misconception that it is all the fault of Government. In reality all 3 main Political Parties were and are equally involved in the deliberate misappropriation of Public Funds and have absolutely no intention of seriously addressing the issue in order for it not to occur again (in Commons or Lords).
As has been said, "A plague on all their Houses": Would that the British Public could be so lucky although we need not look any further for the origins of 'swine-flu'.
Complain about this comment
It IS essentially a Labour scandal. ALL high profile MPs and Peers focused upon by the BBC have been senior figures within the party and lesser miscreants like Margaret Moran. The party leader no less has been asked to pay a whopping 12 grand!... only trifling figures have been returned from other leaders- ones we could put down to accounting errors.
David Cameron has stolen a march on Brown on discipline because he can say "I am clean" "all my key guys are clean" so if one or two Torys are found to have their fingers in the till he can banish them forever, safe in the knowledge that no one can cry "hypocricy!"
Brown has his hands tied. If Jacqui Smith, or Cooper/Balls or Darling were made examples of, wouldn't Brown too have to fall on his own sword?
The scandal has left the Conservatives looking pretty clean!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick
As others have mentioned, Jacqui Smith sems to have got off free.
I have yet to see you comment on the curious discrepency between how long Smith said she spent at her sister's and how long the police protecting her said she did.
Surely this is worthy of an investigation by a fearless reporter more interested in the truth than cosy relationships with politicians. If you know one, perhaps you could ask them to investigate?
Complain about this comment
downwiththerest and #82.
Someone has been selectively reading!
Come on mate! This is cross-Party and the sums involved for household goods, House flipping, duck ponds, assistants living hundreds of miles away etc. were claimed by NuLab, Conservative and LibDem MPs.
The amounts involved do not really matter so much as the principle: If an MP recklessly claims 50 pound or 5,000, or 50,000 it is NOT their Party affiliation, but their Moral and Ethical fitness as devisers of Legislation that is brought into question.
How else do you suppose almost 500 MPs are listed as having made claims that were unsuitable?
If you care so little for accuracy on this Expenses scandal then you really do deserve the 500 or so con-merchants among the 650 Ruling your life!
Complain about this comment
81. ikamaskeip
Well written. Says it all really.
What concerns me is that with Parliament in such a sorry state, with MPs more worried about themselves than the Country, who is actually running things?
Parliament has been sitting for nearly a week and all that has been discussed is their expenses, a bit about another 500 troops for Afghanistan sometime in the future and a mention for Portcawl Girl Guides.
It cannot go on. The dishonourable members are not going to get down to proper business while their wallets and purses are at risk and meanwhile the Country goes to H*ll in a Handcart.
Any Prime Minister with any honour would accept that the governance of the UK is a stake here and call an election.
He won't of course!!
Complain about this comment
Sagamix wrote,
so ... Cameron throws another of his people to the wolves
a bit rich when you bear in mind his own Home Loan shenanigans, isn't it?
no moral authority
(which is a great pity because he has qualities)
-------------------------------------------------
The one quality he will never be able to overcome in your eyes though is that he is rich - the ultimate sin!
As you are aware, there is a limit that MP's can claim for mortgage interest relief and DC's claims were within this, apart from the part month payment when his mortgage was repaid.
Your gripe seems to simply be that rich people shouldn't make claims on expenses but instead should subsidise the public sector. If a 'rich' person decides to become an MP outside London then, according to you, they should buy/rent a second property entirely from their own funds.
Becoming an MP is a career decision - not a charitable exercise - and therefore everyone should receive the same remuneration for doing the work.
I would take your comments on DC's mortgage shennanigans more seriously (but still wouldn't agree with you) if you were even closely as vocal on Jacqui Smith's expenses when she had the option of a free grace and favour property whilst Home Secretary but instead chose to bunk up with her sister and receive the monthly expenses as a result.
Complain about this comment
Interesting how this one MP warrants two blog entries from Nick, yet nothing about Harriet's comments yesterday, nothing about the Gray Report, nothing about continued warnings of public sector spending being unsustainable...
Ah, the scraps that are thrown to the lobby to keep them off the scent of where the real problems are...
Complain about this comment
I can't expect Cameron and Brown to control the personal expenses or behaviour of all their MPs but their are certain matters that are within their control. Cabinet / Shadow Cabinet jobs, the whip and elevation to the Lords are obvious examples. I
What a contrast between DC and GB on their treatment of their MPs!
Complain about this comment
Come on mods, what was wrong with that??
It isn't off topic at all, and i found it amusing!! what's wrong with a bit of Friday fun?
I posted a link to a rather amusing article that suggested voters may like to hire a certain accountant and his friends to look over MP's expenses.....however the mod's didn't find it quite so amusing as me.....
What's the matter,
Do i amuse you? you think i'm funny?
Complain about this comment
Does this mean that Wilshire will now get immunity from restitution, as Blair and Martin and the other gangsters apparently have?
Complain about this comment
He is NOT doing the honourable thing, he has just opted not to stand at the next election and thus will receive the allowance for leaving MP's (runing to 10's of thousands of pounds) and an uplift in his pension!
Only 2 MP's so far have actually resigned and left parliment forefitting there end of parliment allowances!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Can you please please do an artical on the TAX rules and how many MP's have correctly declaired and paid income tax on items that the fees office approved and paid for that were not wholey and exclusivily and nessesary for their roll as an MP.
Did Mrs Smith, declare the power, gass, and coundcil tax her faimaly used at her home when she was away at her sisters?
Did Prescott, declare the mock tudor beams he placed on the front of his house
Did the tory who planted a wood declare that
Was the Duck House declaired?
All four examples fall into the catagory of expenses claimed and paid by the fees office, but needed to be declaired on the MP's tax return as not really required for their job as MP's
Come on TAX MAN why are you not going after these Tax Cheats! The Telegraph has published all the evidance you need and you have 600+ names to go after! Or are MP's exempt from the laws governing self assesment if so why is their an explicit section on their special tax forms for them to declair that the expenses where wholly required for ther Job?
Complain about this comment
71. derekbarker:
" #70secret
Think about it? Cameron asked his MP's to be honest(about expenses) way back in july, he simply didn't want to have this type of dealing in the run up to a general election."
I'm sure that he'd not want to be dealing with it at any time, same as Gordon Brown didn't. The difference is that whilst Cameron IS dealing with it, Brown is actively sticking his head in the sand, whilst the main protagonists in Nu Labour (namely Smith, McNulty, Balls-Cooper, etc) are all not only getting away with it but in some cases receiving reward, such as offers of peerages and the like. Very definate difference between the two parties, and there's no doubt that the electorate will prefer the Conservative approach to the labour one.
"What it also proves is young Cameron doesn't have control over his party. "
Whilst I'm sure you'll agree that David Cameron's age has nothing to do with the matter at hand, what this actually shows is that he IS dealing wit this issue, and therefore IS in control of his party - certainly to an extent that Gordon Brown cannot possibly claim about Labour.
Complain about this comment
"Iwilltellyouthis wrote:
No 28: "It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal."
You are saying this on the day a TORY MP has resigned for taking over £100k.
You don't get it, do you?!"
I agree that this is far from just a Labour party scandal, however the big difference between the parties is how they are seen to be handling it.
A Tory MP stands down (rather than actually resigns) for his troughing but a Labour MP who fiddled over £100k moans when she is told to say sorry (but not hand any money back). This judgement was made by 6 Labour MPs - so not so much a jury of her peers but a jury of her friends!
The deputy leader of Labour addresses the party and says how unfair it is that they have to pay back money because the rules have changed. Which I might actually agree with if it wasn't for the fact that the main rule they had to stick to was to confirm the expense was as a direct result of being an MP (now I am not sure about other people but I don't think that MPs require a cleaner!)
One MP apparently claimed for a shaver for his second home! Most shavers I have seen are very portable why couldn't he just take the shaver from his first home with him?
All parties appear rotten, but some parties are handling the fallout better than others.
Complain about this comment
We should be aiming our ire for the junior defence minster Lord Raiston (?). Who was so shoddy on R4 PM programme, it was incedulous. If you have high blood pressure, I suggest you don't use listen again.
Here is some one who has been in the MOD since 2005 and has just found out that the procurement progress is 'not fit for purposes'. He has proved incompetent, not only in his office and he has let down not only the soldiers in the armed forces, but the whole country.
The FT had a rather good graph showing how defence spending is not going to be able to match the commitments that the Government's planning. Either they are going to have to find some money from somewhere to pay for this difference. In an uncertain world, this lack of resources is going to cause problems not now, maybe not tomorrow, but in the future.
All Parties are having problems with their MPs, but at least some of the leaders are trying to do something about it. Still don't why the voters have to pay gardening costs for MPs, even a £1000 a year?
Complain about this comment
Election, soon. then we can clear out the whole rotten lot of scammmers, thieves, charlatans, hypocrites, useless parasites, and then start on the tories and lib dems.
Complain about this comment
96#
Agreed. All of this is merely a smokescreen to keep the lobby away from the real issues.
Complain about this comment
65 Saga:
"how come a retrospective cap for trivial things like gardening but no action on mortgages?
bit odd, don't you think? ... seems to let certain people off the hook"
Err... no?
Because there's no 'hook' for anyone to be let off regarding claims for Additional Mortgage INTEREST Payments.
You seem incapable of grasping this point, even though it's been explained to you so many times on so many threads. It's just a shame I can't write this in crayon for you, to make it simpler.
Interest on Mortgages taken out on a required Additional home in order to carry out the office of MP are allowable, up to the specified limit. Legg's inquiry and report did not suggest in any way that this limit should change.
The requirement for an Additional Home (with the resulting financial commitments) is clear, and the fact that David Cameron has no mortgage on his first home, or that he has personal wealth, makes no difference at all - he is still within the letter and spirit of the regulations, both as they stood before and as they stand now.
