We have a new Prime Minister

[Stealthbomber]

actually, it was "sleaze" that partly did for the tories in 1997. Not corruption on the scale we've seen recently, though of course it still went on, and perhaps more so. but that's what it was. affairs and all that, IIRC. Neil Hamilton etc. Mandelson did far worse, several times.

Mark Thatcher. [/discussion]

[galactica]

...wasn't a member of the government, merely related to one of them.

[Stealthbomber]

...wasn't a member of the government, merely related to one of them.

A guy who, despite being a brainless oaf, managed to suddenly become ridiculously wealthy by having an uncanny knack of investing in corporations just before they picked up government contracts which saw their stock values rocket.

Coincidence?

[snowman]

A guy who, despite being a brainless oaf, managed to suddenly become ridiculously wealthy by having an uncanny knack of investing in corporations just before they picked up government contracts which saw their stock values rocket.

Coincidence?

 

Surely you're not suggesting St Margaret was carrying out some kind of political insider dealing are you?

 

Trying to decide which Government - the last bunch of Tories or the outgone Labour one - was more corrupt is a bit like debating which of Hitler's concentration camp comandants was less evil (see what I did there? ).

 

The sad truth is, it seems that if you leave anyone in power for long enough they become enraptured by their sense of self importance and power and become corrupt, insensitive and believe they are untouchable.

 

Of course, Tories (by the nature of their beliefs) are more prone to greed and self agrandisment (ok, I'm generalising, but was it a Labour or Lib Dem MP with a moat or a duck house?), but it seems they ALL go the same way after a little time.

 

Why the government can't BUY houses or flats for MPs in London and then return any profit to the Treasury if they're sold I fail completely to understand - Why it's better for ME to pay an MP's second mortgage and then for them to reap all the benefit of the profit (whilst I'd get crucified on Capital Gains tax) is beyond explanation or justification.

 

About the only sympathy I have for MPs expenses is travelling first class on trains. If you travel on trains to London, especially in the rush hours, but even out of them, and find it possible to work productively whilst doing so, you're a better man than me (or, more likely, lying) UNLESS you travel first class.

 

IF, and only if, they're working on the train, I think I'd rather they travelled in the peace and seclusion (hardly ever anyone else there) of First class - Firstly, I think they'd do the work better and make better decisions and secondly, the only people likely to pick up the sensitive data they leave behind will be the cleaners, who hopefully can then return it to the Government, rather than selling it to their Al Qaieda member cousin (or, again more likely, The Sun who will pretend it was going to fall into the hands of Bin Laden or a paedophile ring).

 

Cheers

[Triggerhappychappy]

Im sure someone suggested ( a little while back ) that the olympic village should be turned into housing for MPs after the games are finished, that to me sounds like a brilliant idea as then all the *Ubarflock* are in one place & can be kept an eye on/ have meetings with other MPs without having to travel across London & rack up massive taxi fairs etc.

 

On the insider dealing front, I once picked up a copy of the Private Eye and glanced through- the number of MPs and senior civil servants giving lucrative contracts to their relations or business' in which they had a stake made my blood boil with rage; they really need to be kept closer tabs on, and prevented from entering into conflicts of interest ( like employing your wife &/or kids, paying them a huge wage whilst they do pretty much jack-*suitcase* to earn it ).

[Stealthbomber]

About the only sympathy I have for MPs expenses is travelling first class on trains. If you travel on trains to London, especially in the rush hours, but even out of them, and find it possible to work productively whilst doing so, you're a better man than me (or, more likely, lying) UNLESS you travel first class.

 

IF, and only if, they're working on the train, I think I'd rather they travelled in the peace and seclusion (hardly ever anyone else there) of First class - Firstly, I think they'd do the work better and make better decisions and secondly, the only people likely to pick up the sensitive data they leave behind will be the cleaners, who hopefully can then return it to the Government, rather than selling it to their Al Qaieda member cousin (or, again more likely, The Sun who will pretend it was going to fall into the hands of Bin Laden or a paedophile ring).

 

Cheers

Uhuh.

