Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

MP's ExpensesFollow

#52 May 22 2009 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Goggy wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
No, the real issue is that MP salaries were too low compared to most of Europe and to salaries paid for similar posts in the private sector. This has been the case for 50 years. Their solution was to give generous expenses to make up for the crappy salary.

Everyone in politics knew that. It was a crappy solution because MPs were too afraid of political consequences to say they needed to reform their remuneration schemes.


Absolute rubbish. The idiocy of this statement is just beyond belief.


Oh, right. I see what you mean. That's a pretty solid argument you've got there, I take back what I said.

Anyway, here's an european comparaison of MPs salaries and expenses:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7961849.stm

The UK is pretty much middle of the road.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#53 May 22 2009 at 6:15 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
YOU ARE A MONSTER, REDPHOENIXX AND YOU STINK LIKE ONIONS!
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#54 May 22 2009 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good
Warchief Annabella wrote:
YOU ARE A MONSTER, REDPHOENIXX AND YOU STINK LIKE ONIONS!


Well yes, but that's only because of my Eau d'Onion Perfume.


Anyway, it seems the Economist agrees with me on the origins of this crisis:

Quote:
As MPs’ earnings fell over time behind those of bankers and family doctors, and as their role changed to include constituency work better done by local councillors, they could have debated, openly and from first principles, the issue of pay and expenses. But rather than risk honest analysis of what MPs are for and what they are worth, they improvised a solution by treating expenses as a way of topping up their income. And instead of abandoning this approach when its flaws came to light—mini-sleaze stories have abounded in recent years — they procrastinated until a crushing torrent of revelations pushed them into action.



Edited, May 22nd 2009 2:26pm by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#55 May 22 2009 at 6:25 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Goggy wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
No, the real issue is that MP salaries were too low compared to most of Europe and to salaries paid for similar posts in the private sector. This has been the case for 50 years. Their solution was to give generous expenses to make up for the crappy salary.

Everyone in politics knew that. It was a crappy solution because MPs were too afraid of political consequences to say they needed to reform their remuneration schemes.


Absolute rubbish. The idiocy of this statement is just beyond belief.


Oh, right. I see what you mean. That's a pretty solid argument you've got there, I take back what I said.

Anyway, here's an european comparaison of MPs salaries and expenses:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7961849.stm

The UK is pretty much middle of the road.


If you do not see what I mean then you haven't read or understood the preceding comments. You cannot artificially inflate your salary by abusing an expense system.

If you and others think the salary for MP's is wrong then there are channels for that, however, I think you're going to find it is more difficult to raise the salary level now this has broken. What may have been acceptable or debatable beforehand, is certainly going to be hard to swallow after MP have been seen to be "helping themselves".

A cynical person may ask as to why they didn't raise their salaries when it was up to MP's to vote on their own remuneration, yet disguise it in allowances? Is it because the number of people who believe the role is poorly paid, is massively outranked by the number of people who think £60,000 is a pretty damn good salary.
#56 May 22 2009 at 6:31 AM Rating: Good
Goggy wrote:
You cannot artificially inflate your salary by abusing an expense system.


Clearly you can, and clearly they have.

Quote:
A cynical person may ask as to why they didn't raise their salaries when it was up to MP's to vote on their own remuneration, yet disguise it in allowances? Is it because the number of people who believe the role is poorly paid, is massively outranked by the number of people who think £60,000 is a pretty damn good salary.


Possibly. Or maybe because most people have no idea how much an MP is paid, or how much they should be paid, until told so by the Sun/Mail. Maybe it's because had politicians voted to raise their own salaries, people like you would've posted a thread in =28 about MPs being greedy. Maybe because trashing politicians when their public perception is very low, is a good way for populist tabloids to shift lots of copies. Maybe a combination of all of the above.

But sure, I'd love to see your proposals implemented. Reduce MP salaries, cut their expenses, and force them to be "beyond reproach in the public and personal lives". Let's see what kind of candidate this attracts.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#57 May 22 2009 at 6:39 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Clearly you can, and clearly they have.


Now they're being made to answer questions about their claims. Although I will assume you understood that I'm talking from a moral stand point.