Unless of course, you're suggesting that it's OK for a less well off person to claim allowances and expenses, but the rules should be different for someone who's got a few quid. That if two people act in exactly the sdame way, but one is a wealthy Conservative but the other is a poor socialist, then somehow the socialist is simply living within the rules whilst the Conservative is a tight-fisted oppressor who should be flogged and then sacked.
I'm sure that this kind of double-standards (which we are all too used to seeing from this government) isn't what you are saying at all, is it?
Complain about this comment
"ChrisCornwall wrote:
Time to stop the witch hunt, even Harriet Harman can at last see the damage this is doing."
Harman isn't doing this for any other reason to approve her chance of being elected the next Labour leader.
There is something rotten in the heart of government, and I for one am happy for it to be brought to our attention.
Every MP who stands down or loses their seat because of their troughing means another MP who might actually be elected to serve the country and not themselves.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
like Cameron? ... yep, no secrets on here ... I do
which is why I'd have preferred it if he'd retained at least a vestige of the Moral Authority which a Prime Minister in waiting needs in order to be credible"
At least look on the bright side Cameron has more moral authority as the PM in waiting than the current PM. Brown is some who claims to be of strong moral fibre but seems willing to lose those morals when it comes to saving his own skin.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and a second point regarding the TAX even if they pay sums back they still OWE the tax man the TAX.
I know this from bitter experance over a 300 pound electricity bill my secutary accidently paid from my bunsiess account 4 years ago. I offered to re-pay the amount when the tax mans audit found it, was told it made no differance, the total cost including interest, back tax, NI and fines was close to £700.
So for example Brown leagally owes £5000 tax + NI + Fines + Interest on the £12500 that is now deamed as over paid.
MP's have paid back / offered to pay back over 250k they ALSO owe the tax man over 100k plus fines!
Complain about this comment
Cameron is coming out of this looking a lot better than Brown is thats without question there. He's not looking perfect but a lot better.
The thing thats sticking in my throat though, and its been brought up here already or on the previous blog but when Clegg supported Leggs proposals the amount of heckling that he received. I've been trying to find out if my MP who is one of Cleggs was involved in this and if he was, then he won't be getting the vote which is a pity as he is good at a local level.
The house needs to be cleaned out, I believe it was Flamepatricia who said that a manager of a private company could sort this out a lot more efficently and that may not actually be a bad idea, get someone who actually is independent and isn't bothered about upsetting some of the MPs in to clear out the stables.
Complain about this comment
I'm no Tory supporter, but has Wilshire, or any of the others, actually done anything wrong?
If he has committed a criminal offence, as most of the respondents to your blog seem to think, then let him be prosecuted. If not, can we have less of the hypocritical sanctimony? Who here has never had work done for cash, never pinched so much as a pencil from work, never had a hooky dvd or an illegal download? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone springs to mind. There is NOTHING more nauseating than the sight and sound of the "great" British public, and its media, in full puritanical flow.
Also, judging by many of the blogs, and one in particular, many could spend some time learning how to spell
Complain about this comment
My employer has in the contract a right to dismiss me for bringing the company into disrepute. It would appear to me that MP's are bringing Parliament and democracy into disrepute. I find it hard to understand that their punishment is to leave the House of Commons at the next election with a year's salary and their pension intact.
Meanwhile Gordon Brown is intent on turning the Upper House into the House of Frauds by his alleged intention of giving certain wayward MP's a peerage.
I despair, how can any government enact legislation when they themselves cannot understand what everyone else in the UK finds to easy to comprehend.
What I find particularly galling is that this government has cracked down on any tax perk that Joe Citizen has enjoyed while seemingly being outside the inspection of both the Law and Tax inspectors. The time has come for the HM Revenue and Customs to examine all the claims from MP for expenses apparently wholly and exclusively incurred as MP's.
Complain about this comment
99#
You're not seriously expecting an answer to that question are you WLW??
Complain about this comment
At this point, as unconstitutional as it may be, would it not be a good idea for the Queen to step in and dissolve parliament so we can actually move on from this mess? It's not going to go away until we have an election and us commoners feel like we've had our say on the matter.
Complain about this comment
"balancedthought wrote:
This entry is not about David Cameron's morally questionable behaviour in being the largest claimer for additional housing costs when he does not have a mortgage on his London house."
I see that it is also not about Brown claiming additional housing costs for a second home in London when he was living in a Ministerial home in London (why did he need two London homes?) and I see it is also not about Brown flipping his second home to his home in Scotland (still while having a Ministerial home)
If you call yourself "balanced" at least try to be.
Complain about this comment
MP's have time to write books, get second / thrid jobs, fill in their expense forms claiming for every thing down the the kitchen sink, fly all over the world on fact finding jaunts, yet they can't find time to do their own gardening!
Churchill built a massive wall whilst running the country during the war!
Complain about this comment
What's pretty clear now is that there needs to be a general election before Christmas. This country does not have a functioning government, senior ministers have been shown to be engaged in highly dubious practices, and all that MPs can do is obsess about where the next expenses scandal is going to come from. Brown cannot even fire his ministers and get new ones who haven't been up to no good (believe it or not there are some), because it appears he has been at it too.
As a constitutional monarch, does the Queen not have the right to step in and dismiss the government when she sees that it is no longer functioning? She did it in Australia in the 1970's, why can't she do it here? Queen Elizabeth should immediately dismiss parliament, and a general election should be held at the earliest possible date. Why wait? I think the overwhelming majority of people in this country would support such a move.
I am surprised the media are not pushing for the general election to be held before Christmas, one way or another.
Complain about this comment
"104. At 09:39am on 16 Oct 2009, gordont10 wrote:
I'm no Tory supporter, but has Wilshire, or any of the others, actually done anything wrong? "
Any MP who received funds form the fees office for ANYTHING not nessesary for their duties as an MP and who did not declaire the amount on their tax form and pay tax on it BROKE THE LAW!
So can you tell me how planting a wood, buying a BBQ set, putting mock tudor beams on a house, or a duck house is required by an MP to do their job?
Complain about this comment
Before too many people swoon over David Cameron's leadership qualities, we should acknowledge that it's far easier to lead a party that expects to win the next election.
Complain about this comment
Nick:
You might want to have a look at this, in light of yesterdays publication of the Gray Review - and considering its contents, and the all party consensus of significant cuts being needed just quite how this piece of political contortion is going to be carried out....
from FT.Com:
"....We’ll have more on this soon. But basically Lord Drayson is going to implement all of the recommendations in the Gray review, apart from a (very radical) plan to to outsource management of the £13bn defence equipment and support budget. He wants to implement it all within 6 months. That means a defence review in every parliament, a 10 year capital budget and a big organisational shake-up that is the MoD equivalent of the storming of the Bastille.
Drayson also admits there is already a hole in the budget plans for 2010 (which is the current “planning round”). They will have to decide on programmes to cut or scale back before Christmas. The “long term” decisions will be left for the strategic defence review. Flagging up the cuts is quite bold stuff and will have industry chiefs reaching for their panic pills.
But on what basis will they decide what to cut? The best decision may turn out to be cancelling the carriers. Will lots of small projects, with “uncommitted” money, be slashed just to tide things over till the MoD can reach this decision next year?"
Note the lack of political will to contractorise DE&S. The one bit that needs the urgency of having a delivery partner that isnt civil service.
Then again, this close to an election, you cant go upsetting the civil service unions, can you? No wonder Bob Ainsworth ran a mile from the suggestion...
I'd suggest this has a bit more relevance than one tory MP who gets two blogs... when the elevation of Jackboots to the lords gets no mention.
Complain about this comment
"Icewombat - Oh, and a second point regarding the TAX even if they pay sums back they still OWE the tax man the TAX.
I know this from bitter experance over a 300 pound electricity bill my secutary accidently paid from my bunsiess account 4 years ago. I offered to re-pay the amount when the tax mans audit found it, was told it made no differance, the total cost including interest, back tax, NI and fines was close to £700."
I can only assume you were badly advised. A £300 payment would (at most) attract £120 tax. Add in ee's and er's NI and you get £161.40. Assuming the company met your liability the grossed up amount including er's NIC would be c£240. To get from that to £700 with interest and penalties ought to be inconceivable. My usual worse case scenario would be to expect the amount of tax, NIC and penalties to be about the gross benefit, in this case £300.
I doubt a Traffic Warden could have helped you here but a good tax advisor would have been useful.
Complain about this comment
#60.
Nick Vinehill -
The Daily Telegraph did not manipulate the publication dates of MP expense scandals in order to embarrass a weakened Labour Party. The Labour Party did that by themselves...
You are right to say that these scandals most certainly occurred during previous goverments but it was the introduction of the FOI Act (credit to Labour) that made publication of these scandals possible.
However when it became clear that these scandals would become very damaging for a weakened Labour Government they (particularly Gorbals Mick) sought to suppress these stories coming out via court action at the tax-payer's expense = court action to fight the very law that they brought in!
Where have you been for the last 18 months?! It was these factors that led to a new speaker being elected.
---
In a note to everyone and (a little bit off-track). Legg is right to make retrospective applications against MPs. This might seem harsh to some but that is exactly what happened to "one-man-band" Ltd companies when IR35 decisions went against them.
---
For everyone here who says "they just don't get it" ... well they will "get it" when the next General Election comes along. Although many of us will be angry about the "Golden handshakes" that will ensue, it is up to us to vote for people who are genuinely interested in Political Reform and who have some integrity. This probable excludes many current MPs and may give rise to extremists coming in. Well guys (and gals) - CLEAN UP YOUR ACT.
Complain about this comment
We can rant and rave all we like , but this has to end soon , they should pay-up and put a line through it, its not as if they don`t get much money ,its not like asking a chap who has lost his job, his mortgage about to go into arrears and no prospects of any other work to pay back £10 over payment, .