 

The main conflict I see is in the way we are penalised for car ownership while, at the same time, politicians often seem to have no problems with using rather inefficient means of transport.

I'm sure we've all read the stories of how some random pol' will travel around the country by train while a couple of cars follow him around loaded up with all the stuff he needs.

I wonder if they ever stop to wonder how people who don't have a vehicle to follow them around are supposed to manage on a train?

[galactica]

A guy who, despite being a brainless oaf, managed to suddenly become ridiculously wealthy by having an uncanny knack of investing in corporations just before they picked up government contracts which saw their stock values rocket.

Coincidence?

 

Almost certainly not, but he wasn't the reason the tories got kicked out in 97, which is what we were talking about IIRC. Maggie had gone long before!

[Triggerhappychappy]

I wonder if they ever stop to wonder how people who don't have a vehicle to follow them around are supposed to manage on a train?

Why cant the politician's entourage follow him on the train with all his baggage, instead of following by car & arriving ( one imagines ) not that much later? Why not just travel by car/ people carrier to being with? 'Traffic' I suppose will be the answer to that question, but then, why send his luggage by road if he needs it all the time/ quickly?

[Stealthbomber]

Why cant the politician's entourage follow him on the train with all his baggage, instead of following by car & arriving ( one imagines ) not that much later? Why not just travel by car/ people carrier to being with? 'Traffic' I suppose will be the answer to that question, but then, why send his luggage by road if he needs it all the time/ quickly?

Simple.

 

It's all bullsh*t.

 

The pol' can swan about acting like he's endorsing public transport (and, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, getting a bit of work done on the train) while his driver carts all his belongings directly from A to B without having to change trains, get a taxi and otherwise fanny around.

 

Thing is, there probably IS a good reason for a lot of it.

Perhaps the driver is transporting sensitive documents which shouldn't be allowed out in public for the sake of security and, as I'm sure most of us would acknowledge, a car can easily become a mobile storage centre which is handier than leaving stuff all over a hotel room or flat and then having to pack it away to load it back into a taxi for the train journey home.

 

What really annoys me is the hypocrisy of it all though.

Why do politicians keep trying to force us to use public transport while, at the same time, apparently not considering that WE might have all the same reasons to use a car that they do?

[WaveSeeker]

Maybe it will be the start of something new....who knows, we live in hope !

[alex123white]

I agree with you dude ! you did a very good post... thanks for sharing...

[Chimpy]

Their red boxes are lead lined so weight might be a factor. However I heard some transport type chap saying there isn't any particular reason they can't take them on the train.

[Stealthbomber]

Just thought I'd mention it for the sake of completeness...

 

What do we think about David Laws?

He claims that the reason he never mentioned it was cos it'd draw attention to his sexuality.

Hmmm...

Regardless of sexuality, having your partner buy a house and then charge you a monthly rent which pays the mortgage seems like an attempt to get the public to pay for your house to me.

 

Also, I see his replacement is already in hot water over a similar sort of thing.

I think it's kinda funny that they always insist they did nothing "wrong" when what they really mean is that they manipulated rules to ensure they did nothing illegal.

 

Ah well, the more things change...

[Chimpy]

I agree that the expenses claim was pretty dodgy. From what I understand of the situation though the chap he was paying the rent too started out as just his landlord and it wasn't until later they started a relationship. Although Laws should have in my opinion stopped claiming the rent after their relationship changed.

 

It's a bit of a shame though because he was a pretty competent politician.

[Stealthbomber]

I agree that the expenses claim was pretty dodgy. From what I understand of the situation though the chap he was paying the rent too started out as just his landlord and it wasn't until later they started a relationship. Although Laws should have in my opinion stopped claiming the rent after their relationship changed.

Must admit, I'm not completely clear on the time-line but didn't the other guy buy a different house and then rent it to Laws after they got together?

 

I don't neccesarily think they maliciously got together and said "Hey, you buy a fancy new house and then rent it to me and we can get the public to pay your mortgage for us" but it did turn out that way in the end.

Oops.

[Xaccers]

Well, despite it not costing the tax payer any extra, and him agreeing to pay the money back, he still resigned.

