Jackqui Smith Down

Only when it became clear that nobody was fooled any more by the lie
about having to pay such money for `success' and the economy started
crashing around our ears.

 

Amazed you disagree

CT has pointed out that they needed to be justifiable in the pursuit of the
job. An MP should be whiter than white (cough). Not long ago most would
have been decent enough to resign instantly had such things come out in the
wash.

You seem to think its just a job. Well it is not. And they should all be
setting good examples.

Not that it would be worse, but I inferred MP's should serve a limited term,
4 Parliaments say.

 

Do you think they would **** more than the current lot haha

You believe the only crime is being caught then

 

One thing I've found rather disappointing during the reporting of this
affair is the way MPs' expenses have been tabulated as a total, bundling
legitimate and dubious expenses under one headline figure.

An MP who has five or six assistants to help them run an effective
constituency presence could easily end up claiming more than one
neglected constituency work and instead concentrated on working their
way through the John Lewis list for creature comforts. Yet the broad
public perception is any MP with a high expenses bill is on the take. It
deflects warranted attention from those who are.

I'm still not convinced 60k isn't actually a fairly reasonable wage,
particularly considering the benefits package that goes with it, not to
mention the public profile that allows them to make extra wedge. OK,
it's not great for the level of seniority but it's not exactly breadline
either. Those MPs who didn't fiddle the system seem to have coped.

 

I think their willingness to screw the system and commit fraud cost them
their credibility, then compounded by trying to cover it up.

Not a fag paper sized gap between labour and tory any more, is there.

 

If govmint had been run more on the basis of fulfilling a mandate public
opinion we wouldn't be in such a big sticky hole.

 

In itself something of a smokescreen hiding the salaries inn the FTSE 100
Boardrooms and Executive offices.

 

I think they would be far more dangerous, unpleasant and incompetent than
any of the major parties would be, yes.

How do you get to that leap of logic?

Please forget your Sun reading prejudices for a few moments and join us
back here on planet reasonable.

 

I would have looked at the rule about the expenditure being
"necessary", I'd have remembered that this was coming out of the taxes
mostly paid by people poorer than myself, I'd have looked at the
plight of those of my constituents on the absolute breadline, whom I
was supposed to be representing, and I would have bucked the trend set
by my "noses-in-the-trough" colleagues.

Bear in m ind I have been paid by the taxpayer for much of my working
life (being in the NHS), and am familiar with the sense of
responsibilty that obviously, to me at least, goes with it. I'm no
saint, but I feel justified in expecting MPs to have roughly my level
of integrity. And I'm as critical as Hog of those that fall short.

 

Ah now, if you were a bluechip director you'd be walking away with a
handsome payoff, assuming anyone believed you'd done anything
wrong. If you were an *employee*, you'd be talking to plod.

 

I think the Telegraph should cover a thread where Ogden and MJ Carly are the
people who I agree with most.

 

I'm assuming that is some sort of Newspaper that you are familiar with?

 

It more than covers it: MPs are not badly paid. It might cost 120k to
be an MP, but a large part of that cost is in things like
communications and administrative support. Nobody is complaining about
MPs spending money on running an office. What is wrong is making a
personal profit at public expense such as when you fiddle your second
home allowance and avoid CGT.

 

Especially since more and more people are losing their jobs and will
then be denounced for being on the dole, while the crooks who raped
the public purse will claim that social welfare is too generous and
leads to a `dependency culture'.

 

OK now it's the thread where I'm agreeing with Ogden, MJ and Colin. How
interesting.

Given that many of these financial claims were clearly not necessary as per
the rules I stand by my belief it is fraud. Proper fraud, except they are
probably exempt. Imagine this was France though, the cobblestones would by
flying.

I worked in UKAEA and suffered somewhat as I refused to join in with a
completely outrageous fake overtime cartel, so I got zero overtime and just
the crap salary. But since then I have seen people taken to task over fake
or unjustified expense claims. I've seen Directors dismissed and I've seen
a senior employee serve 2 years. I've canned people I've caught at it. It's
just wrong, even if the rules make it possible to get away without criminal
sanctions (because you make the rules), it is still wrong and it makes you
unfit to serve as a Judge, Copper, Prison Officer, Teacher or MP.

 

I'm not disagreeing with that - what I am saying is that the majority
have not fiddled it - and the few that have should be dealt with
correctly. However it's a lot of fuss for the tiny amount of money they
have fiddled compared to the total mess they and their masters have made
of the economy, NHS, Police Service, Post Office etc etc.

 

Well lucky you, I'd love to earn 40k! You obviously haven't worked in
the civil service for 30 years!

MPs are paid plenty, IMHO.

The argument that 'you pay peanuts, you get monkeys' is bollocks. That
has been used for years for fat cat salaries in the City and look what
a mess the financial sector is in now!

 

LOL OK!

 

<hugs>

I am always amazed that sensible people can be so easily lead by the nose
away from the things that are important and waste so much energy tilting
at windmills.

 

and you two will make damn ugly children