As for our former speaker !! words fail me, same for our former home sec. I have never known such a bunch of self-serving bluffers in my life , they live on this planet right ! and should abide by the same rules we do , they are not above us .. stop right now and sort this out , all those who are guilty should go right now ...no hanging on for another payment at the election , why should your constituents have to put up with you for a minute longer .and why are they quiet ? can they not recall an mp for a vote of confidence or something , its like everything is caught in the beam and cannot move . come on lets have some justice .
Complain about this comment
What these self serving venal Mp's tend to forget when bleating about the retrospective nature of the Audit - and their subsequent 'calling to arms to challenge it in the courts', is that the chancellor did the very same thing to us in the 2008 budget.
We were imposed with a retrospective car tax. So it's OK to be applied to us mere low farm animals, but not them.
I've written to my MP to say please go ahead with challenging it in court, if you win you make a precedent...dont then be at all suprised if the general public take the government to court on the same principle...and WIN.
Some animals are more equal than others it seems..
Complain about this comment
No reward for failure - Brown's favourite saying. So if I sack my MP at the next general election why do they get a big pay off? Statutory redundancy for them would be my proposal. I suggest that we stick to pushing for something we might get. Online blogs, letters to party leaders etc - the same message all the time. The one who gets my vote will be the one who makes sure that those who 'retire' or who we vote out get only what they say we should get when we lose our jobs.
For the rest, it is all corrupt. There should be no second home allowance, no allowance for food (as if they don't eat when they are not in London). They should have the same tax rules as everyone else and be given a room to stay in somewhere near parliament which belongs to the state and when they leave goes to the next MP. Anyone would think they were the only people who regularly work a long way from home - try being an oil worker. But it is too late to change what has happened so we should all be pushing for the only bit of trough that they have not emptied to be kept from them.
Complain about this comment
The wall that Churchill built is still standing. More than can be said for most things that have been built in the last few years. Was Churchill's honest Labour?
Complain about this comment
You are forgetting what drove the whole situation, which was the desire to announce a low pay rise for MPs in the hope that us poor stupid saps would go along with it, while allowing a huge increase in expenses, nudge nudge wink wink.
So no wonder there is outrage from the MPs, they were encouraged to do it as a substitute for a payrise, and now they are being told to give it back.
My message to these MPs is simple, you tried to fool the people and were caught out. These self same people are sick of spin and distortion and tractor stats and this cycnical ploy to pay yourself and kid us you were taking a modest payrise to set an example is the kind of behaviour that has caused, and is causing such outrage.
Sweep the stables clean, disinfect parliament and start again, and woe betide you if you ever try anything like this in the future.
Complain about this comment
Nick says {Wilshire} going also presents another in a long line of opportunities for those hungry to enter the Commons (yes, really, there are some).
From the tone of that comment, our Nick seems mildly surprised that anybody would actually want to become an MP.
However, with a basic wage of around £60K pa, even with absolutely no 'perks', that is a highly attractive salary for the vast majority of the working population.
With the icing-on-the-cake of the, frankly, unbelieveable pension scheme, which means that for every year of service, the MP will get one fortieth of their salary.
Now my math is a bit ropey at times, but it seems to me that means if an MP only served one term of say, four years at £60K pa, they are going to get a pension for life of some £6000 per year.
Ex-independent MP Martin Bell did confirm that even he, a single term MP, received a 'small' pension for serving just four years.
Virtually nowhere in the private sector can you get that sort of pension deal, excepting the BBC of course, which is, just like the MP's pensions, taxpayer funded.
Given the above, one would expect a long queue of prospective MP's at the next General Election and if the English people can step outside of the political tribal mindset for once, then happy days beckon.
Complain about this comment
Who is next to on the list to say sorry but to keep the dosh? The flipping Chancelor, Cooper-Balls ? If any normal person gets some cash under false pretence the money has to be repaid usually with a fine and often with a jail term for good measure !! Why should the MPs or the Lords for that matter be treated differently? Fraud is fraud !!! Most of them even do not have the cheeky arrogance of George Graham who offered to repay the money after he admitted accepted bungs !!
Complain about this comment
Strange that the dodgy Lord has been very quiet , he is normally quite an expert on these matters !!
Complain about this comment
I hear the argument about MPs pay and expenses in lieu of rises. I understand that and can sympathise to a degree as it is expensive in London plus they have travel etc. BUT in the private sector you have to be clear what you are spending your money on when away from home, you would probably have your evening meal paid for but these MPs have a second home so should be feeding themselves out of their own pockets.
If an MP is not happy on £60,000 plus then maybe they should go and see what work is out there
Complain about this comment
106 Fubar:
Of course not. Answering questions isn't what Nu Labour does....
:)
Complain about this comment
#124
G They could/can claim £400 a month for food with out a receipt!!!!! As I have ranted about before. Never mind the £250 without a receipt (as spending money) I assume for sundry expenses cleaning? This was reduced to £25, but I do find it difficult to understand how cash is required to perform the function as an MP.
Complain about this comment
121#
Indeed JC, there should be a queue. You'd have thought that there would have been enough like minded, indipendent souls out there who would have a strong public service ethic to make a difference, instead of being welded to celebrity and political apathy?
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to think that the way local councillors are immersed in the UK's political culture shows that although the intentions are more than likely honourable in entering the system that once they're in and the gravy train is revealed (bit like going onto Platform 9 and 3/4 in Harry Potter), the urge to step on board and fill ones boots may become overwhelming for all but the most extreme ideologues.
I may be tarnishing a number of honorable councillors and MP's with the same brush here, but unfortunately, uneducated public media driven perception being what it is...
Complain about this comment
At least Cameron's doing something about his troughing piggies; what's labour doing about theirs?
Jacqui Smith found guilty of over 116grand's worth of false claims but doesn't have to pay any of it back despite it being deliberately wrongly claimed ? If that happened in the real world, not only would she have been immediately sacked, but she would also be facing criminal charges for fraud.
HMRC, the Police, and the CPS need to get involved in all MPs' expenses, because there are 2 aspects to this which, if perpetrated in a private company would had led to hundreds of criminal prosecutions:
1) Mis-classifications
Classing as "expenses" instead of "perks" (when they are in fact perks) means they don't pay tax when they should be; if someone mis-classed these in the private sector they'd be looking at a potential prison sentence. Getting your gardening paid for you on a second house which you own is most definitely a perk, and in no way can be seen as an expense. Same goes for Gordon Brown getting "expenses" to pay a servant to do his laundry for him.
2) Outright fraud
Claiming for things which don't exist, or which go way outside even the "company's rules" for what a valid expense is; if someone mis-classed these in the private sector they'd be looking at a potential prison sentence.
Complain about this comment
Of all the things said about MPs and expenses the mosy irritating bit is MPs & political correspondents stating that all were passed according to the rules,when the simple fact is they were not.Filkin & Graham were sacked by MPs for attempting to crack down on abuses of the system and replaced by an obedient lap dog who knew his job was only to rubber stamp any receipts and pay the money.Andrew Walker knew his place and settled for his 100,000 salary and future pension and didn't rock the boat.What Legg has partly done is to try and apply the rules as they were written at the time not as they were implemented.So please encourage MPs who are thinking of challenging his findings to take it to court,I think they will have a harder time convincing a jury that their expenses were legitimate.
Complain about this comment
128#
"HMRC, the Police, and the CPS need to get involved in all MPs' expenses, because there are 2 aspects to this which, if perpetrated in a private company would had led to hundreds of criminal prosecutions:"
Indeed they should.
However, as MP's voted themselves an exception and also that these three institutions have been politicised beyond any reasonable doubt, the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and, er.... non-existant.
Taxes and laws are only for little people, not political elites. I dont know what else will have to happen before vigilantes descend on the Palace of Westminster.
Christ and they think parts of Afghanistan are lawless.... Well maybe thats not strictly true. The laws are there, its just that nobody obeys them!
Complain about this comment
6. At 8:21pm on 15 Oct 2009, badgercourage wrote:
When are the Labour whips going to have a little chat with Jacqui Smith, and hand her the metaphorical pear-handled revolver?
**************
"They're more likely to hand her an ermine cloak, a la Gorbals Mick."
I like the pear-handled revolver. It reminds me of John Cleese and his class on defence against attacks with fruit.
But regarding the Ermine Cloaks: I think one of David Cameron's first acts must be to revisit the Reform of the House of Lords that was botched by Blair and his mates. First step must be to remove all the dodgy peers created by Labour. Remove any ex-minister that was under a cloud when in or leaving office. That should deal with Jacqui and Mick and Peter. Then move on to Lords who were not born in our country. Then we should think about the hereditarys...
Complain about this comment
Agreed with others on here, the £400 a month for food is absurd.
If someone was staying in a hotel, maybe, but the whole point seems to be that so many of these MPs had established their second homes in London Having done so they had access to a kitchen and a fridge.
My own circumstances find me living/working/renting in London but with a house/home on the South coast. It may seem odd to an MP but I find that when I am eating on the south coast, I am not eating in London and when I am eating in London I am not eating on the south coast. In other words I incur no extra food costs due to my situation.
Could an MP please explain how their situation differs from mine?
To put it in perspective, an MP would need to earn an extra £8,135.60 a year to take home £400 a month.
Nice pay rise if you can get it!
Complain about this comment
132 Andy:
You seem to be missing the point. It's essential that MPs maintain two refridgerators - one in Luton and one in Southampton.... Mind you, the Southampton one's a bit damp....
Complain about this comment
It will, of course, be difficult for any of the political parties to make too much out of the expenses row as they are all to some extent tainted by it.
What is needed is a groundswell of the public. Those MPs (of whatever party) who have been the worse abusers (especially where they have not repaid or otherwise suffered for their greed) should be targeted so that there is no chance that their particualt electorate should forget what a greedy toad they have as their sitting MP.
This is a cross-party issue. I propose leaflets along the lines of:
"In the last Parliament, your MP bought a duck island/17 silk cushions [or whatever] and made you pay for it through taxes. Is this the sort of person you want as your MP? When you vote, make sure you send him/her a message, so he knows where he can stick his duck island/cushions"
Complain about this comment
Another tory crossed off!