How many of those in the previous government went that far despite flipping residences and getting criminal records for employing illegal immigrants?

[Rob15]

Also, I see his replacement is already in hot water over a similar sort of thing.

I think it's kinda funny that they always insist they did nothing "wrong" when what they really mean is that they manipulated rules to ensure they did nothing illegal.

Seems more like the Telegraph trying to stir up *suitcase* in the case of Danny Alexander, the house in question which they claim he 'avoided' paying capital gains tax on was sold within 3 years of it being purchased and as such under the rules, and laws was not liable for any capital gains tax at all when the property was sold. I suspect some of the people working at the Telegraph either don't like this current government or they don't like the lib dems since it is their ministers they are targeting right now and just want to stir things up and sell a few extra papers...

 

As for David Laws I think its a big shame to see him go, especially so soon though I must admit I don't really get the logic behind renting from his partner to keep his private life private Whatever the logic behind it though it has backfired and now his private life is less private, he did at least stand down (although I'd rather he hadn't have done) which is more than you can say for some of the labour scum bags.

[Stealthbomber]

Seems more like the Telegraph trying to stir up *suitcase* in the case of Danny Alexander, the house in question which they claim he 'avoided' paying capital gains tax on was sold within 3 years of it being purchased and as such under the rules, and laws was not liable for any capital gains tax at all when the property was sold. I suspect some of the people working at the Telegraph either don't like this current government or they don't like the lib dems since it is their ministers they are targeting right now and just want to stir things up and sell a few extra papers...

I think the point (generally, rather than in any specific case) is simply that these people are acting in a rather shifty way, making use of legal technicalities to avoid paying taxes.

 

It probably is a bit of a double standard since I suspect any one of us who were lucky enough to own more than one property would probably do whatever we could to avoid paying unneccesary taxes.

 

I think the underlying concern is that people shouldn't actually benefit from being an MP.

That's why it'd be far better to supply state-owned accomodation for them all IMO.

[Chimpy]

I think the underlying concern is that people shouldn't actually benefit from being an MP.

 

I think this is wrong, after all everyone expects to benefit from their job. Being an MP is an elected position but it's still a job. If you merely got expenses to do it then I doubt you'd have that many people interested. There are of course also the intangible benefits to gaining experience as an MP that is useful in other professions.

 

I think the underlying concern is that MP's should not be frivolous with tax payers money and need to be as non-corrupt as possible. The failing is not living up the ideal of what an MP is supposed to be.

 

However I agree that there are systems, such as provided housing that would make it easier to fulfil that ideal by essentially partly removing temptation.

[Rob15]

I think the point (generally, rather than in any specific case) is simply that these people are acting in a rather shifty way, making use of legal technicalities to avoid paying taxes.

Its not about technicalities in this case though, the law on capital gains states that if the property if sold within 3 years and has been lived in then no tax is payable and thats the end of it, there is no tax avoidance or evasion going on because there was no tax liability to avoid or evade in the first place.

[Stealthbomber]

Its not about technicalities in this case though, the law on capital gains states that if the property if sold within 3 years and has been lived in then no tax is payable and thats the end of it, there is no tax avoidance or evasion going on because there was no tax liability to avoid or evade in the first place.

I think the shiftiness, in this case, is more related to the fact that the guy chose to live in rented accomodation prior to becoming an MP then bought a house and then sold it again.

 

Because his "own" house was rented, rather than owned, the house he bought and then sold wasn't considered a 2nd home.

 

I think this is wrong, after all everyone expects to benefit from their job. Being an MP is an elected position but it's still a job. If you merely got expenses to do it then I doubt you'd have that many people interested. There are of course also the intangible benefits to gaining experience as an MP that is useful in other professions.

MPs get paid for the work they do.

 

Expenses is just that. It's money paid to cover expenses they incur as an MP.

 

I think the underlying concern is that MP's should not be frivolous with tax payers money and need to be as non-corrupt as possible. The failing is not living up the ideal of what an MP is supposed to be.

Indeed.

 

And if an MP is using public money to improve their situation they they are taking advantage of their position.