Quote:
Possibly. Or maybe because most people have no idea how much an MP is paid, or how much they should be paid, until told so by the Sun/Mail. Maybe it's because had politicians voted to raise their own salaries, people like you would've posted a thread in =28 about MPs being greedy. Maybe because trashing politicians when their public perception is very low, is a good way for populist tabloids to shift lots of copies. Maybe a combination of all of the above.


Personally I couldn't give a toss what The Sun/The Mail/The Mirror and all the other tabloids write in their papers. What I am interested in is who claimed and for what they claimed and whether it was reasonable and in line with their duties. Everything else you're dressing up your arguments with is irrelevant. If people are squirming because they've been caught out, tough ****.

Quote:

But sure, I'd love to see your proposals implemented. Reduce MP salaries, cut their expenses, and force them to be "beyond reproach in the public and personal lives". Let's see what kind of candidate this attracts.


Why should they need to be forced to be 'beyond reproach?', this is what is ****** up about your statements. You make out that some form of entitlement without a corresponding sense of social obligation is right?

I wonder what sort of social background you have? Are you sat on the dole? Because this is the sort of comment I would expect from a leech on society.
#58 May 22 2009 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Goggy wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Clearly you can, and clearly they have.


Now they're being made to answer questions about their claims. Although I will assume you understood that I'm talking from a moral stand point.


I've stopped assuming anything. You yapped on about "the law" for the previous ten posts, now it's morality... So yeah, whatever suits your current argument, I guess.

Quote:
What I am interested in is who claimed and for what they claimed and whether it was reasonable and in line with their duties.


What remarkable timing you have! What a coincidence, really...

Quote:
Why should they need to be forced to be 'beyond reproach?', this is what is @#%^ed up about your statements.


Because my MP can cheat on his wife and ********** to Grandma ****, as long as he does the job properly I couldn't care less. I think private lives should be private with regards to moral matters.

If it's illegal, it's different, but we are talking about morality, right? Or has that changed again?

Quote:
I wonder what sort of social background you have? Are you sat on the dole? Because this is the sort of comment I would expect from a leech on society.


Really? I would've thought that people on the dole would be outraged by MPs behaviour. I can't see many people on the dole saying that MPs claiming expenses was perfectly legit.

If you were going to go for the "personal attack" angle, you should've gone for the opposite: Make me out to be a rich priviledged kid who hopes to get into Parliament one day to benefit from said expenses. Attack me as part of the elite that doesn't understand the concerns of ordinary people. This would've made a lot more sense.

But really, MPs and unemployed people uniting to defend MPs expenses? How does that make any sense?


Edited, May 22nd 2009 3:00pm by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#59 May 22 2009 at 7:04 AM Rating: Good
Red, aren't you really Sarko's prodigy nephew? Smiley: confused
#60 May 22 2009 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
Lady Kalivha wrote:
Red, aren't you really Sarko's prodigy nephew? Smiley: confused


Now look, I can take groggy's insults just fine, but if the two of you gang up on me, I'm migrating to another thread!

And no, I'm not related to Sarko, thank flying spaghetti monster.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#61 May 22 2009 at 7:06 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
I've stopped assuming anything. You yapped on about "the law" for the previous ten posts, now it's morality... So yeah, whatever suits your current argument, I guess.


Picky, picky. From a moral standpoint, it's suspicious. From a legal standpoint, who knows, but I bet my *** there's people looking into it.

Quote:
If it's illegal, it's different, but we are talking about morality, right? Or has that changed again?


We can talk both, they're not in isolation.

Quote:
Really? I would've thought that people on the dole would be outraged by MPs behaviour. I can't see many people on the dole saying that MPs claiming expenses was perfectly legit.

If you were going to go for the "personal attack" angle, you should've gone for the opposite: Make me out to be a rich priviledged kid who hopes to get into Parliament one day to benefit from said expenses. Attack me as part of the elite that doesn't understand the concerns of ordinary people. This would've made a lot more sense.


I'm on about the entitlement, the something for nothing attitude, there's a common theme shared by MP and scroungers alike.
#62 May 22 2009 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Goggy wrote:
From a moral standpoint, it's suspicious.


From a moral standpoint, some of the MPs have made certain claims which are suspicious.

I can sign to that.