Apparently Bingo Dave wants a full house.
Complain about this comment
re 130 Fubar_Saunders
"However, as MP's voted themselves an exception and also that these three institutions have been politicised beyond any reasonable doubt, the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and, er.... non-existant."
True, it's very unlikely to happen. However, as far as I know, regardless of what rules/laws parliament voted for their own members, the generic tax laws supercede their own rules/laws in the end. It'd be like voting to say "we're immune to prosecution 'cos we're MPs" - they can pass the law, but most courts would say that the law itself was invalid/illegal and has no weight in court.
This logic also applies to things like some of the human rights legislation; when it comes to court, a lot of laws which Parliament pass are judged illegal themselves due to other overriding/superceding laws.
If it went to court, I'm sure the court would find the MPs' exemptions invalid/illegal/irrelevant, however, the final court of appeal would be the house of lords, and that's where my argument falls-over as the lords are in the same trough as the MPs.
So, I'm guessing they'd be found guilty in court, but then appeal to the lords who'd overrule the court's decision for self-preservation reasons.
But, as you say, it's really just an academic argument, because HMRC, the Police, and the CPS are now too heavily politicised to do anything about it, despite the fact that they clearly should be initiating a flurry of prosecutions.
Complain about this comment
132. At 11:25am on 16 Oct 2009, AndyC555 wrote:
Agreed with others on here, the £400 a month for food is absurd.
************
Don't forget that some were still claiming it even when Parliament wasn't sitting!!
Complain about this comment
Why do Wilshire and other MPs keep claiming that provided the Fees Office allowed an arrangemnet that therefore it must be within the rules?
The Fees Office was merely a tool of the MPs Committee and has already been shown to be incompetent and compliant.
The media should not allow MPS to use this argument to claim their innocence when the rules have been broken with the Fees Office compliance.
Complain about this comment
"133. At 11:29am on 16 Oct 2009, West_London_Willy wrote:
132 Andy:
You seem to be missing the point. It's essential that MPs maintain two refridgerators - one in Luton and one in Southampton.... Mind you, the Southampton one's a bit damp...."
Ah but that's a different allowance. Ms Moran clearly needed to mend her boyfriend's fridge at the taxpayer's expense, else she couldn't possibly have performed her duties as an MP , but getting us to pay for it to be stocked with caviar and champers is excessive.....
Complain about this comment
134 Andy:
"In the last Parliament, your MP bought a duck island/17 silk cushions [or whatever] and made you pay for it through taxes. Is this the sort of person you want as your MP? When you vote, make sure you send him/her a message, so he knows where he can stick his duck island/cushions"
******
Answer would most probably be "On ebay"....
Complain about this comment
#to all Conservative supporters
So, is Wilshire typical of the Tory mentality of one rule for one and one for the other (I know there are also some dodgy-looking taxpayer funded mortgages yet to be 'officially' looked into knocking about)?
It puzzles me that a bunch of very rich guys get together and decide to be progressive by cutting the income of the poorest in society. Their London mayor, then, shortly afterwards decides to raise public transport costs by up to 20 per cent, again, hitting the poorest hardest.
What exactly do these people who claim to be both compassionate and progressive actually stand for because I don't see much progression or compassion? It's very strange that they are happy to take the taxpayer for everything it's got but deeply unhappy that the poorest in society exist on the taxpayer.
It's really quite puzzling.
Complain about this comment
135 Derek:
"Apparently Bingo Dave wants a full house."
David Cameron is likely to get a full house come election time, which is what really worries you, seeing as that will most likely mean you need to go find a real job...
Call an Election Now!
Complain about this comment
Bet Gorbals Mick would not have let the SFO into the House of Commons.
Wonder where the new incumbent would stand or sit on this, should the SFO wish to see all the expense claims......
Complain about this comment
"Zydeco wrote:
132. At 11:25am on 16 Oct 2009, AndyC555 wrote:
Agreed with others on here, the £400 a month for food is absurd.
************
Don't forget that some were still claiming it even when Parliament wasn't sitting!!"
Well they still need to eat ;)
Complain about this comment
144. At 12:00pm on 16 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"Zydeco wrote:
132. At 11:25am on 16 Oct 2009, AndyC555 wrote:
Agreed with others on here, the £400 a month for food is absurd.
************
Don't forget that some were still claiming it even when Parliament wasn't sitting!!"
Well they still need to eat ;)
**********************
They should be forced to eat Humble Pie - without a caviar starter!!
Complain about this comment
dice @ 87
I would take your comments on DC's mortimax shennanigans more seriously if you were even closely as vocal on Jacqui Smith's expenses
yes fair point I suppose, guess I can come over a bit one sided on occasions - it isn't that I'm biased though (please don't think that of me) it's more that I feel one ought to stick as much as possible to one's Specialist Subject ... you know, like on Mastermind? ... which in my case is the "Unfitness for Office" of Mr Cameron and his Cs
it's more for your sake than for mine
Complain about this comment
#141 Extremesense
So, is Wilshire typical of the Tory mentality of one rule for one and one for the other
It puzzles me that a bunch of very rich guys get together and decide to be progressive by cutting the income of the poorest in society. Their London mayor, then, shortly afterwards decides to raise public transport costs by up to 20 per cent, again, hitting the poorest hardest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that the best the left can do?...
Please show me anywhere other than in the Student Socialist Society Guide to Toffs where the tory 'mentality' is as you describe?
There are examples of abuse on all sides of the House and Wilshire deserves to go but what is undeniable is the lack of leadership from Brown in tackling the mess his members have created.
With regards to the public transport fare increases - are these out of line with the non-protected national rail fares? I don't know the answer but I have certainly read about large rail fare increases on a national level. I would suggest therefore that whoever was mayor the increases would be the similar.
Complain about this comment
I seem to recall hearing once that rules were for the obediance of fools and for the guidance of wise men those seeking sanctuary from the fact they followed "the rules" in the case of MP's expenses seem to confirm they (were) and are indeed fools and deserve no sympathy.
Complain about this comment
146 sagaminx
I can just imagine you on Mastermind ! It would be like PMQ's on a leather chair - lots of questions but no actual answers, no passes and certainly no points ! Followed by a "I've started but you're finished...."
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
yes fair point I suppose, guess I can come over a bit one sided on occasions - it isn't that I'm biased though (please don't think that of me) it's more that I feel one ought to stick as much as possible to one's Specialist Subject ... you know, like on Mastermind? ... which in my case is the "Unfitness for Office" of Mr Cameron and his Cs"
I think in your case your score would be near zero with multiple passes!
You constantly go on about Cameron's mortgage which is in both the spirit and letter of the rules, yet constantly ignore senior Labour figures who have access to "grace and favour" homes but yet still claim for a second home allowance!
In other words they have the costs for BOTH their houses provided by the state.
Complain about this comment
#87 CockedDice
Interesting point, I didn't realise that Jacqui Smith was leader of her party and I hadn't heard her spouting 'We're in it together'-type trash.
Very interesting, I must certainly pay more attention in future.
Complain about this comment
146 Saga:
If this is the extent of your 'specialist' knowledge, I can't wait to see how craxy your views are on stuff that you only have a generalised knowledge of......
Complain about this comment
Sagamix
How can you castigate Cameron for using the allowances to the maximum within the rules and not at least an utter of disgust at those of a more left wing persaussion?
I doubt even you could say that his action warrant the intervention of other agencies. Where the erstwhile Home Secretry, Defence Minister and the MP for Salford appear to sailing very close to the wing regarding CGT and HM constabulary. After some pressure Willshire walked but I think a visit from outside the precincts of the commons is in order for him.
This does not lend to you being taken seriously on any topic. I have I hope been "non sectarian" in my denouncement of all MPs who appear to have had their snouts in the trough.
Complain about this comment
#146 Sagamix ... I can come over a bit one sided on occasions - it isn't that I'm biased though (please don't think that of me) it's more that I feel one ought to stick as much as possible to one's Specialist Subject ... you know, like on Mastermind? ... which in my case is the "Unfitness for Office" of Mr Cameron and his Cs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps it's time to widen your range to include 'Hypocricy and Incompetence of the Labour Government 1997-2010'
Complain about this comment
Fubar_Saunders @ 127
I think that, as you say, there are enough like-minded, independent souls out there who would have a strong public service ethic to make a difference.
Most constituencies do have at least one independent or candidate from one of the smaller Parties standing in a General Election and they usually lose their deposits.
This is because the 'big three' mainstream Parties deploy their party machine to full and ruthless effect, such that the political marketplace effectively becomes rigged in their favour.
We know that is the truth because it has often been stated, even recently by Vince Cable, that outcome of a General Election is effectively decided by around 60,000 floating voters spread across a handfull of marginal constituencies.
In business, that sort of market distortion would prompt a full-blown Government enquiry but in the political 'market-place' this massive distortion of democracy goes unchallenged.
English voters really do need a revolution in the head.
Complain about this comment
WLW@99
"Because there's no 'hook' for anyone to be let off regarding claims for Additional Mortgage INTEREST Payments."
I'm no expert, but this is What I Reckon.
buys a house with a mortgage->The value of that house goes up and they don't pay any interest that would mostly cancel that out->The property is sold and the loan paid off leaving a profit with no capital gains tax.
Thats What I reckon.
What Do you reckon WLW?
Complain about this comment
@ 150
you constantly ignore senior Labour figures who have access to "grace and favour" homes yet still claim for a second home allowance
that's YOUR specialist subject, Mark ... how can I compete?
Complain about this comment
"153. At 12:28pm on 16 Oct 2009, Exiledscot52 wrote:
Sagamix
How can you castigate Cameron for using the allowances to the maximum within the rules and not at least an utter of disgust at those of a more left wing persaussion?"
It is entirely possible for sagamix to take a view which to you and I might appear contradictory but which he can defend using a brand of logic known as "SagaLogic". He is critical of tax planning in general but can justify it for himself, for example.
He will also state something like "David Cameron hasn't denied eating babies" and then deny that he is implying that Cameron HAS, that he is merely saying that Cameron hasn't denied it.
It is, generally, a waste of time responding to him as once he finally realises he has argued himself into a tortuous, one-way cul-de-sac of logic (if there can be such a thing) he will simply stop posting on the topic and move on to another one.
Complain about this comment
#151 extremesense
-------------------------------------------------------
I have to inform you that Jacqui Smith isn't the leader of an opposition party, merely the former Home Secretary in the current Government.
If you don't think that the said Labour Government has made many announcements about being the Party of the People then you've not being listening to the same broadcasts I have.
Again, for the sake of clarity, please explain how claiming an allowable expense is the same as incorrectly claiming on a property coupled with the fact that we were also paying for a grace and favour home for her?
Complain about this comment
#147 Cocked
Oh, I'm so sorry was that not good enough for you?
This is not about firing shots, this is about getting some sense of who, exactly, is going to be running this country in the not too distant future.
At the moment the Conservatives come across as a bunch of pretty cruel, devious (in that they're happy to sell us out in exchange for power), flip-flopping, dangerous bunglers who happen to be rich so will be protected from the worst they do.
Yep, I said dangerous bunglers because it was David Cameron that rushed to be by the side of a man (for a photo-op) who launched a massive and unprovoked nightime attack on a civilian population using rockets and other heavy ordnance.
It is also Dave who wants to cut cut cut in a recession not recogising that it's the recession that's the main cause of our deficit and to cut stimulus to soon would drag us into something far worse.
It was Dave who took his party out of the mainstream in Europe and teamed-up with a bunch of far right parties in Europe.
Oh yes, and it was Dave who met a certain media tycoon and then announced the following morning that he was going to place Ofcom on a bonfire of Quangos - Ofcom being one of the only truly effective Quangos and is a net contributor (400 million pounds).
I could go on, but there's so much it would take ages. As you're so vociferously pro-Dave, why don't you tell me some of the good stuff they've got planned - it would help if you could say how they're going to do it too.
Come on, convert me, I'm ready to believe.
Complain about this comment
DHW you forgot to add do it up at the taxpayers expense whilst living in a "Grace and Favour" appartment. Then sell it on at an even greater profit. Or how about living in London as an MP for a London constituency and claiming for their parents house.
Complain about this comment
exiled S @ 153
objective and impartial? - are you? - well that would be admirable, if true - not saying it isn't, btw, I just need a little more time to "study" you - would be quite rare too, as regards this blog - oh there are many who claim to be, alright, but on closer examination it usually transpires that they're either Tory supporters or (and I love this one) they're floating between the Cons and UKIP! - the reason I bring up the Mortimax scandal from time to time is that it otherwise doesn't get a mention and I feel it's important Cameron does not get a free ride - not that what I say makes any difference of course, but still
Complain about this comment
I think we all know that Cameron is coming out better than Brown in all this. Frankly I can't follow half of it - dim whit that I am - nor probably can most of the general public.
It's got time to simmer and die before the General Election and, hopefully Brown will stay in until then thereby sawing off the branch he is sitting on well and truly. Oooooops.
Can't wait for our new Conservative government. Fresh, young and well and truly genned up on what to do and what not to do having watched from the wings this dreadful shower in power at the mo.
Mind you, I must confess I will miss darling Darling. I find him most attractive. It is hard to contain myself when I see his bold badger good looks appearing on the News - what will I do without my pin-up? Does he know I have this fatal attraction for him? How will I live without him. I fear I may need counselling..........
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
@ 150
you constantly ignore senior Labour figures who have access to "grace and favour" homes yet still claim for a second home allowance
that's YOUR specialist subject, Mark ... how can I compete?"
I don't think you have to be a specialist on the subject the troughing is there in the papers for all to see!
Complain about this comment
141#
So, I take it you're not a London council tax payer then, who has seen over half a billion pounds paid out in subsidies to bus companies to run services in London by Ken Livingstone during his tenure?
How does what Boris is doing affect the poorest when the elderly and the kids and the disabled travel free?
And anyway, I think you'll find the squeeze is partly coming from this:
"London Councils is seeking urgent assurances that Londoners will not be hit by a change to the three year funding deal for the national concessionary fares scheme agreed by the government. It has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, to express its fears which have arisen following discussions with Whitehall officials on how the scheme should be funded in the future. The government announced a three year package in 2008 to help councils across the country to cover the cost of providing free off peak bus travel for disabled and older people anywhere in England. Under the deal the government was going to provide London with around £55 million a year. London Councils is now seeking assurances that the government is not planning to reduce the funding the capital will receive in 2010/11 by up to £50 million.
The total cost of London's concessionary fares scheme, the Freedom Pass, which incorporates the national scheme is around £240 million.
London Councils estimates that covering the cost of the possible shortfall in funding could equate to £18 on the average council tax bill or leave boroughs having to make painful decisions over levels of services.
Chairman of London Councils, Councillor Merrick Cockell, said: "It is extremely worrying that the government is even contemplating going back on its promise to provide this funding to London. "The whole point of the three year deal was to allow boroughs to cover the cost of providing the government's promise of free bus travel across England for our disabled and older residents. This is what boroughs have done. Losing this promised funding next year will leave a massive gap in council budgets which will need to be covered somehow. Boroughs are very clear in their determination that Londoners should not be short changed and that the original deal should hold in order that council tax and service levels are not adversely affected."
So, if you're a London borough council tax payer, and I venture you probably are not, what would you rather see the money go on?
Hitting the poorest hardest, my foot.
How about the fiasco of removing the 10p tax band for hitting the poorest hardest?
Chump.
Complain about this comment
146#
Mate you can be funny sometimes....
That's like Nick Griffin saying "I'm not racist, but...."
Complain about this comment
I take it those on Jobseekers Allowance don't need to eat like our MP'S have to. Food allowance of £400 a month is a disgrace, those on Jobseekers Allowance don't even get £400 a month to live on, let alone get a food allowance.... good to see our MP's are still in touch with the real world.... beam me up Scotty!!
Complain about this comment
157#
Because you have selective blindness towards it. Do as I say not do as I do.
Complain about this comment
hey Patricia (@ 163)
people say EYE look rather like Alistair Darling ... have I ever told you that?
Complain about this comment
"However, he becomes the latest victim of the expenses saga"
What a strange parallel world it is in the Westminster bubble. In the real world, people who commit crimes are known as "criminals", and the people on whom the crimes are committed are known as "victims". Do I take it it's the other way round at Westminster?
Complain about this comment
Doesn't Nick's blog attract the most reactionary windbags.
Red is better, no, blue is better - boo ya, boo ya.
How can you tell the difference?, Blair = Cameron don't you get it? The public will dutifully vote in the blues next year and later realise they simply have more of the same as the bubbles are shifted around in a forlorn hope to control the Economy.
Crisis in credit, crisis in politics, crisis in employment and crisis in currency.
All we need now is crisis in the stock market followed by crisis in international relations and we will have completed the full set.
.....and of course the overriding 'crisis of humanity' which seems to be a backgound event throughout.
It's a shame that the world might collapse and most people won't understand why.
Complain about this comment
Do we think anybody sensible is running the country? Reading about so many dodgy 'interpretations' of rules and protocols i dread to think how these MPs do their day jobs. Have to admit though the must be quite bright to manipulate the expenses system. Not very bright, just moderately bright. Well about 40watts in old money.
Where are our 100 watt politicians?
As for Jaquie Smith. She needs replacing.
Complain about this comment
555 @ 158
wouldn't be still smarting from the other day, would you Andrew? ... you know, when we more or less proved that Tax Advisors are less useful than Traffic Wardens
Complain about this comment
sagamix wrote:
but on closer examination it usually transpires that they're either Tory supporters or (and I love this one) they're floating between the Cons and UKIP!"
I seem to remember you trying to convince us all that you were a floating voter in the past Saga!
"the reason I bring up the Mortimax scandal from time to time is that it otherwise doesn't get a mention and I feel it's important Cameron does not get a free ride - not that what I say makes any difference of course, but still"
You don't bring it up from "time to time" you bring it up all the time!
The ironic thing is that the fact that you need to bring it up constantly actually makes Cameron look pretty good as it appears that this is the worse "scandal" that you can dig up about the guy!
And it isn't really much of a scandal, as I understand the issue (and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong)
Cameron used the Additional Costs Allowance (an allowance which was put in place to help pay for the costs of requiring a second home - including mortgage INTEREST payments) to pay off his mortgage INTEREST on his second home!
Hardly really a scandal - didn't he once drive the wrong way down a one-way street when followed by The Mirror? Perhaps you could use that as evidence of how bad a person he is - at least he broke the law then!
Everytime that someone finds a new stick to beat the Labour party with you seem to bring up Cameron's mortgage or "toff" background
Complain about this comment
#165 Funbar
Wow, oh no, a chump? Ouch ouch ouch.
Anyway, didn't know I was talking about the 10p tax rate (which Dave supported at the time), thought I was talking about excessive fare rises by Boris Johnson (up to 20 per cent).
I'm amazed at how staggeringly out of touch you are. Are the unemployed not poor (how do they search for jobs)? Are those on low incomes not poor. Goodness me, you must live a very charmed life.
Boris wants to freeze council taxes, spend on Routemasters and cancel the western extension of the congestion yet hike fares and increase the charge in other areas.... sounds awfully like he's robbing Peter to pay Paul, sounds a bit stealthy.
By the way, I do pay London council tax, and prior to that, I paid London poll tax.
Thanks for the guff you cut and pasted into your post but isn't Boris simply trying to blame Ken?
Complain about this comment
156 DHW:
"WLW@99
"Because there's no 'hook' for anyone to be let off regarding claims for Additional Mortgage INTEREST Payments."
I'm no expert, but this is What I Reckon.
buys a house with a mortgage->The value of that house goes up and they don't pay any interest that would mostly cancel that out->The property is sold and the loan paid off leaving a profit with no capital gains tax.