Quote:
From a legal standpoint, who knows, but I bet my *** there's people looking into it.


For sure, but I bet your *** that if it was possible to prosecute, things would've started already. The police or Scotland Yard would be investigating. The CPS would be preparing for an upcoming case. There might be some civil stuff in there that will go to court, but nothing criminal.

Don't worry though, your *** is pretty safe.

Quote:
We can talk both, they're not in isolation.


Fine.

Morality: I don't care.
Legality: I could care, depending on circumstances.

I certainly don't think MPs need to have a higher moral standard of private behaviour than, say, journalists, lawyers, doctors, heads of industries, CEOs, etc...

Quote:
I'm on about the entitlement, the something for nothing attitude, there's a common theme shared by MP and scroungers alike.


People on the dole are "scroungers" now? What the fuck is wrong with you?

And MPs work. It's not "something for nothing" it's "something for something", you dense cauliflower-eared ****.

See how personalised that last insult was? It's because, unlike you, I actually pay attention to the people I debate with.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#63 May 22 2009 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
I just can't get worked up about someone claiming £500 for a TV. Or someone spending £400 on food per month. Or someone claiming for dog food.


I thought the dog food claim was a little silly - as it was only for 3 cans . Either the MP killed the dog, or was making someone a dog food pie .

A dogs not just for christmas folks !
#64 May 22 2009 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
fatalillusiontw wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
I just can't get worked up about someone claiming £500 for a TV. Or someone spending £400 on food per month. Or someone claiming for dog food.


I thought the dog food claim was a little silly - as it was only for 3 cans . Either the MP killed the dog, or was making someone a dog food pie .


Yes, it was "silly", I completely agree.

"Silly", though, not "outrageous". Not even "important". It cost more to the taxpayer for this MPs' Press Officer to write three letters on headed paper to calm the press, than it would cost to give all MPs free dog food for a year. That's what is so petty about the whole thing: Dog food. Bath plugs. Curtains. A Pouffe. A £12 **** film. The majority of expenses stories focused on trivial cheap **** like that. Surely there's more important stuff to get all puffy about.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#65 May 22 2009 at 7:26 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
From a moral standpoint, some of the MPs have made certain claims which are suspicious.


Indeed, list here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm

Quote:
For sure, but I bet your *** that if it was possible to prosecute, things would've started already. The police or Scotland Yard would be investigating. The CPS would be preparing for an upcoming case. There might be some civil stuff in there that will go to court, but nothing criminal.

Don't worry though, your *** is pretty safe.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8052709.stm

Quote:

Morality: I don't care.
Legality: I could care, depending on circumstances.

I certainly don't think MPs need to have a higher moral standard of private behaviour than, say, journalists, lawyers, doctors, heads of industries, CEOs, etc...


I do.

Quote:
People on the dole are "scroungers" now? What the fuck is wrong with you?


Some people are unfortunate, some people work the system.

Quote:
And MPs work. It's not "something for nothing" it's "something for something", you dense cauliflower-eared ****.


They get their pay, bolstering it with inflated ******** expenses is not the way to increase it.

Quote:
See how personalised that last insult was? It's because, unlike you, I actually pay attention to the people I debate with.


Really, you previous comments suggest otherwise.

#66 May 22 2009 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Lady Kalivha wrote:
Red, aren't you really Sarko's prodigy nephew? Smiley: confused


Now look, I can take groggy's insults just fine, but if the two of you gang up on me, I'm migrating to another thread!

And no, I'm not related to Sarko, thank flying spaghetti monster.


I thought all real French people were. Smiley: frown

Same as I'm related to Gregor Gysi.
#67 May 22 2009 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
I was under the impression that jobseeker's allowance was a ridiculously low amount of money. How can anyone "work the system" if the system is like it is in the UK?
#68 May 22 2009 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
Lady Kalivha wrote:
I was under the impression that jobseeker's allowance was a ridiculously low amount of money. How can anyone "work the system" if the system is like it is in the UK?


Because everyone else is doing something wrong when you're standing on the moral high horse.


Edited, May 22nd 2009 3:42pm by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#69 May 22 2009 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
On the subject of expenses, one Mp's response amused me greatly .

Linky

It's pretty tongue in cheek .

1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (65)