Thats What I reckon.
What Do you reckon WLW?"
********
Seeing as the allowances cover NO capital amount, only interest, I have no problem with that. Whatever happens, the Capital Amount still needs to be paid by the mortgage holder, in this case David Cameron. and if property proces go up (or down) that's a risk he's taking with his money, just like all homebuyers do. The difference is, his job as an MP forces him into having two homes, which he would not need to do were he employed in another business.
That's what I reckon.
What do you reckon, DHW?
Complain about this comment
exiled scott@61
Something like. Yeh and what about all the stuff Labour get up to?
I assume if Labour are doing what you suggest. Then the Conservatives could have been doing it before. The point is that Cameron is selling himself as a knight in shinning armour who will save our democracy and our economy by sorting out all these evil expenses claimants. When he seems to be playing the system himself. Also It seems to be people who are not 'New Romantic' enough to be in his party who are being asked to resign.
I admire the way that this Conservative scandal has been turned onto the Labour government by the way. Masterful piece of spin.
Complain about this comment
#171:
So true. I wish more people could see through it all, as you can. Sadly, it seems that people like us are in the minority, and that most people like being governed by the Labour/Tory duopoly.
Very sad.
Complain about this comment
171 writing:
Thanks to Bliar and Broon's misguided, ill-informed attempts to curry favour with the US by following them into Afghanistan and Iraq on shoddy evidence and with allegations of misleading parliament and the country over the "45 minute" claim, we already ARE in a crisis of International relations. And if you think the stock market is immune to credit and currency crisises, then you're misguided and ill-informed as well.
And it's all the fault of New Labour.
Complain about this comment
177#
Its not necessarily spin dhw, its more a case of regardless of the motives for Cameron's somewhat shambolic ushering of this particular MP out of the door at the next election, in the meantime, you have a former home secretary, sitting on 120K's worth of public money that has not been totally honestly claimed - not only is she not compelled by either her party's chief whip or the party leadership to stand down at the next election, not only is she not compelled to give the money back, but she also gets elevated to the house of lord as well.
Does this not seem to you to in the remotest possible way the application of double standards?
And its not just her is it?
or is it a case of "well, the electorate are likely to throw them out at the next election anyway so, that is punishment enough"??
whichever way you look at it, Cameron appears to be doing something. Whether he is or not isnt really relevant. But to the media and the electorate, he is making it look as if he is. Where there is a deafening silence from Gordon, who when the press were chewing him out before the summer recess was blustering around in PMQ's making a big noise about how he, the saviour of the world was going to put something in place to stop it.
And he hasnt.
How are we meant to see it then?
Complain about this comment
DHW #177 utter tripe.
You assume I wont it can make an ASS out of U not Me.
Complain about this comment
Willy @ 176
a point you forgot to include:
the spirit of the ACA is to make sure an MP only has to cover the costs (mortgage/rent being the main part thereof) of running ONE home - it's a principle known in the world of expense systems as "Calibrate To Normal" - David Cameron ended up with no mortgage running costs on EITHER of his homes - that's a clear breach of the CTN rule and it should not have gone unpunished
your point about claiming only the interest element, btw, is not the strongest since it's the interest which (in the early part of any mortgage) which makes up almost all of each monthly payment
Complain about this comment
Disgustedof Mitcham2 @ 178
Based upon the results of the last General Election in 2005, it is not true to state that most people like being governed by the Labour/Tory duopoly because their combined share of the total electorate vote was around only 42%.
Not even half of the electorate voted for Labour and the Tories.
In fact, about 22% voted for Labour and around 20% voted for the Tories.
Hardly a ringing endorsement for either of them and simply reminds you of just how rigged the system is in favour of particularly, these two parties.
Grotesque and shameful for a so-called mature democracy.
Complain about this comment
175#
Right. As you're a London council tax payer, I withdraw that comment that you were likely not to be.
Odious as it may seem, if you cant afford to stay in a particular place, if you dont work there any more and you cant keep up, then your choices become somewhat limited. Moving out of London has to be an option.
Maybe I have led a charmed life. Got the hell out of Coventry when it was dying on its feet in 1983 and apart from my time in the military I've gone where the work is and that has currently led me overseas to Europe.
If that means I'm out of touch with the poor, downtrodden masses then I guess I am. I was there once when I was a kid, 3 adults in a council house of 6 people out of work or declared bankrupt and I see no reason why I should go back there. Stuff that. They're not the kind of people I need to be in touch with thank you very much.
I'm debating on whether to withdraw the chump epithet. You're banging this particular drum because it suits your agenda and it helps you throw mud around. Although the 20% rise in fares is true, those who are most vulnerable through the concessionary fare system may have some protection. The ones who will be hit worst by it are the commuters, those who cant afford to live in London but who have to work there and have to travel at peak times.
Now. Less money in from the treasury to support subsidies to LUL and London buses equals less revenue. More of TFL's budget spent on propping it up. Less people travelling because of job losses, so less revenue in. Something has to give. Subsidies fall, prices go up. Its got to come from somewhere.
Might make more sense to pay tube drivers less than 40K per year for a start.
But it doesnt matter what I say. You arent going to agree, you've got your agenda and in it, it seems the left can do very little wrong, if anything. Ignorance must be bliss for you too.
Complain about this comment
Which of the other parties members are living in "Grace and Favour" residences?
You are being particularly biased and if your reading does not improve I suggest a visit to an optician.
Complain about this comment
53. At 10:44pm on 15 Oct 2009, muadib wrote:
Its a bit rich (sorry) saying Cameron has taken the moral high ground when with £30M in assets he claims for a second mortgage on a house he could have bought outright.
===
I understand that his personal wealth is nowhere near this fictitious figure. Please quote your source for this.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#173 Saga
What is it, more or less? I know it's a figure of speech, but you can't really juxtapose it with prove. Did Einstein more or less prove the theory of relativity? Or, because it's a theory, is it unproven, more or less?
Complain about this comment
Sagamix
You are doing it again. Mr Brown is claiming interest on his house in Cowdenbeath, Jacqui Smith did not know where her main home was. Geoff Hoon also claimed on his houses repeatedly. Brown and Hoon were living free in Grace and favour residences.
Complain about this comment
65. At 00:04am on 16 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
jrp @ 55
it's a total canard
I think you'd be surprised, JR, if you knew how much damage this "Canard" has done and is doing and will do to Conservative prospects for 2010
oh, and how come a retrospective cap for trivial things like gardening but no action on mortgages?
bit odd, don't you think? ... seems to let certain people off the hook
===
Yup.
Like the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Speaker, the former Home Secretary, the former Secretary of State for Transport, the former Minister of State for Employment, the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and so on.
As you say, it gives them no moral authority.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron has done a great PR job on this one. He could be the next Tony Blair.
Complain about this comment
Stepping down at the next election... with all the nice pay offs, pension, etc. - so not exactly resigning.
Its a lot easier for Cameron to be decisive on this issue, being in opposition he has something of a free hand.
Given that he's desperately clinging to the power he waited so long for (even with things collapsing around him) its much harder for Brown to take a tough line and risk a bank bench revolt.
At least Cameron (and Clegg) have shown a degree of leadership, but then Brown isn't a leader, he's just Blair's #2 who's been left to carry the can for the mess.
Complain about this comment
#183:
The interpretation of those figures depends on what the many people who didn't bother to vote at all think. We can't know, of course, because they didn't vote. But I would guess most of them are happy with the Labour/Tory duopoly, because if they didn't then they'd get off their backsides and do something about it.
You seem to assume that they're not happy with the current Labour/Tory system. I really hope you're right, and that they all get out and vote next time. Sadly, I suspect they'll still stay at home and we'll end up with Labour or the Tories (obviously with the latter being overwhelmingly more likely this time round) again. In which case, they might just as well all be great fans of the present Labour/Tory system.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
Willy @ 176
a point you forgot to include:
the spirit of the ACA is to make sure an MP only has to cover the costs (mortgage/rent being the main part thereof) of running ONE home"
Isn't the spirit of the ACA that an MP should not be "worse off" for having to run two homes?
Imagine that instead of "rich toff" David Cameron who had paid off the mortgage on his main home but "hard working socialist" Martin the Miner - should Martin be punished because he has worked hard down the mines all his life to buy his "two up two down" while Sammy the Spiv is able to claim ACA because he has a mortgage on both his houses?
Of course not!
"it's a principle known in the world of expense systems as 'Calibrate To Normal'"
It can't be that common a phrase as I just tried to Google it and of the seven responses that were returned none concerned expenses!
"David Cameron ended up with no mortgage running costs on EITHER of his homes - that's a clear breach of the CTN rule and it should not have gone unpunished"
As mentioned previous the spirit of the ACA is that no MP should be financially worse off for requiring two houses. If Cameron was not an MP he would have no mortgage running costs so if he was forced to pay the interest on his second mortgage it would be breaking the spirit of the ACA.
Complain about this comment
I do have an issue with Cameron's mortgage interest payments; however it isn't the banal "he didn't need it, he could afford it" argument.
The problem I have is the value of the property that can currently be financed by the maximum allowable interest payment, surely such a property is not "necessary" for the role of an MP.
Complain about this comment
180 fubar..
"How are we meant to see it then?"
I don't know! I'm not speaking for the Labour party. I would say I was an ABC(Anyone But Conservative) but that includes UKIP and the BNP ao I can't. Maybe you're right both Labour and the Conservatives are claiming to be doing something about this when they are doing as little as they can get away with.
I also think this expenses thing is an irrelevant distraction when it comes to reforming our democracy.
Complain about this comment
I think it is very valid for bloggers here to question the expenses drawn by some of the wealthy MP's of any Party because in essence, it probes the meaning of what meant by 'public service'.
Each will have their own interpretation of that, but it is very hard to understand why some MP's, allegedly worth tens of millions of pounds, who say they wish to be upright public servants, feel that they should even draw the £60K basic salary let alone the personal expenses and pension.
They should be judged by their actions, not their words and maybe some will face that judgement at the next General Election.
Complain about this comment
104. At 09:39am on 16 Oct 2009, gordont10 wrote:
I'm no Tory supporter, but has Wilshire, or any of the others, actually done anything wrong?
If he has committed a criminal offence, as most of the respondents to your blog seem to think, then let him be prosecuted. If not, can we have less of the hypocritical sanctimony? Who here has never had work done for cash, never pinched so much as a pencil from work, never had a hooky dvd or an illegal download? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone springs to mind. There is NOTHING more nauseating than the sight and sound of the "great" British public, and its media, in full puritanical flow.
Also, judging by many of the blogs, and one in particular, many could spend some time learning how to spell
===
Or they may be dyslexic! Don't be so judgemental.
Complain about this comment
#58 - Precisely. Yes GOT IT. The destruction of the Democracy of this country isn't worth it. Our politicians are WOEFULLY underpaid and as a result we get what we get.
Complain about this comment
163 flamepatricia
Wont comment on your bizarre penchant for Darling but if you really expect a fresh and new approach from the Conservatives theres no doubt you need the counselling
Complain about this comment
182 Saga:
Dem's da rools, boy.....
Question for you: if he still had an outstanding mortgage on his Family home (in London) and was therefore compelled to have two mortgage payments going out, would you have any issue about his claiming for the Interest payments on the home in Oxfordshire? from responses you have given before, the answer, I know, is no.
Once that question is resolved, the clue to whether or not he has broken the letter (or as you indicate, the spirit) of any rules is in the word Additional. We're not talking about being required to have two mortgages in order to qualify got the additiona Homes allowance - the requirement is the need to maintain two homes, the one that you (and your family) spend least time at (all spelled out in the rules) is designated as your Second Home, and that is eligible for the allowance - again, on the interet only, not on any capital amount either monthly or when the mortgage is redeemed.
So exactly which part of "entirely within the letter and the spirit of the rules" do you still fail to understand? Or are you realising that, just like your professed political leanings, you're a bit of a floater?
Complain about this comment
The Kelly report on how MPs expenses will be dealt with in future is to be released on November 4th.
I'm willing to bet that it will be (a) Just as generous, albeit in a different way. (b) No part of it will be enforcable in law. (c) Treated in the same cavalier fashion that the present system is.
Complain about this comment
#160 Extremesense
At the moment the Conservatives come across as a bunch of pretty cruel, devious (in that they're happy to sell us out in exchange for power), flip-flopping, dangerous bunglers who happen to be rich so will be protected from the worst they do.
--------------------------------------------
I just don't see where any balanced person can state that the Conservative's announcements give an indication of a 'cruel' party. Are you referring to the proposal to re-assess Incapacity Benefit claimants? This is also largely Labour policy, but brought forward by the Conservatives.
Why concentrate on that measure when in DC's conference speech he also highlighted the party's plan to remove the 95% tax rate suffered by those on Working Family Tax Credit who want to increase their paid work?
Devious? Again, I'd like some examples please.
I am sure that we will never agree as to the merits of taking early action to cut public expenditure and seeking to reverse this government's trend of spending beyond our means. Is it not possible to accept that the parties can both have well meaning intentions but believe that different strategies are required to benefit the country as a whole? You may not believe that a right of centre government is a desireable option but trying to portray all tories as self centred toffs adds nothing to the debate.
Complain about this comment
196 JohnConstable:
Are you suggesting that people should do the job for free? What if YOUR employer decided that you're a bit minted compared to the national average, so were going to do away with your salary and still expect you to work a full week. You'd no doubt introduce thm to that place where the sun don't shine.
Prize winner for silliest point on the blog.....
Complain about this comment
186:
Also, muadib, your tone implies he's raking it in. Please point to any possible sources of information that states that a single penny of the interest he claims goes anywhere but to the mortgage company.
Complain about this comment
DisgustedOfMitcham2 @ 192
Although assumptions can be very dangerous, in the case of voters who do not turn out at General Elections, I am making the assumption that they are not happy with either Labour or the Tories, rather than as you suggest, being passive contented non-voters, because I suspect that these non-voters think that their vote does not count.
So they make the rational decision not to bother voting.
But despite the 'rigged' voting system currently in place, if all these non-voters really did turn out for once, then that wave of voters would actually overcome the in-built bias of the system towards the tired old duopoly of Labour and the Tories.
Complain about this comment
Goldman Sachs ... 6,000 London people ... to receive this year, POST bailout of their own failed industry, an average bonus of £500,000 ... yep that's "average", you read it right
3 Billion Pounds!
just ONE bank
MPs expenses? ... pimplefeed
Complain about this comment
To Fubar_Saunders.
Re, the "..General dannatt..." thing on a previous Blog: Before I could reply to your enquiry as to my grounds for linking the General with Cameron in "..sordid Party-Politics.." the Entry was closed.
So, just to make it clear: I did read your #71. I did have a reply sorted but it's not really the place here.
Suffice to say the precis version is this: I too served (1972 to 81, 4 Para) and therefore know full well HM Forces don't just "take off the uniform at night and forget". That said, it is clear the Chief of Armed Forces has said, ".. request for 2,000 was a myth.."; I was watching SKY when he said it and heard it on BBC. Therefore my concern re General Dannatt's incredibly hasty declaration of Political-persuasion and my doubting all that went before.
Now, I've already had my pieces Published (see #81 and #85) on this sham 'reform' of MPs, Parliament and Government etc. after Expenses scandal, however I do entirely agree with your criticism of some on here who would appear to see it all as either NuLab or Conservative. They are totally missing the key-point that an uncomfortable Majority had their fingers caught in the Public Purse and not nearly enough has been done to weed out these corrupt, venal people holding Public Office long after they have been demonstrably shown to be unfit to do so.
Complain about this comment
I don't wish to underestimate the damage this has caused, and if collars are felt that will be a sign that even MPs are not above the law. However, assuming on average each MP took 30k that they were not entitled to the loss to the public would be around 20m. If half of them pay that back we are talking about 10m and for that we get a new system, over 200 new MPs instead of the dodgy characters, and closure.
However, when we do get closure there will be still be a black hole of debt that our children and grandchildren will be paying off for donkeys years to come. Let's say 180bn and growing. Yet Nick and the media, and the rest of us, spend an inordinate amount of money and time chasing 10m.
Nick. Sad and angry as we all are about this I suggest it is time for you and your colleagues to get back to the 180bn and how we are going to pay it back.
Complain about this comment
sagamix
Well, sagamix, you seem to be getting a hard time over your inane "Mortimax" story. Good. You deserve it.
Let me first run a couple of quotations past you.
From your 65: "I think you'd be surprised, JR, if you knew how much damage this "Canard" has done and is doing and will do to Conservative prospects for 2010"
and from your 162: "the reason I bring up the Mortimax scandal from time to time is that it otherwise doesn't get a mention"
Now, the fact is, your Mortimax story is getting zero traction outside the pages of this blog. You tried to wave a quote from the Spectator at me a few days ago, but it turned out to be way out of context, as we discussed at the time. If a story isn't being talked about, then it isn't having any effect, I would say. So in regards to your first quote, the only thing that would surprise me about this story would be if it was having any effect at all. And it isn't. So, however sad this makes you, I am not yet in surprised mode.
Then in the second quote, you admit that you are the only one making the running on this story (except perhaps for one or two of your fellow travellers, on this blog only). That would tend to indicate that no-one else is running with the story, therefore it is having no impact. In other words, you agree with my criticisms of the first quote.
Do you see the logical inconsistency between what you said at 65 and what you said at 162? I hope so. It would be hard to have any respect for you if you didn't. If you've got a straight explanation alternative to mine then I shall be happy to read it, but I would call this totally wrong at 65, correct at 162, the interpretation being that however fast and hard you run with the story, no-one respectable is picking it up and it is having zero impact.
I would say, further, that you haven't got a single piece of factual evidence to back up your interpretation of Cameron and his mortgage claims. What's more, as we discussed a few days ago and as you agreed at the time, there is factual evidence that tends to go completely against your version of the story. That is why no-one else is running with the story. So why do you keep on promoting your version of events when they are so unsupportable? Another straight answer here would not go amiss.
After we had our little debate last time, and ended on an agreed score-draw, within twelve hours you were posting again as if the contrary points had never been made. I asked you then, and I have to ask you again, where is the integrity in your participation in the debate, if you can't acknowledge the shaky foundations of your original argument when they are shown to you, and simply press on as if you were on rock solid ground?
Your Cameron story is a smear. Unless or until the facts change, you should drop it.
Complain about this comment
Where were 4 Para based?
Complain about this comment
yellowbelly1959 and #197.
Well, I plead guilty to the 'pencil' ripped off every institution I've ever worked for or in from my Junior School onwards. How about you?
I plead guilty to having knowingly watched 'stolen' (not by me) videos when I was a College. How about you?
I plead guilty to having an education that permits to 'note' other's grammer/spelling imperfections as well as my own, but, also taught the grace to avoid pointing it out when it is not part of the debate? How about you?
No, I cannot justify such incidents: I did nick a comrades excellent hiking boots in N.Ireland once, but I was patrolling the border and he was going back to England - - even now I don't feel that guilty - - another time... Well, point being we all rationalise the 'error' and my goodness Mr Wilshere is certainly a determined 'rationaliser'!
What I cannot plead guilty to and I am quite sure it applies to everyone on here and across the board to millions of the "great British Public" is knowingly claiming 100,000 Pounds of the Public's Taxes when I was not entitled to 1 never mind the additional 99,999! How about you?
There is nothing quite so disturbing as the sight of 1 of the "great" British Public attempting to excuse wrongdoing by claiming utterly without evidence that because that 1 has done it we must all have done so! How about you?
Complain about this comment
"206. At 3:57pm on 16 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
Goldman Sachs ... 6,000 London people ... to receive this year, POST bailout of their own failed industry, an average bonus of £500,000 ... yep that's "average", you read it right
3 Billion Pounds!
just ONE bank
MPs expenses? ... pimplefeed"
I have to be honest, what's the fuss? PROVIDED (and it's a big "P" word) that the bonuses are paid out of sustainable 'proper' profits then it's a cause for celebration I'd have thought.
It's a typical simplistic analysis by the left wing to moan about these bonuses.
What is the alternative for these profits? That the company keeps them? They'll be taxed at 28%. With the bank paying them as a bonus, the exchequer gets (on a bonus paid to an worker of 500,000) a whopping £269,000.
Brown & Darling might make the appropriate noises but inside they are DESPERATE for the money.....
Complain about this comment
#205:
You say it's a rational decision.
I say (assuming that they are not happy with the status quo, of course, which I don't think we can necessarily assume) it's a lazy and dangerous decision.
If you are right, and they are all as fed up to the back teeth with the Labour/Tory party as we are, then I really hope they do turn out and vote. The results could be a lot of fun.
Complain about this comment
Disgusted of Mitchem
Why not introduce a system whereby you can punch in the mouth anyone who doesn't vote?
It accords with your theories of democracy and would encourage an increase in voting.
Complain about this comment
206 Saga:
Or, put another (more accurate) way: an average of $172,000 across the entire company (not just London).
You been reading the Daily Mail again? They misreported this in exactly the way you have quoted.
Complain about this comment
West_London_Willy @ 203
You suggest that I suggest that that people should do the job for free?
I was not discussing generic people, but self-professed public servants, who in some cases have enormous personal fortunes and therefore would apparently not, strictly speaking, need to utilise the public purse as their primary motivation for doing the job (and I indeed suspect it is not, they do it for the power and the glory but still take the money anyway).
Furthermore, you say what if YOUR employer decided that you're a bit minted compared to the national average, so were going to do away with your salary and still expect you to work a full week.
In the world of commerce, which I work in, as it happens my last 'employer' (loosely speaking as I am essentially self-employed) knew that I had significant personal assets but still paid a reasonable amount for my services, as I have specialist skills which are sometimes at a premium, depending upon a volatile market, and was prepared to pay the going rate.
At other times, I have actually worked for 'nothing' in the commercial environment as I wished to acquire certain skills and deemed the trade-off worthwhile.
Overall, I am attempting to show, by example, that the worlds of public and private enterprise and the associated workers therein, often have different values and so should be assessed accordingly.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8310423.stm
Maybe some of the MP's would like to pay back these sums quickly so that the TA bands can play at rememberance services this November, these guys and gals some who will be working for free as GB and Ain't worth nothing (Ainsworth) has stopped all TA training. Including band engagements.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
Goldman Sachs ... 6,000 London people ... to receive this year, POST bailout of their own failed industry, an average bonus of £500,000 ... yep that's "average", you read it right
3 Billion Pounds! "
It is a disgrace isn't it, but did you seriously expect the Tories to cut back on the expense culture that seems to exist amongst their friends in the city?
Oh sorry, my mistake it was Labour who are currently in power and managed to do nothing to stop the big bonus culture. Although, I was sure that Darling and Brown assured us that they would put an end to it!
Complain about this comment
Just read the Beeb report of the MPs whinging about the reduction of space in their 'cafe', so that the capacity for strangers - i.e. the public can be increased and thereby increase turnover for said cafe.
You really can't make this up.
Complain about this comment
Why could not Mr Wilshire just stand up in the Commons and apologise and carry on regardless.
Much more high profile figures have done this - and it worked.
Any bets Miss Smith will be back on the NuLabour front bench before long.
Complain about this comment
Nothing to report today??
Nothing about PC Fletcher? Too embarrassing?
Or what about the gagging order? Too political?
Or what about the torture documents that have been released? Too internationally embarrassing?
Why not something about Geert Wilders then? Surely you're not off for the weekend already!
Complain about this comment
183 JC
we live in a democracy where you can vote if you want and not vote likewise, so to say that the share of the electorate vote is not democratic as less than 40% voted for LabCon is a bit like prersenting GB stats at the dispatch box, of the actual people who did exercise their right to vote over 70% voted for the main 2 parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005#Votes_summary
Were the rest apathetic or did not give a monkeys I do not know but they had a democratic right to vote if they wanted to.
Complain about this comment
@ 2C (Willy)
which part of "entirely within the letter and the spirit of the rules" do you fail to understand?
there's no question that what he did is within the letter of the rules, the problem is with the spirit side of things
would a person of integrity ... such as we have every right to expect our probable next PM to be ... would such a person have arranged matters in the way that he did?
I Think Not
there is no defence other than the technical (within the rules) or the distractive (no worse than others) and neither works for me - I've also heard both of those countless times, so unless you have something new? ...
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the expenses issue is just going to go around in circles. Whilst angry at all of the MPs that have fiddled the system I see little point in re iterating the fact that we are all so angry. Its not getting us anywhere.
Many of the worst offenders will not be standing at the next general election and I hope the eventually the law catches up with them if they have anything to answer for. We are now aware of the excesses of those that are still standing. Let the highest court of public opinion in the land have its say. Call an election now!
The expences issue is just one symtom of the problems current within our society, we desperately need a Parliament with a mandate to rule. Personally, i would prefer it to be a Government committed to a smaller state. However even if the other argument wins the day at least someone will be looking at the economy and those areas of our society that are broken, rather than worrying about expences, an issue which seems to be paralising government and dominating debate at present.
Complain about this comment
#184 Fubar
Point 1, that's magnanimous of you!
Rest of your post, yep, I've had a similar life by the sounds of it only I realise that I've also had quite a few lucky breaks so don't have a chip on my shoulder or the 'I'm alright Jack attitude'. Why take an interest in politics if you're not interested in the country as a whole?
Frankly, the point you're trying to make is ridiculous... ie - if you earn to little to live in London then move. How does that work for nurses etc? What, just not bother having nurses etc in London? Sounds daft to me.
For those who lose their job and are having a tough time finding new work, what are you saying? It sounds as though you're saying can't afford it? Then sell-up and get out even if your line of work is London-based (what about bank back office staff, for example, who have been hit really hard, I mean the settlements teams, etc not the bankers). Have you explored the realities of your idea given a static housing market and declining jobs market?
As for my 'agenda', I'm puzzled. You've slung this term around as if it were an insult yet don't really attempt to define my agenda. Come on then, what is my agenda?
Well, actually, I don't really have an agenda although I do have an interest in the next government and what they actually plan to do to us ALL.
If had to define my specific agenda it would simply be properly funded care for those with terminal illnesses (as this is my current predicament) and perhaps a sub-agenda of being against attacking the disabled (as the Tory-run Hammersmith Council has with it's introduction of charges for basic care bearing in mind they've cut council tax for all) or needy.
Anyway, I will definitely NOT be voting Labour at any forthcoming election.
Complain about this comment
muadib 53
Re Cameron's millions.
I just had a quick look at the Register of Members' Interests. I can tell you, I can see nothing in Cameron's entry that suggests he is in receipt of income from anything like the amount that you quoted. Given the potential furore over misreporting income in the register, it seems to me that Cameron would have to be dafter even than his worst enemy would claim him to be, if he was simply concealing his external income. Therefore, I conclude that your guess of a wealth of £30 millions seems absurdly wide of the mark.
I think you will find that Cameron and family simply live on his and his wife's salaries (both a matter of public record).
Complain about this comment
andy @ 215
GS bonuses, what's the fuss?
Goldman (along with almost every other Investment Bank of its ilk) would be BUST if not for the bailout of AIG, plus state support of the banking system generally - they are doing business courtesy of state money, there should be NO bonuses for staff (apart from a few thou for the Back Office to have a good Christmas) and ALL profits they make should be paid over, not a piffling 28% or whatever their precise effective tax rate is - can't see much that's "left wing" about that - or indeed right wing - why don't we just call it what it is ...
fair
Complain about this comment
Yellowbelly@186:
"I understand that his personal wealth is nowhere near this fictitious figure. Please quote your source for this."
You seem to not accept that Dave is a rich man and not worth £30m. Well try this source. It is the Daily Mail, so it must be true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-462313/Dave-Cameron-says-hes-touch-reality--wealth-blue-blood-wonder.html
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
@ 2C (Willy)
which part of "entirely within the letter and the spirit of the rules" do you fail to understand?
there's no question that what he did is within the letter of the rules, the problem is with the spirit side of things"
You mean the spirit of the law which is that no MP should be financially worse off for being an MP?
Sounds to me that Cameron IS within the spirit of the law.
"there is no defence other than the technical (within the rules) or the distractive (no worse than others) and neither works for me - I've also heard both of those countless times, so unless you have something new? ..."
What are your thoughts above on my example of Martin the miner and Sammy the Spiv above?
Using your "spirit" of the law the well off spiv would be able to claim the ACA but the hard working ex-miner wouldn't.
Complain about this comment
223 sagamix
How clearly do I have to explain this to you?
You are the one who has to produce "something new", because there are no facts that support your allegations, and quite a few that go right against what you are saying.
STOP SMEARING!!
Complain about this comment
#223
Give it a rest.
If Cameron walked on water you'd just suggest it meant he couldn't swim.
Complain about this comment
The UK Treasury is projected to receive £2.5 billion in tax revenues from the UK operations of Goldman Sachs this financial year.
Something to welcome, surely?
Or is a loss and zero tax revenues better?
Complain about this comment
#227 saga
I think you're wrong as the Conservatives both sides of the Atlantic would have let the banks fail - that's true freemarket economics for you.
On that basis, definitely right wing. Ah ha, does this mean you've, errrrrr, 'changed'?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#227
Actually GS would have survived the collapse of AIG.
Besides, I thought AIG was bailed out by US money.
I'd have thought it rather good that the UK exchequer was benefiting from this.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS